Legal Advice on Law of Extradition in Pakistan

Introduction to Extradition in International Law

Extradition stands as a cornerstone in the edifice of international law, representing a crucial mechanism for maintaining global justice and security. At its core, extradition is the formal process by which one sovereign jurisdiction (the requesting state) seeks from another sovereign jurisdiction (the requested state) the surrender of a person accused or convicted of committing a criminal offense outside the requesting state’s territorial boundaries.

Fundamental Principles of Extradition:

1. Sovereign Cooperation: Extradition underscores the principle of international cooperation among sovereign states. It is predicated on mutual legal assistance treaties or diplomatic requests, reflecting respect for each state’s legal autonomy.
2. Dual Criminality: A key tenet of extradition law is the principle of dual criminality. This mandates that the act for which extradition is sought must constitute a criminal offense under the laws of both the requesting and requested jurisdictions.
3. Political and Humanitarian Considerations: Extradition requests are often subject to strict scrutiny to ensure they do not stem from political persecution or risk subjecting the individual to human rights violations, including torture or unfair trial.
4. Specialty Principle: This principle ensures that an extradited person is prosecuted or served a sentence only for the offenses for which extradition was granted, safeguarding against legal overreach.
5. Non-Extradition of Nationals: Many jurisdictions have provisions that either prohibit or place conditions on the extradition of their own nationals, reflecting a balance between sovereign rights and international justice.

Legal Framework:

Extradition processes are governed by a complex web of international treaties, conventions, and domestic laws. These legal frameworks establish the procedures, conditions, and safeguards of the extradition process, ensuring adherence to principles of justice and human rights.

The Role of International Organizations:

Organizations like INTERPOL, the United Nations, and regional bodies play a significant role in facilitating extradition. They provide platforms for cooperation, information exchange, and legal assistance among member states.

Challenges and Evolutions:

The concept and practice of extradition continue to evolve, particularly in response to global challenges like transnational crime, terrorism, and the increasing ease of cross-border travel. These dynamics necessitate a delicate balance between effective legal cooperation and the protection of individual rights.Extradition remains a vital instrument in the global legal order, enabling jurisdictions to extend their law enforcement capabilities beyond their borders, while upholding the principles of justice and mutual respect among nations. As the world becomes more interconnected, the role of extradition in international law only grows in importance, demanding constant refinement to meet the changing landscape of global justice.

Extradition law in Pakistan

The development of extradition law in Pakistan has evolved through several legislative acts over the years. Initially, the Extradition Act, 1870, which was subsequently amended by the Extradition Act, 1873, marked the first national legislation concerning extradition in Pakistan. Subsequently, the Extradition Act, 1903, was introduced, but it has since been replaced by the currently enforced Extradition Act, 1972 (EA ’72). This client information article delves into the legal and constitutional aspects of international extradition in Pakistan as governed by EA ’72.

• Legal Concepts in Extradition Law:
• The first part of this article provides an understanding of key legal concepts crucial to comprehending extradition law in Pakistan.
• Procedure for Surrender, Non-Surrender, Arrest, and Bail:
• The second part outlines the procedural aspects followed in cases of surrender, non-surrender, arrest, and bail of fugitive offenders.
• Constitutional Rights of Fugitive Offenders:
• The third part discusses significant legal decisions pertaining to the constitutional rights of fugitive offenders in Pakistan.
• Impact of ‘Objectives Resolution’ on Pakistan’s Extradition Approach:
• The fourth part highlights the influence of the ‘Objectives Resolution’ on Pakistan’s stance regarding international extradition.
• Domestic Law Provisions Affecting Extradition:
• The fifth part summarizes domestic legal provisions that impact the extradition of fugitive offenders to Pakistan.
• Conclusion:
• The sixth and final part offers a conclusion to the article’s exploration of extradition law in Pakistan.

Definition of Fugitive Offender:

According to EA ’72, a fugitive offender is an individual accused or convicted of an extradition offense who is suspected to be in Pakistan (Section 2(1)(d) EA ’72). Even if Pakistani courts lack jurisdiction to try the extradition offense, a fugitive offender can be apprehended and surrendered in accordance with EA ’72. This underscores the principle that even a fugitive from justice, though a criminal, is not devoid of rights, and any order against such a fugitive must comply with the law (Chandra Sekhar Shome v. The Province of East Pakistan and Others [1962 PLD Dacca 119]).

This analysis serves to enhance the understanding of the legal and constitutional dimensions of international extradition in Pakistan as outlined in EA ’72.

In the context of extradition law in Pakistan, it’s crucial to distinguish between two key terms:

• Treaty State:
• A treaty state refers to a foreign state with which an extradition treaty is currently in effect (Section 2(1)(f) EA ’72). This means that there exists a formal agreement, known as an extradition treaty, between Pakistan and the foreign state for the extradition of individuals accused of or convicted for an extradition offense (Section 2(1)(b) EA ’72).
  The Supreme Court of Pakistan has clarified that the legal requirement for treaty obligation is fulfilled if it can be demonstrated that the treaty has been ratified by both Pakistan and the treaty state. In the case of Muhammad Azim Malik v. Government of Pakistan & Others (PLD 1989 Supreme Court 519), the Supreme Court held that even if the treaty has not been published in the Gazette, its existence and effectiveness are upheld as long as a copy of the treaty with all necessary ratification details is available and formally incorporated in the United States Code Annotated. This interpretation reinforces the validity of the treaty despite a lack of publication in the national Gazette, as stipulated in Section 4 of EA ’72.
• Foreign State (Non-Treaty State):
• EA ’72 also grants the Federal Government of Pakistan the authority to extradite fugitive offenders to foreign states that do not have an extradition treaty in place (Section 2(1)(b) EA ’72). A foreign state, in this context, includes any constituent part, colony, or dependency of that state (Section 2(1)(b) EA ’72).
  This provision allows Pakistan to consider extradition requests from foreign states that may not have a formal treaty but still seek the return of individuals accused of or convicted for extradition offenses.

These distinctions are fundamental in extradition proceedings, ensuring that the legal framework under EA ’72 is correctly applied when dealing with both treaty and non-treaty states in matters of international extradition.

The Extradition Act of 1972 (EA ’72) defines the scope of “extradition offences,” which are offenses that may lead to the extradition of individuals. These offences encompass various serious criminal acts, as outlined in EA ’72:

• Culpable homicide.
• Maliciously or willfully wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm.
• Rape.
• Procuring or trafficking in women or young persons for immoral purposes.
• Kidnapping, abduction, or false imprisonment or dealing in slaves.
• Stealing, abandoning, exposing, or unlawfully detaining a child.
• Bribery.
• Perjury or subornation of perjury or conspiring to defeat the course of justice.
• Arson.
• An offence concerning counterfeit currency.
• An offence against the law relating to forgery.
• Stealing, embezzlement, fraudulent conversion, fraudulent false accounting, obtaining property or credit by false pretenses, receiving stolen property, or any other offence in respect of property involving fraud.
• Burglary, housebreaking, or any similar offence.
• Robbery.
• Blackmail or extortion by means of threats or by abuse of authority.
• An offence against bankruptcy law or company law.
• Malicious or willful damage to property.
• Acts done with the intention of endangering vehicles, vessels, or aircraft.
• An offence against the law relating to dangerous drugs or narcotics.
• Piracy.
• Revolt against the authority of the master of a ship or the commander of an aircraft.
• Contravention of import or export prohibitions relating to precious stones, gold, and other precious metals.
• Aiding and abetting, or counseling or procuring the commission of, or being an accessory before or after the fact to, or attempting or conspiring to commit, any of the aforementioned offences.

