The Supreme Court’s constitutional bench on Friday expressed concerns over the delay in ratifying a mutual legal assistance agreement with Kenya in renowned journalist and anchorperson Muhammad Arshad Sharif’s murder case. The bench has summoned progress report from government in one month.
Arshad Sharif was shot dead by Kenyan police in a case of “mistaken identity” in October 2022. The journalist left his homeland in August 2022 after a number of treason cases were filed against him in different cities.
A six-member bench, headed by senior judge Justice Aminuddin Khan and comprising Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Naeem Akhter Afghan and Shahid Bilal Hassan conducted hearing on the suo motu notice on Friday.
The top court’s constitutional bench expressed displeasure with the additional attorney general (AAG) Chaudhry Amir Rehman over the government’s handling of the Arshad Sharif murder case, demanding daily progress report.
At the outset of Friday’s hearing, the AAG requested more time for the ratification of the mutual legal assistance (MLA) agreement with Kenya, saying that presidential approval would be secured within a month.
Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi questioned why the agreement, signed on December 10, had still not been ratified.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail asked whether the court should now demand daily progress reports, while Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar criticised the government’s repeated requests for more time despite three months having passed.
Justice Rizvi remarked that a well-known Pakistani journalist was brutally murdered, yet the government had failed to support his family in Kenya.
Justice Mandokhail noted that the federal government could become a party to the case in Kenya if necessary.
The AAG informed the court that a request to advance the investigation had been sent to the Ministry of Interior on February 27. However, Justice Mandokhail questioned why the matter had only been pursued in February despite the last hearing taking place in December.
Justice Rizvi directed the government to now submit daily progress report.
Justice Aminuddin Khan said that the court was not in favour of joint investigation teams (JITs), as they were often ineffective, adding that the delay in the case had become a matter of serious concern.
During the hearing, Justice Mazhar asked who was responsible for sending the summary to the president. The AAG responded that the Ministry of Interior would send it after cabinet’s approval but admitted he had been unable to contact the ministry.
Justice Mazhar pointed out that interior ministry officials were present in court, questioning the communication gap.
Later, a joint secretary from the Ministry of Interior informed the court that after cabinet approval on February 27, the summary had been forwarded to the foreign ministry.
Justice Mazhar then asked whether the president had the authority to reject the agreement, to which the ministry’s legal adviser declined to comment.
Justice Aminuddin Khan remarked: “Our concern is that so much time has passed, why has there been such a delay in the Arshad Sharif [murder] case?”
Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan remarked that the Kenyan court had issued a decision which should be brought to the court record. “The Kenyan High Court gave its decision in July and you have not brought it to the court record,” he said.
The lawyer representing Arshad Sharif’s second widow, Javeria Siddique, appeared in court and stated that the High Court in Kenya had ordered action against the officials involved in the murder. The Kenyan government has filed an appeal against the decision, and the Pakistan government has not become a party to the case or provided any support.
Justice Mandokhail remarked that the woman was fighting the case alone in Kenya, and asked what problem the government had in assisting her there.
The additional AG informed the court that the government did not have access to the crime scene and that becoming a party to the case would not solve the issue. Access to investigation is necessary, he added. He further stated that access would only be possible once the mutual legal assistance agreement was in place. He mentioned that statements from over 30 people in Pakistan had already been recorded.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar noted that the suo motu case had been pending for several years.
The lawyer representing Arshad Sharif’s mother argued that the government had conducted a fact-finding investigation and requested a copy of the report.
The additional AG responded that the entire issue had already been created before the fact-finding report appeared in the media.
The SC directed that the Kenyan High Court’s decision be brought to court record and adjourned the hearing for a month on the request of AAG Chaudhry Amir Rehman.
