The Supreme Court of Pakistan has granted the federal government a one-month extension in the Arshad Sharif suo motu case but raised serious concerns over the slow progress in finalising a mutual legal assistance (MLA) agreement with Kenya.

The court questioned why the government was still seeking more time even after three months, expressing surprise and dissatisfaction over the delay.

A six-member constitutional bench headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan heard the case. During the hearing, the Additional Attorney General (AAG) requested a one-month extension, stating that the agreement with Kenya had been finalised but still required presidential approval.

Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi questioned why the agreement, signed on December 10, had not yet been ratified.

Also, read this

Arshad Sharif murder: Kenyan court holds police responsible for unlawful action

Arshad Sharif’s killing was not accident: Investigation by Kenyan TV asserts

Widow of slain journalist Arshad Sharif sues Kenya police

Justice Jamal Mandokhail asked if the court should demand a daily progress report, while Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar remarked that the government was still asking for more time after three months.

Justice Rizvi strongly criticised the government’s handling of the case, stating that a prominent Pakistani journalist was brutally murdered, yet the government had not provided any support to his family in Kenya.

Justice Mandokhail pointed out that the federal government could legally become a party in Kenya’s courts. However, the AAG responded that additional procedures were still required, and the government needed more time.

The bench pressed further, questioning why action was only initiated in February, despite the last hearing being in December.

The Joint Secretary of the Interior Ministry informed the court that a request had been sent to the Foreign Ministry for mutual legal cooperation.

Justice Rizvi then ordered the government to submit a daily progress report. Justice Aminuddin Khan also expressed skepticism over the effectiveness of Joint Investigation Teams (JITs), stating that they rarely lead to meaningful results.

When asked who was responsible for sending the summary for presidential approval, the AAG stated that the Interior Ministry would forward it after cabinet approval.

Justice Mazhar pointed out that Interior Ministry officials were present in court, so communication delays should not be an excuse.

The Joint Secretary of the Interior Ministry confirmed that after cabinet approval on February 27, the Foreign Ministry had been notified.

However, Justice Mazhar asked whether the president had the authority to reject the agreement, to which the Foreign Ministry’s legal advisor declined to comment.

The lawyer representing Arshad Sharif’s mother demanded access to the fact-finding report, claiming that the government had already conducted an inquiry.

The AAG responded that the issue had become controversial even before the report was leaked to the media.

Meanwhile, Sharif’s widow’s lawyer argued that there was no need for an MLA agreement with Kenya, as international conventions under the United Nations allowed for legal action.

Justice Mandokhail pointed out that the suo motu notice had been pending for years and questioned why the Kenyan government did not allow interviews of key individuals when Pakistani investigators visited.

The AAG responded that Pakistan’s JIT had interviewed more than 70 people.

Justice Mazhar then asked when the government planned to complete the legal proceedings, stressing that delays were undermining justice.

Justice Mandokhail criticized the government for acting against its own citizen instead of standing with the victim’s family.

Justice Mazhar further noted that if Pakistan became a party in Kenyan courts, the legal process could drag on indefinitely.

Justice Rizvi emphasised that Arshad Sharif was not only a renowned journalist but also a Pakistani citizen, and the government should be supporting his family rather than displaying ignorance about the case.

After hearing the arguments, the Supreme Court accepted the federal government’s request for an extension and adjourned the case for one month.