It’s important to note that for an extradition offence to trigger the extradition process, it must meet certain conditions. If the extradition offence took place within the jurisdiction of Pakistan, it must also constitute an offense under the laws of Pakistan. Additionally, the accused must either be returned to or from a treaty state (Section 2(1)(a) read with ‘The Schedule’ of EA ’72) or to a foreign state after due notification by the Federal Government of Pakistan (Section 2(1)(a) read with Section 4 and ‘The Schedule’ of EA ’72).

These provisions define the categories of offences that may lead to extradition, ensuring that extradition requests are based on serious criminal activities that warrant international cooperation in the pursuit of justice.

Part II of the Extradition Act of 1972 (EA ’72) outlines the procedural aspects of extradition in Pakistan, focusing on the requisition process and the subsequent inquiry procedure. These procedures are crucial for the surrender of a fugitive offender.

Requisition to the Government of Pakistan:

A foreign state or a treaty state seeking the surrender of a fugitive offender may formally submit a requisition to the Federal Government of Pakistan. This requisition can be made through various channels, including the diplomatic representative of the foreign state in Pakistan, Pakistan’s diplomatic representative in the foreign state or treaty state, or through any arrangement mutually agreed upon by Pakistan and the requesting state (Section 6 EA ’72).

Inquiry Procedure:

Once a formal requisition is received by the Federal Government, it has the discretion to order an inquiry into the matter. This inquiry is typically conducted by a First Class Magistrate, who is a presiding officer of a Criminal Court established under Section 6 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. These magistrates possess the authority to issue warrants, authorize detention, and gather evidence, among other powers (Section 7 EA ’72).

It’s important to note that the Federal Government has the exclusive authority to select a First Class Magistrate for conducting the inquiry. Only magistrates designated by the Federal Government can carry out these proceedings. The nomination and order must come directly from the Federal Government to the designated magistrate. This practice ensures that the magistrate is a persona designate, and any proceedings conducted by a magistrate not designated by the Federal Government lack lawful authority and are legally ineffective (Muhammad Azim Malik v. A.C. & S.D.M. Preedy (South) Karachi & Others [PLD 1989 Supreme Court 266]).

Furthermore, it has been established that the magistrate conducting the inquiry into an extradition offence exercises jurisdiction and power equivalent to that of a Court of Session (Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Haris Hassan & Others [PLD 2004 Karachi 119]). These inquiry proceedings are considered trials within the meaning of Section 4(m) of the Criminal Procedure Code for all intents and purposes. This means that evidence is presented both in favor of and against the extradition, ensuring a fair and comprehensive examination of the case (Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Haris Hassan & Others [PLD 2004 Karachi 119]).

These provisions clarify the requisition process and the role of First Class Magistrates in conducting inquiries related to extradition proceedings, safeguarding the rights and due process of fugitive offenders, and ensuring legal compliance throughout the extradition process.

The role of the First Class Magistrate in conducting inquiries related to extradition is well-defined under the Extradition Act of 1972 (EA ’72). This section elaborates on the specific procedures and evidence collection within the scope of the inquiry process.

Scope of First Class Magistrate Inquiry:

The primary purpose of the First Class Magistrate’s inquiry is to gather evidence both in support of the requisition for surrender and on behalf of the fugitive offender (Section 8(2) EA ’72). This dual role ensures a fair and comprehensive examination of the case.

Types of Evidence Accepted:

The evidence presented before the inquiry Magistrate may encompass duly authenticated exhibits, depositions, and official certificates of facts, including judicial documents stating facts. However, certain documents such as warrants, depositions, or statements on oath issued by a foreign court need not be authenticated, provided they meet specific requirements outlined in EA ’72 (Section 9 EA ’72).

No Requirement for Personal Appearance of Witnesses:

It’s important to note that the personal appearance of witnesses before the inquiry Magistrate is not necessary. This was affirmed in the case of Abdul Ghaffar v. Federation of Pakistan & Others [2000 SCMR 1536], where it was established that witnesses do not need to appear in person during the inquiry.

Exception to General Criminal Procedure:

The manner in which evidence is received during an extradition inquiry differs from the general procedure outlined in the Criminal Procedure Code of 1898 and the law of evidence under the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order of 1984 in Pakistan. This distinction highlights that the inquiry conducted by the Magistrate is not a trial and should not be equated with one. The jurisdiction granted to the First Class Magistrate extends to conducting inquiries into offenses, whether they are triable by the Magistrate or not.

Discretion of the Inquiry Magistrate:

In the case of Nargis Shaheen v. Federation of Pakistan & Others [PLD 1993 Lahore 732], the Lahore High Court ruled that the inquiry Magistrate has discretion, based on cogent reasons, to refuse the summoning of witnesses at the request of the fugitive offender. This discretion ensures that the proceedings are not unduly delayed. The Supreme Court upheld this ruling in Nargis Shaheen v. Federation of Pakistan & Others [1994 SCMR 1706].

These provisions and judicial rulings clarify the procedures and standards governing evidence collection and the conduct of inquiries in extradition cases under EA ’72. They emphasize the importance of a fair and efficient process while acknowledging the distinct nature of extradition proceedings compared to criminal trials.

Extradition Law of Pakistan – Rights of Fugitive

Following the inquiry proceedings detailed earlier, the Magistrate is tasked with providing his assessment in the form of a formal report. If the fugitive offender has submitted any written statements, these are included in the report. This report is then forwarded to the Government of Pakistan. The essence of this opinion is to determine whether a prima facie case, or a case that is sufficient on its face, has been established in support of the requisition for the surrender of the fugitive offender (Section 10 EA ’72).

Furthermore, it’s important to note that there is a provision for revision under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), which allows for a challenge against the opinion expressed in the Extradition Inquiry by the Enquiry Magistrate. This challenge can be brought before the High Court, providing a mechanism for review (Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Haris Hassan & Others [PLD 2004 Karachi 119]).

In legal terms, the phrase ‘prima facie case’ denotes a standard of evidence that is adequate to establish a fact or raise a presumption of fact unless convincingly disproved. This legal principle ensures that the case presented is sufficiently supported by evidence (Muhammad Asim Malik v. Anwar Jalil & Others [PLD 1989 Lahore 279]).

These provisions and judicial interpretations clarify the process after the inquiry, detailing the Magistrate’s role in assessing the evidence and forming an opinion. They also establish avenues for review and emphasize the importance of meeting the ‘prima facie case’ standard in extradition proceedings.

Final Decision to Extradite

Once the Magistrate has completed the inquiry and submitted the formal report, along with any statements from the fugitive offender, to the Federal Government of Pakistan, the government must make a crucial decision regarding the surrender of the fugitive offender. The decision-making process is outlined in EA ’72.

If the Federal Government of Pakistan, upon reviewing the Magistrate’s report and statement, forms an opinion that the fugitive offender should be surrendered, it may issue a warrant for the delivery of the fugitive offender to the requisitioning treaty state or foreign state (Section 11 EA ’72).

