On February 3, the Federal Constitutional Court disposed of a suo motu case concerning the killing of journalist Arshad Sharif in Kenya, ruling that further judicial oversight was impermissible while investigations were progressing under a mutual legal assistance agreement between Pakistan and Kenya.
The 14-page judgment, authored by Justice Aamer Farooq, stated that both countries were coordinating through diplomatic channels following the signing of the MLA agreement. It explained that intervention by the court would interfere with an investigation being conducted under established legal frameworks.
The court noted that the matter was already being handled at the state level, including through a special joint investigation team and engagements between the two governments. It said judicial direction in a case involving two sovereign states could encroach on the domain of foreign policy, which falls under the remit of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the federal government.
The judgment recorded several steps taken by Pakistan, including diplomatic contact between the prime minister and the Kenyan president, meetings between Pakistan’s high commissioner in Kenya and Kenyan officials, and the issuance of black warrants. It also noted that the family of Arshad Sharif was pursuing separate legal remedies before the Kenyan Supreme Court.
The court referred to a February 2023 order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which acknowledged that diplomatic channels and MLA procedures were under way. It reiterated that approaching international forums at this stage was not appropriate, though such avenues could be considered later if required.
The ruling said that Sharif’s legal heirs may approach a competent court should they have any specific grievance. It also stated that the court shared the grief felt across the country over the journalist’s death.
Arshad Sharif was shot dead on the outskirts of Nairobi on October 23, 2022, when Kenyan police opened fire on his vehicle. He had left Pakistan in August 2022 after multiple sedition cases were registered against him.
The FCC noted that its intervention was no longer necessary, stating that keeping the suo motu action pending would amount to supervising every aspect of the investigation. All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
