Senior Journalist Arshad Sharif. Photo: Twitter
ISLAMABAD:
The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has resolved the suo motu proceedings in the murder of prominent journalist Arshad Sharif, holding that continued judicial oversight would effectively place the court in the role of supervising the investigation itself.
Disposing of the case taken up by former Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial, the court observed that if it were to supervise and control the investigation by keeping the matter pending, it would, in fact, be supervising all aspects of the investigation.
In a 14-page order written by Justice Aamer Farooq while resolving the suo motu case, which was filed by the former Chief Justice for the Arshad Sharif murder probe, the FCC observed that the constitution guarantees the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A.
He stressed that the right necessarily extends to an investigation that is free, independent and transparent. An impartial investigation requires that evidence be gathered from all perspectives, including material that can support both the defense and advance the prosecution’s case.
The order observed that in case the legal heirs of Arshad Sharif have any specific complaint regarding the matter, they can approach the court of competent jurisdiction. “We recognize and share the pain felt by our Nation and the journalistic community over the death of our citizen.”
He also said that an investigation must be carried out holistically. “Only when the person entrusted with the investigation is capable of acting independently and without undue pressure can the relevant evidence be properly collected and the matter effectively brought to trial. Therefore, the protection afforded by Section 10A does not begin only at the arraignment stage; rather, it begins from the very beginning of the investigation,” the order states.
“We also note that perusal of the order of the Supreme Court dated March 17, 2023 shows that Mr. Shaukat Aziz Siddiqi appeared on behalf of the mother, widow and five children of the deceased journalist, Mr. Sharif, and categorically contended that as the SJIT was formed, the supervision of the Court, although “in good faith” is inadmissible, but the Court rejected the contention despite the established jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, with which we agree, ordered that the Court refrain from interfering in matters related to the investigation.”
The FCC held that if this court were to issue injunctions directing the state, including the federal government, to represent the matter internationally, it would not only amount to interference in the ongoing investigation, which is already underway under the MLA agreement, but would also encroach on the domain of foreign policy.
“No doubt, foreign affairs matters are best handled by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Federal Government, which are best equipped to determine what serves the purposes of Article 40 and what is appropriate in the international context,” the order states.
The court also noted that since the Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) agreement has been signed between the two nations and they are also coordinating at the diplomatic level to implement it, “we are of the opinion that the authorities of both the countries are taking appropriate measures under their respective laws. Therefore, there is no need for any judicial interference in this regard when the law and investigation are taking their due course.”