However, if the Federal Government of Pakistan holds the opinion that:

• Surrendering the fugitive offender would be unjust or inexpedient.
• The case being inquired is of a trivial nature.
• The requisition for surrender was not made in good faith or in the interest of justice.

Then, the government has the authority to discharge the fugitive offender and terminate the extradition proceedings under EA ’72 (Section 13 EA ’72).

It’s essential to understand that, as per the Lahore High Court, the purpose of the inquiry is to assist the Federal Government in forming an opinion on whether extradition should occur. Even if the conditions for extradition are met, the Federal Government is not obligated to surrender the offender to a treaty state. This discretion allows the government to consider various factors before making a final decision (Muhammad Asim Malik v. Anwar Jalil & Others [PLD 1989 Lahore 279]).

Furthermore, the Supreme Court clarifies that this opinion need not necessarily be formed after granting a personal hearing to the detainee or obtaining their participation at this stage before the Federal Government. Additionally, the order expressing the opinion does not have to be a reasoned one, like the report of the Enquiry Magistrate or an adjudication at trial. This is because the written statement submitted by the fugitive offender under EA ’72 serves as a valid substitute for the right to a hearing during this stage (PLD 1989 Supreme Court 519).

These provisions and legal interpretations underscore the discretionary nature of the final decision on extradition, which takes into account various considerations, and emphasize the role of the written statement in lieu of a formal hearing.

 When a Fugitive Offender Cannot be Surrendered

Under Section 5(2) of EA ’72, there are specific circumstances in which a fugitive offender cannot be surrendered. The Federal Government of Pakistan cannot order the surrender of a fugitive offender if they meet any of the following criteria:

• The fugitive offender is accused of or has been convicted of an offense of a political character.
• The offense they are accused of is not punishable by death.
• The offense they are accused of is not punishable by life imprisonment.
• The offense they are accused of is not punishable by imprisonment for more than 12 months.
• The prosecution of the offense has become time-barred according to the law of the state requesting surrender.
• The offense they are accused of is different from the extradition offense for which they are to be detained or tried upon extradition.
• The offense, if prosecuted in Pakistan, would entitle the fugitive offender to be discharged under any law related to previous acquittal or conviction.
• The fugitive offender is accused of or convicted for an extradition offense but is also accused of or convicted for an offense in Pakistan, until their acquittal or completion of the sentence term.
• The fugitive offender is accused of or convicted for an extradition offense but can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Federal Government of Pakistan or the inquiry magistrate that they might face prejudice at their trial or punishment due to their race, religion, nationality, or political opinion.

These conditions are designed to safeguard the rights of fugitive offenders and ensure that they are not surrendered in situations where their rights might be violated or where the offense in question does not warrant extradition under EA ’72.

Further, the Right to Seek Discharge

A fugitive offender in the custody of the Federal Government of Pakistan has the right to seek their discharge through a High Court order if they are not conveyed out of Pakistan within two months of their committal, as per Section 12 of EA ’72. It’s important to note that while the High Court has the authority to order such discharge, it is not mandatory for the court to do so. Therefore, even if an extradition order is not issued within two months from the date of committal, it does not affect the legality of the eventual surrender (Mst. Akhtar Malik v. Federation of Pakistan & Others [1994 PCrLJ 229]).

Additionally, in the case of Zulqaunain Khan v. The Government of Pakistan (391990 MLD 1611), where MLD stands for ‘Monthly Law Digest,’ it was determined that a fugitive offender who has a separate appeal pending against them after being acquitted in a murder case in Pakistan cannot be extradited until their discharge upon the dismissal of the appeal by the Supreme Court, or if they are convicted in that appeal, until they complete their sentence (391990 MLD 1611).

However, it’s essential to understand that besides acquittal or expiration of the sentence, the law allows for a person to be extradited if they are discharged in any other way (Mst. Shaheena Iqbal v. Federation of Pakistan & Others [PLD 1998 Lahore 266]). Therefore, if a fugitive offender is extradited while they are also required to serve a sentence in Pakistan, that sentence is deemed to have been suspended during their extradition period and will be reinstated upon their return. They must complete the remaining sentence, and no exceptions can be made in this regard (Mst. Shaheena Iqbal v. Federation of Pakistan & Others [PLD 1998 Lahore 266]).

Arrest and Bail in Extradition Cases

In cases of extradition under the EA ’72, the warrant of arrest for the fugitive offender is issued by the First Class Magistrate upon receipt of the order to commence the inquiry from the Federal Government of Pakistan (Section 8 (1) EA ’72). Additionally, the fugitive offender has the right to file a bail application before the same Inquiry Magistrate, who has the authority to decide on it in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code of Pakistan (Section 19 EA ’72).

The issue of granting bail to a fugitive offender was addressed by the Karachi High Court in the case of Sami Nasir Hussain v. The State (1984 PCrLJ 1553). In this case, the fugitive offender faced charges under section 1343, Article 18 of the U.S. Code in America for defrauding the Girard Bank in Wilmington, Delaware, involving US $1.6 million. Extradition proceedings were initiated against the fugitive offender at the request of the U.S. Government. The Karachi High Court held that there was no guarantee that the fugitive offender would appear before the U.S. court after being granted bail. Therefore, the court ruled that discretion to grant bail could not be exercised in favor of the fugitive offender (1984 PCrLJ 1553).

This case underscores the importance of considering the likelihood of the fugitive offender’s compliance with extradition proceedings and foreign court appearances when deciding on bail applications in extradition cases.

Constitutional Rights of Fugitive Offender – Habeas Corpus

Under Article 199(1)(b)(i) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, the High Courts in Pakistan have the jurisdiction to entertain habeas corpus petitions. This discretionary power allows the High Court to issue an order directing that a person in custody within its territorial jurisdiction be brought before it. The purpose of this action is to ensure that the individual is not being held in custody without lawful authority or in an unlawful manner.

In habeas corpus petitions, the court typically refrains from reviewing the evidence to substitute its own opinion for that of the Magistrate regarding the existence of a prima facie case. However, if the court is convinced that the conclusions reached by the Magistrate were so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have arrived at them, or if there were jurisdictional defects, ulterior motives, or a lack of good faith in the requisition process, the court will not hesitate to intervene. This is to protect the rights of a citizen not to be extradited to a foreign country for trial on a particular offense (Muhammad Asim Malik v. Anwar Jalil & Others [PLD 1989 Lahore 279]).

It’s worth noting that EA ’72 allows any person to receive custody of an arrested fugitive offender in Pakistan after complying with the provisions of EA ’72 (Section 21 EA ’72). However, if a fugitive offender has been arrested and detained without following the procedural requirements of EA ’72, the High Courts in Pakistan have declared such detention as improper and without lawful authority (Mirza Iftikhar Mehmood v. Area Magistrate, Police Station Nekapura, Sialkot & Others [PLD 2009 Lahore 215]). This emphasizes the importance of adhering to the proper legal procedures when arresting and detaining fugitive offenders in extradition cases.

Extradition and Habeas Corpus – Post-Extradition Challenges

In cases where a person has already been forcibly and unlawfully extradited to a foreign country, and a habeas corpus petition is filed subsequently, the Lahore High Court has ruled that it may not be possible to determine the validity of the arrest and extradition because the person is no longer in custody within Pakistan. This was evident in the case of Mir Aimal Kansi v. The State & Others (Mir Aimal Kansi v. The State & Others [1998 PCrLJ 1097]).

