In a rare and precedent-setting judgment, the Mirpurkhas Bench of the Sindh High Court has sentenced two men to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment for their involvement in a near-fatal attack on a journalist in Sanghar—an extraordinary development in a province where crimes against journalists rarely result in convictions.
However, several days after the verdict, both convicted attackers remain at large, exposing a disturbing disconnect between judicial authority and the state’s capacity or willingness to enforce the law.
The case dates back five years to a brutal attempt on the life of Ghulam Qadir Shar, a reporter associated with Time News and Daily Pahenji Akhbar. Shar was attacked in the Sanghar town of Workshop after reporting on a jirga-related gathering, a subject deeply entangled with rural power structures and entrenched feudal influence.
The assault left Shar critically injured and was widely seen as an attempt to silence investigative reporting. Five individuals—Ghulam Murtaza alias Pappu Shar, Asad Kamal Shar, Muhammad Nawaz Shar, Muhammad Azam Shar, and Anwar Shar—were named in the FIR on charges of attempted murder.
As has become typical in such cases, the trial court eventually acquitted the accused, reinforcing the long-standing culture of impunity surrounding violence against journalists in Sindh. Refusing to accept the outcome, Shar challenged the acquittal before the Sindh High Court.
After prolonged appellate proceedings, the Mirpurkhas Bench convicted Asad Kamal Shar and Muhammad Nawaz Shar, sentencing each to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment. The judgment, authored by Justice Miran Muhammad Shah, was widely welcomed by journalists and media rights organisations as historic, given the rarity of convictions in cases involving attacks on media workers.
Despite the significance of the ruling, its impact has been severely undermined by the state’s failure to enforce it. Both convicted men have managed to evade arrest, even days after the verdict was announced.
Sanghar police have yet to take the convicts into custody, prompting widespread anger within journalistic circles and raising serious questions about law enforcement’s resolve in cases involving influential local actors.
Notably, the accused had remained effectively beyond the reach of the law even during the pendency of the appeal. Their continued absconding following conviction has transformed what should have been a victory for press freedom into a stark illustration of institutional paralysis.
Senior journalists have described the situation as a “mockery of justice”, warning that judicial orders without enforcement only embolden those who view violence as an acceptable response to critical reporting.
The case reflects a broader and deeply troubling reality in Sindh. Journalists who report on jirgas, feudal control, land disputes, corruption, and criminal networks routinely operate under threat. Over the past decade, dozens of journalists have been killed in the province, while many others have faced abduction, torture, harassment, and retaliatory criminal cases aimed at intimidation.
Convictions in such cases remain exceedingly rare, allowing a culture of impunity to persist across successive governments, police administrations, and prosecutorial regimes.
Media watchdogs argue that the failure to arrest convicted attackers not only undermines the authority of the judiciary but also weakens Article 19 of Pakistan’s Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and of the press.
Leaders of the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ), including GM Jamali, Amir Lateef, and Nasir Shaikh, have demanded the immediate arrest of the convicted men. They have called upon senior police officials and the Sindh government to ensure full implementation of the High Court’s verdict.
The PFUJ has warned that continued inaction may lead to province-wide protests, with journalists holding law enforcement accountable for what they describe as the effective shielding of criminals.
Legal experts note that while the Sindh High Court’s judgment represents an important legal precedent, its true significance will be measured not by the language of the ruling but by the state’s willingness to enforce it.
Until the convicted attackers are arrested and imprisoned, the verdict—historic as it may be—risks becoming yet another symbol of justice delayed, diluted, and denied.