Senior Reporter Arshad Sharif. Photo: Twitter
ISLAMABAD:
The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has ruled on suo motu proceedings regarding the murder of veteran journalist Arshad Sharif, finding that continued judicial review would effectively place the court in the role of overseeing the investigation itself.
While ruling on the case taken up by former Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial, the court observed that while it was to supervise and monitor the investigation by keeping the matter in abeyance, it would in fact supervise all aspects of the investigation.
In a 14-page order written by Justice Aamer Farooq while deciding the suo motu case, which was taken up 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 this right necessarily extends to a free, independent and transparent investigation. An impartial investigation requires that evidence be collected from all angles, including those elements that may support the defense as well as those that advance the prosecution’s case.
The order states that if the legal heirs of Arshad Sharif have any specific grievance in the matter, they can approach the competent court. “We recognize and share the grief felt by our nation and the journalism community following the death of our citizen.”
He also said that an investigation should be carried out comprehensively. “Only when the investigating person is able to act independently and without undue pressure can relevant evidence be properly collected and the case can be effectively brought before the court. Therefore, the protection afforded by Section 10A does not begin only at the stage of arraignment; rather, it begins from the outset of the investigation,” the order said.
“We also note that a perusal of the Supreme Court’s order 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 asserted that as the SJIT has been formed, the supervision of the Court, though “in good faith”, is impermissible, but the Court rejected this contention despite the established jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, with which we agree, directing that the Court refrain from interfering in matters relating to the investigation.
The FCC reasoned that if this court issued judicial orders 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 taking place under the MLA agreement, but would also encroach on the foreign policy domain.
“There is no doubt that foreign relations matters are best managed by the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Federal Government, which are better 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 agreement was signed between the two countries 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 under their respective laws.” Therefore, no judicial interference in this regard is necessary when the law and investigation take their course.”
