The Constitutional Bench (CB) of the top court expressed grave concerns on Friday over the delay in ratifying a Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) agreement with Kenya, which is necessary to proceed with the investigation into the murder of renowned journalist Arshad Sharif.
The CB voiced its concerns after the government, despite months passing, requested the bench to grant more time to ratify the MLA agreement.
Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi, a member of the top court's CB, observed that Arshad Sharif was a renowned journalist, emphasizing that he was a Pakistani citizen first and foremost. Justice Rizvi further remarked that the government of Pakistan should stand by Sharif's family in the face of such a brutal murder.
"But the government knows nothing about the Arshad Sharif case," Justice Rizvi stated.
These observations, which were accompanied by serious concerns over the delay in the case, came during the hearing of a suo-motu notice regarding Sharif's murder in Kenya. A six-member bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, heard the case after a three-month delay. Due to the government's delay, the CB adjourned the hearing for another month.
During the proceedings, the court expressed its displeasure with the Additional Attorney General (AAG) over the government's handling of the Sharif murder case.
At the start of the hearing, the AAG informed the bench that the government needed more time to ratify the MLA agreement with Kenya. He contended that approval from the President would be secured within a month for the purpose of ratification.
It is important to note that the agreement was signed on December 10 of the previous year. Justice Rizvi questioned why the agreement had still not been ratified, given this undisputed fact.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, another member of the bench, inquired whether the court should now demand daily progress reports. Another member of the CB, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, severely criticized the government's repeated requests for more time, despite three months having passed.
Justice Rizvi remarked that a well-known Pakistani journalist had been brutally murdered, yet the government had failed to support his family in Kenya.
During the hearing, Justice Mandokhail also noted that the federal government could become a party to the case in Kenya if necessary. He observed that despite the passage of considerable time, the government was still seeking additional time.
The AAG informed the court that a request to advance the investigation had been sent to the Ministry of Interior on February 27. Justice Mandokhail questioned why this matter had only been pursued in February, given that the last hearing took place in December.
Justice Mazhar asked who was responsible for sending the summary to the president. The AAG submitted that the Ministry of Interior would send it after cabinet approval, but he admitted he had been unable to contact the ministry.
The Ministry of Interior's Joint Secretary, present in the courtroom, informed the bench 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 stated that the court was not in favor of joint investigation teams (JITs), as they were often ineffective. He added that the delay in the case had become a matter of serious concern.
“Our concern is that so much time has passed. Why has there been such a delay in the Arshad Sharif murder case?” Justice Khan asked.
Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, another member of the CB, 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.
During the hearing, counsel for Arshad Sharif's second wife informed the bench that there was no need for mutual legal cooperation with Kenya, adding that it could be done under UN agreements. He further informed the bench that the Kenyan High Court ruled in favor of Sharif's wife, Javeria Siddique.
Justice Khan observed, "When our people went there (to Kenya) to conduct investigations, they were not allowed to interview anyone."
"What should we do when the Kenyan government is not cooperating?" Justice Khan added.
Justice Rizvi inquired about the status of the trial of Arshad Sharif's murder case in Kenya. The counsel responded that there was no ongoing trial for Sharif's murder in Kenya, stating, "The police officers against whom the High Court ruled in Kenya have been promoted."
Justice Mazhar remarked, "So, what should we do when our government has given promotions to the officers involved in the Arshad Sharif murder case?"
Counsel for Sharif's mother, Imran Shafiq, informed the bench that Sharif's mother had not yet received the fact-finding report and requested that it be provided. The AAG responded that the report had already been made public, adding that the JIT in Pakistan had interviewed more than 70 people.
Justice Mazhar remarked that the real question was when the government would complete all the proceedings in this case.
The CB then directed that the Kenyan High Court’s decision be brought to the court record and adjourned the hearing for a month at the request of AAG Rehman.