The court held that it could not issue a writ against a foreign state for the production of the petitioner before the court. Moreover, the manner of arrest and extradition does not affect the validity of the trial itself. However, the court expressed dissatisfaction with the way in which the petitioner was surrendered and extradited to a foreign state.

The court emphasized the constitutional rights of citizens, citing Article 4 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, which guarantees the inalienable right of every citizen to enjoy the protection of law and to be dealt with in accordance with the law. It further pointed out that under Articles 4 and 9 of the Constitution, no action detrimental to life and liberty can be taken except in accordance with the law.

The court called on the government to ensure that the higher national interests of Pakistan as a sovereign and independent Islamic state are not jeopardized. It also suggested that the government should review its policy of extradition and consider the number of foreign nationals extradited to Pakistan under reciprocal arrangements. The court encouraged the petitioners and others to take up the matter further with the Federal Government and pursue any other appropriate legal proceedings (Mir Aimal Kansi v. The State & Others [1998 PCrLJ 1097]). This case underscores the importance of upholding constitutional rights and due process in extradition proceedings.

Right to Reside in Pakistan and Extradition

Article 15 of Pakistan’s Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to remain in, enter, move freely throughout, and reside and settle in any part of Pakistan, subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the public interest. However, this right is not absolute, and it can be subject to limitations when it comes to extradition cases.

In Zulqaunain Khan’s Case (391990 MLD 1611), the court acknowledged that citizens have the right to reside in Pakistan and move freely within its borders. However, it emphasized that this right can be subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law. The Extradition Act, 1972, places such reasonable restrictions on an individual’s right to reside in Pakistan if they commit an offense against the law of a foreign state for which they can be extradited for trial. In such cases, the individual temporarily loses their right to reside in their own country.

The Supreme Court of Pakistan has also clarified that Article 15 was never intended to protect citizens from extradition when they are accused of serious crimes in other countries.

Another ruling by the Lahore High Court in Nargis Shaheen v. Federation of Pakistan & Others (PLD 1993 Lahore 732) affirmed that the Extradition Act, 1972, and extradition treaties do not violate Article 15 of the Constitution. This is because a person to be surrendered under extradition is not being denied the right to reside in Pakistan but is instead being surrendered to a treaty country to face trial in a foreign court. The law of extradition provides the government with the power to order surrender in such cases, and this does not equate to an expulsion order from the country.

These cases highlight that while the Constitution guarantees the right to reside in Pakistan, this right may be subject to reasonable restrictions when it comes to extradition cases involving serious crimes committed in foreign countries.

Objectives Resolution of 1949 and International Extradition

The Objectives Resolution, passed by the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan in 1949, played a significant role in shaping the constitutional framework of Pakistan. This resolution outlined the principles upon which the future constitution of Pakistan would be based. Subsequently, the Objective Resolution was incorporated as the preamble in the constitutions that followed. Notably, the 1973 Constitution of Pakistan not only includes the Objective Resolution as its preamble but also makes it a substantive part of the Constitution through Article 2-A.

The Objectives Resolution encompasses various principles, including the guarantee of and obligation to observe fundamental rights, social justice in line with Islamic teachings, and adherence to public morality. It ensures that Muslims in Pakistan have the right to order their lives in accordance with the teachings of Islam as outlined in the Holy Qur’an and the Sunnah (the sayings and practices of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him).

Towards the end of the Objectives Resolution, there is a statement highlighting the goal of the Pakistani people to attain a rightful and honored place among the nations of the world and contribute to international peace, progress, and the well-being of humanity.

In the context of international extradition, legal challenges have arisen. Some have questioned whether extradition treaties and the Extradition Act, 1972, align with the principles of the Objectives Resolution. However, the judiciary in Pakistan has upheld the extradition system, asserting that it is consistent with the goal of attaining an honored place among nations and contributing to social justice and public morality.

For instance, in the case of Nasrullah Khan Henjra v. Government of Pakistan & Others (PLD 1994 Supreme Court 23), it was argued that extradition might conflict with the commitment to achieving an honored place in the world. However, the court upheld the Extradition Act and treaties, emphasizing that they are in line with the objectives of social justice and public morality.

Similarly, in Nargis Shaheen v. Federation of Pakistan & Others (PLD 1993 Lahore 732), it was established that extradition treaties and the Extradition Act do not violate the principles set forth in the Objectives Resolution. These legal provisions are considered steps towards achieving social justice and are consistent with the broader goals of Pakistan’s creation.

These rulings reflect that extradition, as governed by law, aligns with Pakistan’s constitutional objectives and commitment to international responsibilities while upholding principles of justice and public morality.

In the context of international treaties and their significance in the modern world, the Lahore High Court underscored the importance of nations cooperating and facilitating the trial of individuals accused of crimes, irrespective of their religion, color, or creed. The court held that in the contemporary “world order,” where nations are interconnected, individuals accused of crimes affecting one society are also considered criminals in another society. Therefore, the duty to facilitate the trial of such individuals in the country where the offense was committed is a fundamental obligation of all states (Nargis Shaheen v. Federation of Pakistan & Others [PLD 1993 Lahore 732]).

The court further emphasized that a criminal does not possess a vested right to refuse trial for the commission of an offense for which they are to be tried by a competent court. In this context, the court recognized that treaties promoting international peace and prosperity, even with non-Muslim states, are essential. To support this viewpoint, the Lahore High Court drew a historical parallel, referring to the 1st International Treaty entered into by Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) with non-Muslim tribes and nations. This historical example illustrates the importance of treaties for cooperation and justice, regardless of religious differences.

This legal perspective underscores the importance of international treaties in maintaining peace, justice, and cooperation among nations, aligning with Pakistan’s commitment to international responsibilities and the principles outlined in the Objectives Resolution.

Under the provisions of the Extradition Act of 1972 (EA ’72), the Federal Government of Pakistan holds the authority to formally request a treaty state to extradite an individual accused or convicted of an extradition offense, and who is believed to be present within that treaty state’s jurisdiction. This formal requisition can be made through various channels, including the diplomatic representative of the treaty state in Pakistan, Pakistan’s diplomatic representative in the treaty state, or through any mutually agreed-upon arrangement between Pakistan and the treaty state (Section 15 EA ’72).

EA ’72 places a specific restriction on the prosecution of an individual surrendered by a treaty state to Pakistan. It stipulates that such an individual may only be tried for the extradition offense for which they were surrendered (Section 16 EA ’72). Furthermore, if the legal proceedings for the extradition offense do not commence within six months of the extradited person’s arrival in Pakistan, or if that individual is subsequently acquitted or discharged during the trial, it becomes the responsibility of the Federal Government of Pakistan to promptly return the extradited person to the treaty state from which they were surrendered (Section 17 EA ’72). This provision ensures that individuals are not unduly detained in Pakistan if the conditions of their extradition are not met.

International extradition treaties play a significant role in international law, serving as a means to regulate relationships among independent states. However, the decision of whether to extradite an individual ultimately hinges on the constitutional and national laws of the country to which the extradition request has been made. Recognizing this crucial aspect, the Lahore High Court emphasized that “the Courts must, therefore, give a strict interpretation to the provisions of the Extradition Act” (Muhammad Asim Malik v. Anwar Jalil & Others [PLD 1989 Lahore 279]).

