Norway defends envoy’s court visit amid Pakistan’s protest

• Oslo says court observation aligns with international law
• Ambassador Per Albert Ilsaas attended SC hearing of lawyer couple
• Foreign Office demarche envoy, terming his presence ‘unwarranted’ interference

ISLAMABAD: Norway on Saturday defended the presence of its ambassador at a Supreme Court hearing involving lawyer couple Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and Hadi Ali Chattha, maintaining that observing court proceedings is consistent with international law, despite Pakistan formally objecting to what it termed an unwarranted diplomatic act.

Norwegian media outlet Dagbladet reported a day earlier that Cecilie Roang, senior communications adviser at Norway’s foreign ministry, said, “Such lawful presence and observation of a court hearing in the recipient state is within the functions of embassies and is in line with international law.”

She added that Norway, like other countries, followed this practice in many parts of the world, particularly in matters considered to be of public interest at the place of duty.

“Reporting back home about events in the country of service is a core task of diplomacy. Legally attending public court hearings is not an unusual way to gather knowledge,” she said.

On Thursday, Norwegian Ambassador Per Albert Ilsaas presence during a Supreme Court hearing of Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and Hadi Ali Chattha case triggered debate both inside the courtroom and on social media.

Following the development, the Foreign Office summoned the Norwegian envoy and urged him to “adhere to the established norms of diplomatic engagement” after what it described as his “unwarranted” attendance.

“Noting that his actions amount to interference in the internal affairs of the country, the ambassador was urged to adhere to the established norms of diplomatic engagement, as outlined in the relevant articles of the Vienna Convention,” the FO said in a statement.

Mazari defended the envoy’s presence during the hearing, stating that “diplomats routinely observe court proceedings — that is not equivalent to them taking a position on any case.”

Mazari and her husband are facing trial under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016 (Peca) and had approached the Supreme Court seeking an urgent hearing of their appeal against the Islamabad High Court’s refusal to grant interim relief.

The controversy originates from a complaint filed on August 12, 2025, by an assistant director (investigating officer) of the National Cybercrime Investigation Agency, Islamabad, before the Federal Investigation Agency’s Cybercrime Reporting Centre under Peca.

The complaint accused Mazari of disseminating and “propagating narratives that align with hostile terrorist groups and proscribed organizations,” while her husband was implicated for reposting some of her content.

The couple has also filed a criminal revision petition before the Islamabad High Court, challenging the trial proceedings on grounds of violations of due process under the Criminal Procedure Code, particularly the recording of evidence in their absence.