In a significant development on Monday, the Supreme Court referred the murder case of journalist Arshad Sharif back to a three-judge committee under the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023. This referral aims to re-fix the case before a larger five-judge bench.
Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, leading the three-judge bench, highlighted that the case had been previously handled by a larger bench and thus should continue to be heard by the same. The previous bench included Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Mohammad Ali Mazhar. Justice Shah noted that the hearing would proceed subject to the availability of these two judges.
The case stems from the suo motu proceedings initiated by former Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial following the tragic killing of Arshad Sharif in Kenya. The murder has attracted significant attention, necessitating thorough judicial scrutiny.
During the Monday hearing, Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan informed the court that a draft of the Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) was ready. This draft is intended to formally seek assistance from Kenyan authorities to access suspects involved in Sharif’s killing. AGP Awan stated that the draft was awaiting approval from the next cabinet meeting.
At a previous hearing on June 13, 2023, the AGP had mentioned that a proper MLA was being drafted, with its final version to be presented to the cabinet for approval. In response to the court’s inquiry, AGP Awan confirmed that a decision from the Kenyan court had also been received.
Three weeks prior, the Kenyan High Court in Kajiado had declared the 2022 killing of Arshad Sharif by Kenyan law enforcement personnel unlawful. However, the Supreme Court stated that it would not delve into the merits of the case at this stage.
During the hearing, Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui, representing Sharif’s mother, urged the court to summon those claiming to have knowledge of the culprits behind the murder. Siddiqui also reminded the court of its role as a facilitator in the matter and requested the case to be re-fixed within two weeks. Justice Shah, however, indicated that re-fixing the case depended on the availability of the judges.
The hearing was adjourned indefinitely, leaving the next steps in the case pending the reconstitution of the larger bench.