It is firmly established as a constitutional principle, particularly in foreign jurisdictions, that international treaties ratified by the government cannot take legal effect if they are in conflict with the constitution of the country. The extradition laws and treaties, including the Extradition Act and extradition treaties, are products of state necessity aimed at curbing the commission of crimes in the interest of humanity. Each state bound by such a treaty is obligated to surrender fugitive offenders to the requesting state. However, it remains the primary duty of the state to ensure that the demand for extradition is reasonable, just, and based on sufficient evidence (Muhammad Asim Malik v. Anwar Jalil & Others [PLD 1989 Lahore 279]).

The role of the asylum states in the extradition process is limited. Their sole concern is to assess whether the charges and the available evidence are sufficient to establish a connection between the fugitive offender and the offenses for which they are to be tried (Muhammad Asim Malik v. Anwar Jalil & Others [PLD 1989 Lahore 279]).

In summary, the Lahore High Court concluded that Pakistan’s perspective on extradition law, as outlined in the Extradition Act of 1972, aligns with the Constitution of Pakistan and is consistent with the teachings of Islam found in the Holy Qur’an and Sunnah. It also reflects the intrinsic objectives of international treaties entered into by a Muslim state, the principles of international law, and the pursuit of social justice. Moreover, it aligns with the evolving “world order” and contributes to the promotion of universal peace and brotherhood (Nargis Shaheen v. Federation of Pakistan & Others [PLD 1993 Lahore 732]).

Case Name: 2022 PLD 235 Lahore High Court Lahore
Appellant: Abdul Rehman
Opponent: State

Summary:
This case pertains to the principle of “aut dedere, aut judicare” in the context of extradition. The “aut dedere, aut judicare” principle is a core principle in extradition offences and is typically applied in cases involving transnational or organized crimes that affect multiple sovereign states. It essentially means that if an act or omission is considered an offense under the laws of both or more sovereign states, the offender can be tried and punished in either of the states. Both sovereign states can request each other to either prosecute the offender or extradite them. This principle plays a significant role in international criminal law and extradition cases, particularly those involving serious crimes that cross national borders.

Case Name: 2020 PLD 716 Lahore High Court Lahore
Appellant: Sumayyah Moses
Opponent: Station House Officer, Faisalabad

Summary:
This case revolves around child abduction and the scope of the Hague Convention in relation to extradition. The Hague Convention is not an extradition treaty per se; instead, it primarily focuses on procedures and jurisdiction rather than the merits of any underlying custody issue. It is essential to understand that the Hague Convention deals with issues related to international child abduction and is not primarily concerned with extradition. This distinction is crucial when considering cases involving child abduction and international legal frameworks.

Case Name: 2020 PLD 469 Islamabad
Appellant: Haroon-ur-Rashid
Opponent: Federation of Pakistan

Summary:
This case involves the inquiry for extradition and the role of the Inquiry Magistrate in such proceedings under Section 8(2) of the Extradition Act, 1972. In cases where a fugitive offender has not been convicted by a court in the treaty state seeking their extradition, the Inquiry Magistrate’s role is to determine whether the material presented is sufficient to establish a prima facie case for justifying the trial of the person whose extradition is requested. While Section 8(2) of the Extradition Act, 1972 requires the Inquiry Magistrate to conduct the inquiry as if it were a case triable by a Sessions Court, this does not automatically transform the proceedings into a full trial. The Inquiry Magistrate’s order must clearly indicate whether the fugitive offender is accused of or convicted for committing an extradition offence.

Case Name: 2020 PLD 469 Islamabad
Appellant: Haroon-ur-Rashid
Opponent: Federation of Pakistan

Summary:
This case deals with the recording of evidence in the inquiry for extradition under Section 9(1) of the Extradition Act, 1972. It clarifies that Section 9(1) of the Extradition Act, 1972, does not establish a different mode for the production of evidence in inquiry proceedings for the extradition of a fugitive offender alleged to have committed an extradition offence but not convicted in the requesting state. The procedure for recording evidence remains the same, whether the fugitive offender has been convicted or not in the requesting state. This ensures consistency in the extradition process regardless of the offender’s prior conviction status in the requesting state.

Case Name: 2020 PLD 357 Islamabad
Appellant: Mujahid Pervez
Opponent: Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Interior

Key Points:

• This case involves a request for extradition to a foreign country for the accused to stand trial.
• The accused was alleged to be involved in offenses related to corruption in the USA and was wanted there for trial.
• The Federal Government had the authority to extradite the accused to the foreign country.
• The matter had been presented to the Federal Cabinet, but no decision was taken, causing a delay.
• An email from the Embassy of the foreign country indicated a further delay in taking custody of the accused due to COVID-19 concerns.
• The accused was 70 years old and had a cardiac ailment, making him vulnerable to COVID-19.
• Section 12 of the Extradition Act, 1972, stipulated that a fugitive offender should be discharged if not conveyed out of Pakistan within two months of being taken into custody for extradition.
• Given the circumstances and the Embassy’s position on the delay, the application for post-arrest bail filed by the accused was allowed with certain conditions, including regular appearances and restrictions on leaving the Islamabad Capital Territory.

Case Name: 2019 SCMR 1284 Supreme Court
Appellant: State
Opponent: Olufemi

Key Points:

• In this case, the accused, a foreign national, was found with 25 kilograms of heroin.
• The Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, sentencing him to life imprisonment.
• The High Court later acquitted the accused, citing the destruction of the recovered contraband in violation of the procedure provided under Section 516-A of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).
• The prosecution argued that the contraband’s destruction under magisterial supervision ruled out foul play and thus strict compliance with Section 516-A, Cr.P.C. was not necessary.
• The Supreme Court observed that the accused had already left Pakistan after his acquittal, and any examination of the prosecution’s arguments in his absence would be academic.
• Reversing the High Court’s decision would complicate the extradition process, as the contraband had been destroyed.
• Therefore, the appeal against the accused’s acquittal was dismissed.

Case Name: 2019 PLD 565 Lahore High Court Lahore
Appellant: Mrs. Ifrah Murtaza
Opponent: Government of Pakistan

Key Points:

• This case involves a constitutional petition challenging the detention of the petitioner’s husband in a foreign country based on arrest warrants issued by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and perpetual warrants of arrest issued by an Accountability Court.
• The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) had issued notice to the husband of the petitioner for his appearance but then issued arrest warrants two days before the scheduled appearance, indicating a lack of opportunity for hearing.
• The High Court found that NAB’s actions were not bona fide, and there was no evidence to prove that the husband of the petitioner had absconded.
• The order passed by the Accountability Court was deemed a “non-speaking order” as it lacked proper reasoning.
• The High Court set aside the perpetual warrants of arrest, red notices, and declared the extradition proceedings as illegal and void.
• The name of the husband of the petitioner was directed to be removed from the Exit Control List, and the constitutional petition was allowed.

