Senior Journalist Arshad Sharif. Photo: Twitter
ISLAMABAD:
The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has disposed of the suo motu case in the killing of senior journalist Arshad Sharif, believing that continued judicial oversight would effectively place the court in the role of overseeing the investigation itself.
Disposing of the case taken by former Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial, the court observed that if it were to monitor and supervise the investigation by keeping the case pending, it would in effect be monitoring all aspects of the investigation.
In a 14-page order written by Justice Aamer Farooq while disposing of the suo motu case taken by the former Chief Justice of Arshad Sharif’s murder probe, the FCC observed that the Constitution guarantees the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A.
It emphasized that the right necessarily extends to an investigation that is free, independent and transparent. An impartial investigation requires gathering evidence from all perspectives, including material that can support the defense as well as that which advances the prosecution’s case.
The order noted that in case the legal heirs of Arshad Sharif have any specific grievance in the case, they can approach the competent court. “We recognize and share the grief that our nation and the journalism community feel over the death of our citizen.”
It also said that an investigation must be conducted in a holistic manner. “Only when the person entrusted with the investigation is able to act independently and without undue pressure, relevant evidence can be properly collected and the case effectively proceeded to trial. Therefore, the protection afforded by Article 10A does not begin at the time of prosecution; rather, it begins from the very beginning of the investigation,” the ruling said.
“We also note that perusal of the Supreme Court order dated 17th March 2023 shows that Mr. Shaukat Aziz Siddiqi appeared on behalf of the late journalist’s mother, widow and five children of the late journalist, Mr. Sharif and categorically argued that since the SJIT has been formed, the court’s supervision is vitiated but is “unrejected” the contention despite the settled jurisprudence of the Supreme Court with which we agree i, empowered the court to refrain from interfering in matters relating to investigation.”
The FCC held that if this court were to issue court orders directing the state, including the federal government, to represent the matter internationally, it would not only amount to interference with the ongoing investigation already underway under the MLA agreement, but it would also intrude into the realm of foreign policy.
“Undoubtedly, matters of foreign relations are best handled by the MoFA and the federal government, who are better equipped to determine what serves the purpose of Article 40 and what is appropriate in the international context,” the order said.
The court also noted that since the Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement (MLA) has been signed between the two nations and they are also coordinating at the diplomatic level to implement it, “we are of the view that the authorities of both countries are taking appropriate measures as per their respective laws. Therefore, there is no need for any legal interference in this regard once the law and investigation take their proper course”.
