Justice Raja Inaam Ameen Minhas announced the verdict on three consolidated petitions filed by journalist Hamid Mir, the Judicial Activism Panel, and Sharif’s widow, Javeria Siddique.
The petitioners had urged the court to direct the federal government to set up a judicial commission for a transparent inquiry into the circumstances leading to Sharif’s departure from Pakistan, his stay in Dubai, and his killing in Kenya in October 2022. They argued that the probe being carried out by a Special Joint Investigation Team (SJIT) was flawed and in violation of constitutional guarantees of a fair trial and due process.
The deputy attorney general, appearing for the state, opposed the petitions, submitting that the Supreme Court had already taken suo motu notice of the killing and was supervising the investigation. He added that procedural steps, including registration of an FIR and submission of challan before the trial court, had been completed, and that a Mutual Legal Assistance agreement with Kenya had been executed to facilitate investigation abroad.
Justice Minhas, in his judgment, recalled that a five-member bench of the apex court had initiated oversight of the matter in December 2022 to ensure an independent and impartial inquiry, and that the SJIT was constituted under the Supreme Court’s directive.
“The matter concerning the tragic murder of the journalist Arshad Sharif is presently sub judice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan,” the order stated. “Consequently, this Court is restrained from issuing any directive to the federal government for constitution of a judicial commission, as doing so would encroach upon the apex Court’s jurisdiction.”
While disposing of the petitions, the IHC granted partial relief by directing the federal government and the SJIT to keep the petitioners informed of all developments in the ongoing investigation. The court also ordered that the petitioners be provided copies of investigation reports and findings, and be apprised of all future progress.
The ruling concluded that the petitioners were not without remedy, and may approach the Supreme Court directly to raise their concerns regarding the matter.
