- Judges express concern over prolonged delay.
- Govt requests more time for legal ratification.
- Ministry of Interior questioned over late action.
The Supreme Court constitutional bench on Friday expressed concerns over the delay in ratifying a mutual legal assistance agreement with Kenya in journalist Arshad Sharif’s murder case.
Arshad 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, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan, conducted the suo motu hearing into the case today.
The top court’s constitutional bench expressed displeasure with the additional attorney general (AAG) over the government’s handling of the Sharif murder case, demanding daily progress report.
At the outset of today’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 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 Amin 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.
