Suo Moto Case vs Independent and Transparent Investigation into the Murder of Renowned Journalist, Mr. Arshad Sharif in Kenya
This matter arises from a suo motu case concerning an independent and transparent investigation into the murder of renowned journalist Mr. Arshad Sharif in Kenya. The learned Attorney General for Pakistan submitted reports from the Special Joint Investigation Team and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, noting ongoing negotiations for Mutual Legal Assistance Agreements with Kenya and the UAE, and requested an adjournment. Counsel for the deceased's second wife suggested approaching United Nations Rapporteurs or Committees if direct governmental communication fails. Meanwhile, counsel for the mother of the deceased filed an application seeking a direction from the Court for the Special Joint Investigation Team to examine certain suspected persons. The core legal question addressed is whether the Supreme Court can direct the course of an ongoing investigation in exercise of its suo motu jurisdiction. The Court held that in its suo motu proceedings, it is merely facilitating the investigation and has no mandate to direct the course of investigation, leaving it open for the counsel to approach the investigating team directly. The application was disposed of accordingly and the matter adjourned.
- Does the Supreme Court have the mandate to direct the course of an ongoing criminal investigation in suo motu proceedings?
- Can the Special Joint Investigation Team be directed by the Court to examine specific persons named by a complainant?
ORDER
Today, the learned Attorney General for Pakistan has referred to two reports: one, an interim report filed by the Special Joint Investigation Team ("SJIT") (CMA No.4411/2023) and second, a report filed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs ("MoFA") regarding the steps taken by it to expedite the investigation in Kenya and UAE (CMA No.4376/2023). The learned Attorney General also informed the Court that the Governments of Kenya and UAE, respectively are in the process of negotiating Mutual Legal Assistance Agreements with the Federal Government. However, he stated that the execution of such agreements will take some time, therefore, an adjournment may be granted by the Court till the needful is done. The request appears reasonable and is allowed.
2. Next Mr. Saad Umar Buttar, learned counsel for the second wife of Mr. Arshad Sharif, gave the Court an account of the United Nation Rapporteurs and the United Nation Committees that are involved in investigating violations of human rights committed around the world. He stated that in case the Federal Government is unsuccessful in establishing direct communication with the Governments of Kenya and UAE then the said Rapporteurs and/or Committees may be approached for seeking their assistance into the investigation of the assassination of Mr. Arshad Sharif.
3. Lastly, Mr. Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui, learned counsel representing the mother of Mr. Arshad Sharif, referred to CMA No.4232/2023 filed on behalf of his client wherein he has shared the names of certain persons who his client suspects have knowledge regarding the conspirators and perpetrators involved in her son's assassination.
He requested the Court to direct the SJIT to examine the said persons. Having considered the request, the Court is of the considered view that the prayer of learned counsel is not maintainable. The Court in the present Suo Motu is merely facilitating the investigation into the assassination of Mr. Arshad Sharif and it has no mandate to direct the course of investigation. Nevertheless, learned counsel may, if so inclined, approach the SJIT for the stated purpose. CMA No.4232/2023 is disposed of in the above terms.
4. Re-list in July, 2023.