The Federal Constitutional Court has disposed of its suo motu proceedings regarding journalist Arshad Sharif’s murder, ruling that judicial interference is unnecessary at this stage.
The court observed that investigations in Pakistan and Kenya are progressing under established legal mechanisms. Therefore, it found no justification to continue constitutional proceedings in the matter.
A two-member bench comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Rozi Khan Barrech issued the detailed verdict. The judgment spans fourteen pages and addresses all pending petitions linked to the case.
The court noted that Pakistan and Kenya have signed a Mutual Legal Assistance agreement. As a result, both countries are coordinating diplomatically to ensure its implementation.
According to the verdict, authorities in both states are acting under their respective legal frameworks. Consequently, the court emphasized respect for sovereign legal processes.
Arshad Sharif was killed in Kenya in October 2022 after being shot by police. Kenyan authorities later described the incident as a case of mistaken identity.
Before his death, Sharif had left Pakistan in August 2022. At that time, multiple treason cases had been registered against him in different cities.
The court acknowledged that the matter involves two sovereign nations. Therefore, it stressed that each country must handle investigations according to its own laws.
Moreover, the bench highlighted that state-level investigations remain active. Hence, judicial intervention at this stage could disrupt ongoing legal procedures.
Justice Aamer Farooq announced the formal disposal of the suo motu case. All related applications were also dismissed alongside the main proceedings.
In its written decision, the court expressed solidarity with the journalist community. It also acknowledged the collective grief felt across the nation.
However, the court clarified that its decision does not bar future legal remedies. The legal heirs may approach any competent court if specific grievances arise.
The verdict reaffirmed the importance of due process and institutional boundaries. It also underlined judicial restraint in matters involving international legal cooperation.
Ultimately, the court concluded that existing mechanisms remain sufficient. Therefore, it closed the case while allowing investigations to continue independently.
