0
• Judge observes constitutional court cannot function ‘without satisfying itself’ on the matter
• Seeks assistance on jurisdictional question from both sides at Dec 17 hearing
• Court seeks progress report on murder investigation, outlining suggestions for future probes
ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) on Wednesday wondered whether it could continue proceedings in the murder case of journalist Arshad Sharif, as the suo motu powers earlier invoked by the Supreme Court while taking up the matter had been curtailed after the 27th Amendment.
The question was raised by a two-judge FCC bench, headed by Justice Aamer Farooq and also including Justice Rozi Khan, as it took up the murder case.
Arshad Sharif was shot in the head when Kenyan police opened fire on his car on the outskirts of Nairobi on Oct 23, 2022. He had left Pakistan in August 2022 after multiple sedition cases were registered against him.
The suo motu case for an independent probe was initially taken up by a five-member SC bench in December 2022. After the 26th Amendment, it was heard by a six-member constitutional bench. The 27th Amendment later created the FCC, giving it jurisdiction over constitutional and suo motu cases.
However, during the debate on the 27th Amendment bill in the Senate, Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar had clarified that while the legislation granted the FCC suo motu powers, they could only be exercised when an application was submitted, and if the court deemed that the plea was needed.
During the hearing on Wednesday, the FCC bench sought assistance on the jurisdictional question pertaining to suo motu from both sides at the upcoming hearing on Dec 17.
Justice Farooq emphasised that, along with regulating the court proceedings, jurisdictional questions should also be looked into, adding that the constitutional court could not function “without satisfying itself” on the matter.
Advocate Imran Shafique, who represents Mr Sharif’s first wife Summaiya Arshad, argued that there was a court decision that the FCC could proceed with suo motu cases.
He added that more than 5,000 letters had been written to the SC after Mr Sharif’s killing, and any one of them could be taken as a plea.
Progress report sought
The FCC also sought a progress report on the case’s murder investigation, noting that it should contain what steps were taken legally, as well as suggestions for future probes.
The bench said the issue would be taken up after winter vacations.
Justice Farooq asked what could be legally done to investigate and bring the culprits responsible for the murder to justice. The purpose of the proceedings should be achieved for which the suo motu was taken by the SC, the judge added.
Additional Attorney General (AAG) Chaudhry Aamer Rehman told the FCC that a legal assistant agreement had been reached with the Kenyan government and a request had been sent to it for a Special Joint Investigation Team’s (SJIT) visit to the crime scene.
Advocate Saad Umar Buttar, the lawyer for Mr Sharif’s wife Javeria Siddique, also requested the court to allow the slain journalist’s family to see the SJIT investigation report.
Justice Farooq noted that if the law allowed, the court would oblige them.
However, the AAG argued that the documents could only be seen after the final challan was submitted to the court, also reminding that a fact-finding report on the murder case had become public earlier.
The 592-page fact-finding report, which was furnished before the SC and had become public, concluded that the murder was a “planned targeted assassination” that allegedly involved “transnational characters”.
It also contested the claims put forth by the Kenyan police that the journalist’s killing was the “case of mistaken identity”.
International laws
Justice Farooq noted that “undoubtedly, the grief of Mr Sharif’s family could not be expressed in words”, and everyone wanted those responsible for the murder to be brought to justice, but the crime scene was outside Pakistan and the country’s government was bound by international laws.
He then asked who the accused were in this case and whether a first information report (FIR) had been registered in Pakistan.
A lawyer replied that “nothing has happened in the investigation yet” and said he wanted the state of Pakistan to stand by him before the Kenyan judiciary.
He added he had approached the Kenyan High Court in his personal capacity, and that the government had not used UN legal assistance options.
However, AAG Rehman argued that Pakistan could not go against a friendly country, noting Nairobi’s support for Islamabad at the UN.
He confirmed that an FIR of the murder had been registered in Pakistan, in which three people, Khurram, Waqar and Saleh, had been named. But as they were absconding, Interpol had been contacted for their red warrants, he added.
Published in Dawn, December 4th, 2025
