Justice Bandial asks why and on whose directives the fact-finding body’s report was released n Says Kenya is a sovereign country and ‘we should not blame anyone’.

 

ISLAMABAD    -    The Supreme Court of Pa­kistan Monday directed the foreign ministry to find out why Kenyan authorities ini­tially had announced to co­operate but now is not grant­ing full access to the Special Joint Investigation Team (SJIT) to probe the murder of journalist Arshad Sharif.

A five-member special bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandi­al and comprising Justice Ija­zul Ahsan, Justice Jamal Man­dokhel, Justice Syed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi and Justice Mohammad Ali Mazhar, con­ducted hearing of the suo moto notice of the murder of journalist Arshad Sharif.

During the hearing, the Chief Justice noted that in the in­stant matter; “mistakes were made both in Pakistan and abroad”. He questioned; “Why and on whose directions was the fact-finding committee’s report released,” and then said that the release of report had alerted the suspects. “Did the SJIT conduct an inquiry on all the points presented in the fact-finding committee’s report? Which foreign agen­cies have the SJIT request­ed cooperation from,” Jus­tice Bandial asked. “There is a mess up between contact­ing Kenya and going there,” he said, adding that it was the Foreign Office’s responsibility to investigate this.

He noted, “Something hap­pened after the fact-find­ing committee’s report was released because of which Kenya is not cooperating anymore.” Justice Mazhar ob­served that the Kenyan for­eign minister had assured the Foreign Office of cooperation. He asked, “Then why was the special JIT not allowed to go to the murder site?” “The same story is being told to us from the first day,” he said.

Additional Attorney Gener­al (AAG) Aamir Rehman told that it was important to main­tain diplomatic relations with Kenya. “This matter is compli­cated,” he said. Justice Ijaz not­ed that there were three as­pects to Sharif’s murder. “Who forced him to leave Pakistan? Was an inquiry initiated that who registered cases against Sharif? What he was shown that forced him to leave? “When all these links are con­nected, you will automatically find out who wanted to get rid of Arshad Sharif,” he added.

At the outset, the AAG said Kenyan authorities had not yet given Pakistan complete ac­cess to the crime site. He add­ed, “They have only expressed agreement over mutual legal cooperation.” He submitted two reports -- one of Foreign Office and the other by SJIT.

He said that the Kenyan au­thorities had accepted Paki­stan’s request for mutual coop­eration in the investigation. He also said that Kenyan author­ities have started taking legal action against the two police officials who had opened fire at Arshad Sharif’s vehicle.

However, JIT chief Owais Ahmed said the investiga­tion team had not yet received any material related to Shar­if’s murder. “Kenyan officials are not granting us full access needed for the investigation,” he told the court.

Justice Mazahair said: “Tell the court clearly whether you have found strong evidence from the investigation con­ducted in Kenya or not.” The JIT chief told that the team was “in contact” with the Kenyan and UAE authorities, adding that still the UAE officials had not allowed the team to con­duct an investigation there.

At that, Justice Bandial said Kenya was a sovereign country and “we should not blame any­one”. “We have to instead see if the SJIT has correctly conduct­ed investigations in Kenya and UAE,” he added.

The AAG informed that those who filed cases against Sharif were being investigated. “The names of some government officers came forth, they were also investigated,” he said. “Can’t say anything about who was behind registering cas­es against Arshad Sharif,” he added.

At this, Justice Mazahair warned the AAG not to “play with the court”. “This was the first stage [of investigation] which could not be completed,” the judge said. “Did the JIT go to have fun in Kenya and UAE?”

Justice Ahsan inquired about the whereabouts of Sharif’s mobile phone and other be­longings. The head of JIT re­plied; “His mobile and I-Pad are with Kenya’s IT depart­ment, while rest of his belong­ings had been received.”

Justice Mazahair asked where the other JIT members were to which Ahmed replied that three of them were pres­ent in the court. “Why did the rest of the members not come? Is it not the investigation team’s duty to be present [in court],” he said. Justice Naqvi also questioned why the state­ments of Khurram and Waqar, who were present with Sharif, were not recorded.

The AAG said that Ken­yan authorities only permit­ted the JIT to meet the public prosecutor director. “Kenyan authorities assured us of co­operation but did not let us visit the site of the incident.”

Justice Naqvi then asked why Pakistani authorities were not seeking help from the United Nations. At this, the AAG re­plied that Kenya was a friend­ly country and had supported Pakistan on every internation­al forum.

“We do not want to take a step where we lose bilater­al and global cooperation,” he said. “For now, the need to seek the UN’s help hadn’t arisen.”

At one point, the chief justice said that the JIT would have to look into how the case is mov­ing forward. “Who was bear­ing Arshad Sharif’s expenses and why?” he asked. He fur­ther said that the Pakistan em­bassy should also seek help from lawyers and journalists in Nairobi. He advised the au­thorities concerned to try get­ting their hands on the Kenyan investigation report into the matter.

Later, the bench adjourned the hearing the hearing till first week of March.