Case Name: 2019 PLD 483 Islamabad
Appellant: Tahir Attique Zarif
Opponent: Federation of Pakistan

Key Points:

• This case concerns extradition orders passed against the petitioner, who was a fugitive from the United Kingdom.
• The petitioner raised a plea that the documents relied upon by the Inquiry Magistrate were not received by the Federal Government.
• It was clarified that the documents were received by the Federal Government through the High Commission of the United Kingdom and had been duly authenticated by competent forums and courts.
• The Inquiry Magistrate had considered various materials, including CCTV footage and data related to cellular phones.
• The High Court declined to interfere with the order passed by the Inquiry Magistrate, finding no legal infirmity or violation of the Extradition Act, 1972.
• The petition was dismissed.

Case Name: 2019 PLD 453 Islamabad
Appellant: Haroon Rashid
Opponent: Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior

Key Points:

• In this case, the nature of inquiry proceedings before the Inquiry Magistrate in extradition cases was discussed.
• The Inquiry Magistrate’s role was likened to that of a trial court, and the proceedings were not considered summary but similar to a sessions trial.
• The Extradition Act, 1972, provided a complete mechanism for fugitive offenders to defend themselves.
• The Inquiry Magistrate was responsible for conducting a thorough inquiry and allowing both the requesting State and the fugitive offender to produce evidence.
• The petition was disposed of in this context.

Case Name: 2019 PLD 453 Islamabad
Appellant: Haroon Rashid
Opponent: Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior

Key Points:

• This case dealt with the issue of whether terrorism was considered an extradition offense.
• The Schedule to the Extradition Act, 1972, did not contain the term “terrorism,” leading to a constitutional petition.
• It was observed that the term “terrorism” should be specified in the Schedule to the Extradition Act, 1972.
• The petition was disposed of in this context.

Case Name: 2019 PLD 453 Islamabad
Appellant: Haroon Rashid
Opponent: Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior

Key Points:

• This case discussed the minimum requirements for inquiries by the Magistrate in extradition cases, including protection for citizens and non-citizens.
• Section 7 of the Extradition Act, 1972, placed a heavy burden on the Federal Government to provide complete rights to fugitive offenders.
• The State was responsible for protecting both citizens and non-citizens in accordance with the Constitution’s fundamental guarantees, including the right to a fair trial and due process.
• The petition was considered in light of these constitutional principles.

Case Name: 2019 PLD 453 Islamabad
Appellant: Haroon Rashid
Opponent: Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior

Key Points:

This case primarily focuses on the minimum requirements and procedures to be followed in extradition cases to non-treaty States. Several important aspects were discussed:

• The admissibility of documentary evidence in the form of affidavits submitted by a foreign country or non-treaty State was considered. It was emphasized that the concept of submitting facts through affidavits in the legal jurisprudence of Pakistan was similar to that in any other foreign jurisdiction. However, the executant of the affidavit had to appear before the Court or authority where the affidavit was submitted. Mere filing of an affidavit without the deponent’s appearance was of no use.
• Article 10-A of the Constitution, which guarantees a fair trial and due process, placed a heavy burden on state functionaries to ensure transparency, fairness, and impartiality in extradition proceedings.
• The importance of recording statements during inquiry proceedings before the Inquiry Magistrate was stressed. In cases where the request for extradition was made during the inquiry/investigation stage in a foreign country, it was deemed necessary for the Inquiry Magistrate in Pakistan to call official witnesses from the Ministry of Interior or Ministry of Foreign Affairs who received the documents from the requesting State. This practice would help confirm the authenticity of the original documents.
• Additionally, it was noted that the Inquiry Magistrate should call the investigation officer of the requesting foreign State, especially when that officer had gathered evidence and recorded witness statements. Cross-examination of the investigation officer was also essential for the Magistrate to reach a definite conclusion on whether a prima facie case had been made out.
• The case also involved allegations of conspiring to commit terrorism and use weapons of mass destruction in a foreign country. It was highlighted that the minimum requirement to establish criminal conspiracy in terms of Section 120A of the Pakistan Penal Code was not fulfilled, as certain encrypted electronic communications and other evidence claimed to be in the possession of the investigation officer in the USA were not provided to the Inquiry Magistrate.
• Due to these deficiencies, the impugned order of the Inquiry Magistrate was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Inquiry Magistrate for de novo proceedings, with specific directions on how to proceed.

These points collectively address the procedural aspects and requirements of extradition to non-treaty States, ensuring fairness and adherence to constitutional principles.

Case Name: 2019 PLD 434 Islamabad
Appellant: Abdul Qadar Ahsan
Opponent: Additional Deputy Commissioner (G), Islamabad

Key Points:

This case revolves around the extradition proceedings of Abdul Qadar Ahsan, a dual national of Pakistan and the United Kingdom (U.K.), who was accused of murder in the U.K. The following significant points were addressed:

• Ahsan had fled to Pakistan after being charged with murder in the U.K. As there was no extradition treaty between Pakistan and the U.K., a Gazette notification under Section 4 of the Extradition Act, 1972, was issued, and Ahsan was subsequently arrested in Pakistan.
• The Inquiry Magistrate’s role in extradition cases was emphasized. In cases where the inquiry or investigation was at an early stage in a foreign jurisdiction, the Inquiry Magistrate in Pakistan had a responsibility to thoroughly evaluate the documents, depositions, and affidavits presented to him. This evaluation was crucial in determining whether a prima facie case existed against the fugitive offender.
• The investigating officer from the foreign requesting State had to appear before the Inquiry Magistrate in Pakistan to substantiate the investigation. Mere submission of statements through postal channels was not permissible under Pakistani law. The investigating officer’s appearance allowed for cross-examination to ensure the credibility of the evidence.
• The case highlighted that the Inquiry Magistrate in Pakistan had not called the investigating officer from the U.K. or any witness to validate the statements and evidence presented for extradition. This lack of due process negated the guarantees of due process and equal protection under Arts. 4, 9, 10-A, and 15 of the Constitution of Pakistan.
• As a result of these deficiencies, the impugned order of the Inquiry Magistrate was set aside, and the case was remanded to the Inquiry Magistrate for de novo proceedings. Specific directions were given for the conduct of the proceedings, including the appearance of the investigating officer through video link if necessary, consideration of any judgment of conviction of co-accused, and an inquiry into whether the petitioner had changed his personal details of identity to conceal his presence in Pakistan.

This case underscores the importance of a fair and thorough extradition process, including the evaluation of evidence and adherence to due process requirements.

Case Name: 2019 PLD 434 Islamabad
Appellant: Abdul Qadar Ahsan
Opponent: Additional Deputy Commissioner (G), Islamabad

Key Points:

This case dealt with the authentication of records received from a foreign country in an extradition case involving Abdul Qadar Ahsan, who was a dual national of Pakistan and the United Kingdom (U.K.) and was accused of murder in the U.K. Several important points were highlighted:

• The prosecution had submitted a statement of the investigating officer from the U.K., which included the background history of the case, witness statements, the warrant of arrest, and photographs of the fugitive offender for identification, among other documents.
• While these documents had been submitted through diplomatic channels in Pakistan by the U.K. government to the relevant Director in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Pakistan, they were signed and sealed by a Magistrate Court in the U.K.
• However, there was a lack of authentication from the Pakistani authorities regarding the genuineness of these documents. No representative of the Federal Government of Pakistan, especially from the Ministry of Interior or Ministry of Foreign Affairs, had authenticated that these documents had been received from the U.K.
• The minimum requirement for foreign documents to be considered valid in Pakistan was that they had to be authenticated as per the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. In this case, the documents had not been attested by the competent authority in Pakistan, nor was there any certificate to that effect exhibited before the Inquiry Magistrate.
• Due to these deficiencies in the authentication process, the impugned order of the Inquiry Magistrate was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Inquiry Magistrate. The Inquiry Magistrate was directed to conclude the proceedings within two months by calling a statement from the competent officer from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs who received the certified record from the U.K.

