Arshad Sharif Murder: FCC Closes Suo Motu, Warns Against Judicial Overreach

ISLAMABAD:

The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has disposed of the suo motu proceedings in the murder case of senior journalist Arshad Sharif, ruling that continued judicial monitoring would effectively turn the court into a supervisory body over the investigation.

The case was originally taken up by former Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial. However, the FCC observed that keeping the matter pending to oversee the probe would amount to supervising every stage of the investigation — a role the judiciary must avoid.

In a detailed 14-page judgment authored by Justice Aamer Farooq, the court emphasized that Article 10-A of the Constitution guarantees not only a fair trial but also a free, independent, and transparent investigation. The court stressed that impartiality requires the collection of evidence from all angles, including material that may support the defence as well as the prosecution.

The FCC noted that if the legal heirs of Arshad Sharif have specific grievances, they are free to approach the appropriate forum. Expressing solidarity, the court stated it shared the nation’s and journalist community’s grief over the killing of the journalist.

The order further underscored that the right to fairness under Article 10-A begins at the inception of an investigation, not merely at the stage of trial. Only an investigator free from external pressure, the court observed, can ensure that evidence is properly gathered and justice meaningfully pursued.

Referring to a March 17, 2023 Supreme Court order, the FCC noted that counsel for Sharif’s family had argued that judicial supervision became impermissible once a Special Joint Investigation Team (SJIT) was formed. While the Supreme Court rejected that argument at the time, the FCC aligned itself with established jurisprudence that courts should refrain from interfering in investigative matters.

The court also ruled that issuing directions to the government on pursuing the case internationally would constitute interference in an ongoing investigation and intrude into the domain of foreign policy. Matters of international engagement, it held, fall within the mandate of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the federal government under Article 40 of the Constitution.

Noting that a Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) agreement is already in place between the concerned countries and is being implemented through diplomatic coordination, the FCC concluded that authorities on both sides are acting under their respective legal frameworks, leaving no room for judicial intervention.