This case underscores the importance of proper authentication of foreign documents in extradition proceedings and the need for adherence to legal requirements in such cases.

Case Name: 2018 PLD 258 Islamabad
Appellant: Muhammad Shahid
Opponent: Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad

Key Points:

In this extradition case, Muhammad Shahid was facing extradition to a foreign country (the United Kingdom) for the alleged murder of eight individuals in that country. The key aspects of the case were as follows:

• There was no existing extradition treaty between Pakistan and the foreign country (United Kingdom) in question.
• To initiate the extradition proceedings, the enquiry Magistrate in Pakistan requested the Ministry of Interior to issue a notification under Section 4 of the Extradition Act, 1972, along with the nomination of an enquiry Magistrate to conduct an enquiry under Section 7 of the same Act.
• The Ministry of Interior did issue such a notification directing that the provisions of the Extradition Act, 1972, would have effect in relation to the foreign country for the extradition of Muhammad Shahid.
• Although there was a three-day gap between the appointment of the enquiry Magistrate and the issuance of the Section 4 notification, this was considered an irregularity and did not render the entire proceedings unlawful. The irregularity was cured once the notification under Section 4 was issued.
• Several documents were exhibited during the proceedings before the enquiry Magistrate, including the statement of the investigating officer, which specifically implicated Muhammad Shahid in conspiracy to commit arson with intent to endanger life and the murder of eight persons.
• The investigating officer also mentioned a confession made by Muhammad Shahid to a woman about his involvement in the offense. Additionally, a witness in the case implicated Muhammad Shahid.
• These statements were deemed sufficient to establish a prima facie case of Muhammad Shahid’s involvement in the offense he was charged with in the foreign country.
• Muhammad Shahid challenged his extradition through a Constitutional petition, but it was dismissed by the High Court.

This case reaffirms that extradition to non-treaty States is possible under the Extradition Act, 1972, provided the requirements of Section 4 of the Act are fulfilled. Irregularities in the timing of appointments do not necessarily render the proceedings unlawful, and a prima facie case based on credible evidence is required to justify extradition.

Case Name: 2015 PLC(CS) 73 Supreme Court
Appellant: Suo Motu Case No. 24 of 2010
Opponent: N/A

Key Points:

This case revolves around the exercise of suo motu jurisdiction by the Supreme Court of Pakistan under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. The Court addressed issues related to corruption and embezzlement in the arrangements for Hajj in the year 2010. The main points are as follows:

• Allegations included over-charging Hajj pilgrims and failure to provide accommodation during the Hajj pilgrimage.
• Corruption was reportedly carried out by political figures and government officers, resulting in financial losses to Hajj pilgrims who were not only charged extra money but also faced issues with accommodation.
• During the investigation of cases arising from the Hajj scam, many officers and officials who collected evidence against politicians and government officers involved in corruption were disassociated from the investigation and transferred to other positions.
• Hajj tour operators were found to have charged an extra Rs. 5,000 from each Hajj pilgrim in the name of security, which exceeded the actual amount required. This conduct was likened to robbing the pilgrims who were performing a sacred religious duty.
• The Supreme Court issued several directives, including expediting the extradition of one of the accused from a foreign country and ensuring his return to Pakistan as soon as possible. The Court also urged relevant authorities to complete the investigation of cases against all accused individuals promptly and ensure the speedy completion of their trials.
• The Secretary of the Ministry of Religious Affairs was directed to refer cases of Hajj operators who had charged an extra Rs. 5,000 from each pilgrim to the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) and make efforts to ensure the refund of this amount to each pilgrim.
• Strict measures were advised for preventing future incidents of corruption in Hajj arrangements, including issuing guidelines for Hajj arrangements, accommodations, transportation, and other facilities.
• The Federal Investigation Agency was tasked with taking strict action against individuals, including politicians, officers, and others in positions of power, who had interfered with or hampered the investigation in the present case.

This case underscores the Supreme Court’s commitment to addressing issues of corruption and embezzlement, particularly when they affect religious obligations like the Hajj pilgrimage, and its role in issuing directives to ensure accountability and fairness in such matters.

Case Name: 2014 SCMR 484 Supreme Court
Appellant: Criminal Original Petitions 68 and 93 of 2012
Opponent: Human Rights Case No. 42130-G of 2012

Key Points:

This case involves the exercise of suo motu jurisdiction by the Supreme Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. It pertains to corruption and embezzlement in the arrangements for Hajj in the year 2010, similar to the previous case. Here are the key points:

• Allegations included overcharging Hajj pilgrims and failure to provide accommodation during the Hajj pilgrimage.
• Corruption was reportedly committed by political figures and government officers, leading to financial losses for Hajj pilgrims who were charged extra money and faced accommodation issues.
• During the investigation of cases arising from the Hajj scam, many officers and officials who collected evidence against politicians and government officers involved in corruption were disassociated from the investigation and transferred to other positions.
• Hajj tour operators were found to have charged an extra Rs. 5,000 from each Hajj pilgrim in the name of security, which exceeded the actual amount required. This conduct was likened to robbing the pilgrims who were performing a sacred religious duty.
• The Supreme Court issued directives, including expediting the extradition of one of the accused from a foreign country and ensuring his return to Pakistan as soon as possible. The Court also urged relevant authorities to complete the investigation of cases against all accused individuals promptly and ensure the speedy completion of their trials.
• The Secretary of the Ministry of Religious Affairs was directed to refer cases of Hajj operators who had charged an extra Rs. 5,000 from each pilgrim to the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) and make efforts to ensure the refund of this amount to each pilgrim.
• Strict measures were advised to prevent future incidents of corruption in Hajj arrangements, including issuing guidelines for Hajj arrangements, accommodations, transportation, and other facilities.
• The Federal Investigation Agency was tasked with taking strict action against individuals, including politicians, officers, and others in positions of power, who had interfered with or hampered the investigation in the present case.

This case mirrors the previous one and emphasizes the Supreme Court’s commitment to addressing corruption and embezzlement in Hajj arrangements, ensuring accountability and fairness, and taking measures to prevent such incidents in the future.

Case Name: 2014 PLD 10 Peshawar High Court
Appellant: Ahtabar Gul
Opponent: State

Key Points:

This case deals with the concept of extradition and the sovereignty of states. The key points are as follows:

• The case touches upon the principle of sovereignty of states and the absence of an international obligation for a sovereign state to accept a request for the extradition of a person within its territorial jurisdiction.
• Sovereignty means that a state has legal authority over people within its territorial borders.
• Extradition involves arrangements between sovereign states whereby one state may divest some of its sovereign powers, including the power to try a person for an offense, and allow that person’s extradition to another state to face trial.

This case underscores the importance of understanding the principles of sovereignty in the context of extradition, where one state’s jurisdiction over an individual may be transferred to another state for the purpose of facing criminal charges.

Case Name: 2014 PLD 10 Peshawar High Court
Appellant: Ahtabar Gul
Opponent: State

Key Points:

This case discusses the aim and provisions of the Extradition Act, 1972 in Pakistan. Here are the key points:

• The preamble of the Extradition Act, 1972, highlights its purpose: to recognize the international obligations of civilized nations regarding requisitions made by requesting states and to regulate the extradition of persons, whether citizens or non-citizens, within the territorial limits of Pakistan.
• The legislature has aimed to provide protection to the valuable rights of individuals who are subjected to the legal regime of extradition.

This case emphasizes the legislative intent behind enacting the Extradition Act, 1972, which is to fulfill international obligations and protect the rights of individuals subject to extradition proceedings.

Case Name: 2014 PLD 10 Peshawar High Court
Appellant: Ahtabar Gul
Opponent: State

Key Points:

This case concerns extradition proceedings involving a non-treaty state (Afghanistan) and the arrest and detention of petitioners in Pakistan. Here are the key points:

• The petitioners were arrested by authorities in Pakistan based on a request from Afghanistan for their extradition.
• Afghanistan was neither a Treaty State nor had the Federal Government issued the requisite notification in favor of proceedings against the petitioners under Section 4 of the Extradition Act, 1972.
• The applicability of the provisions of the Extradition Act, 1972, to the petitioners was deemed to be beyond the mandate of the law.
• The arrest and detention of the petitioners were declared illegal and without lawful authority.
• The High Court directed the authorities to release the petitioners forthwith, and the petition was allowed.

This case underscores the importance of compliance with the legal requirements, including treaty obligations and notifications, in extradition proceedings. In this case, the absence of these prerequisites rendered the arrest and detention of the petitioners unlawful.

Case Name: 2014 PLD 31 Islamabad
Appellant: Muhammad Zubair
Opponent: Federal Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Interior, Islamabad

Key Points:

This case deals with the extradition of the appellant, who was accused of committing murder in the United Kingdom and had escaped to Pakistan. Key points include:

• The proceedings to extradite the petitioner were initiated based on the request of the United Kingdom.
• The petitioner argued that the United Kingdom was a non-treaty state, and he had the right to be tried in Pakistan.
• To apply Section 4 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), it was a prerequisite condition that the accused was not found at any place in Pakistan under any circumstances, and a certificate of the political agent or sanction of the Federal Government was obtained.
• In this case, the inquiry was ongoing, and the High Court had intervened with an interim order, making the condition unavailable to the petitioner.
• In the absence of any material, the petitioner could not be tried outside the jurisdiction of the court where the trial was taking place or the investigation was being conducted within the jurisdiction of a particular police station in the United Kingdom.
• The High Court declined to interfere in the extradition proceedings against the petitioner, and the petition was dismissed.

This case highlights the legal requirements and conditions that must be met for extradition and the role of the courts in ensuring compliance with these conditions.

Case Name: 2013 PLD 80 Islamabad
Appellant: Maqsood Ahmed
Opponent: Additional Deputy Commissioner (General/Inquiry Magistrate)

Key Points:

This case pertains to an extradition order against the petitioner, who was a fugitive offender facing extradition proceedings. Key points include:

• The petitioner challenged the extradition order on the grounds that it was passed without any evidence.
• The inquiry involved determining whether a prima facie case was made out against the fugitive offender to face trial in a criminal case pending in the court of a foreign treaty country.
• The prosecution did not necessarily have to record oral evidence under Section 8 of the Extradition Act, 1972. If there was material on record that had the force of evidence, it could be considered for establishing a prima facie case.
• Circumstantial evidence and even probability could be considered as evidence in the case.
• The documents relied upon by the prosecution were considered per se evidence and admissible material that could be taken into account by the government when passing an extradition order.
• The Inquiry Officer had adopted the proper procedure, and the High Court found no grounds for interference in the extradition proceedings.

The case highlights the legal framework and evidentiary standards applied in extradition proceedings, emphasizing the importance of establishing a prima facie case based on available material.

Case Name: 2013 PLD 75 Islamabad
Appellant: Al-Haj Jafar Ali Alvi
Opponent: State

Key Points:

This case addresses the liability for offenses committed beyond the limits of Pakistan, particularly in tribal areas, and the conditions for trying such offenses within Pakistan or extraditing the accused. Key points include:

• When a person commits an offense beyond the limits of Pakistan and is later found in Pakistan, two options are available: trying the individual in Pakistan under Section 188 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) if the case falls within its purview or extraditing the individual to the place where the offense was committed for trial.
• A certificate from the Political agent or the Federal Government is mandatory for the trial of an offense committed beyond the limits of Pakistan.

This case underscores the legal procedures and options available when dealing with offenses committed outside Pakistan’s territorial limits, emphasizing the importance of proper certification for the trial or extradition of individuals involved in such offenses.

Case Name: 2012 PLD 45 Islamabad
Appellant: Hafiz Muhammad Aslam
Opponent: Secretary, Ministry of Interior

Key Points:

This case revolves around the deportation of a foreign national (the accused/petitioner) during the pendency of criminal cases against him. Key points include:

• The pendency of criminal cases cannot be considered a privilege vested in the accused, allowing them to claim detention and retention in a foreign country where they are charged with a criminal offense.
• Registration of criminal cases and their pendency until a final decision is reached is the liability of the accused and a privilege of the state. This cannot be used as a tool to convert it into a vested right that prevents the state from deporting the accused.
• A citizen of foreign origin cannot, as a matter of right, claim to be retained for facing criminal charges that the state intends to ignore by deporting them.

This case underscores that the pendency of criminal cases against a foreign national does not grant them the privilege to avoid deportation, and the state retains the authority to deport such individuals.

Case Name: 2012 PLD 45 Islamabad
Appellant: Hafiz Muhammad Aslam
Opponent: Secretary, Ministry of Interior

Key Points:

This case concerns the deportation of a foreign national (the accused/petitioner) during the pendency of criminal cases against him and the determination of his nationality. Key points include:

• The accused held a Norwegian passport at the time of entering Pakistan, and for the purpose of proceedings under the Foreigners Act 1946, he was considered a Norwegian national.
• The registration of criminal cases and their pendency is the liability of the accused and a privilege of the state. This cannot be used as a tool to convert it into a vested right that prevents the state from deporting the accused.
• The pendency of criminal cases cannot be considered a privilege vested in the accused, allowing them to claim detention and retention in a foreign country where they are charged with a criminal offense.

The case highlights that the pendency of criminal cases against a foreign national does not grant them the privilege to avoid deportation, and the state retains the authority to deport such individuals.

Case Name: 2012 PLD 45 Islamabad
Appellant: Hafiz Muhammad Aslam
Opponent: Secretary, Ministry of Interior

Key Points:

This case involves the deportation of a foreign national (the accused/petitioner) and the determination of his nationality. Key points include:

• The accused claimed to have renounced his Norwegian nationality and assumed Pakistani nationality by express declaration duly communicated to the Norwegian Embassy.
• He stated that his Computerized National Identity Card (CNIC) and certificate of domicile had been renewed, and he had also instituted a civil suit to seek a declaration regarding his nationality.
• The High Court could not determine the status of nationality and enter into an in-depth inquiry while exercising constitutional jurisdiction.
• A civil suit regarding the determination of the accused’s nationality was pending adjudication.

The case emphasizes that the determination of nationality is a complex matter, and the High Court, when exercising constitutional jurisdiction, cannot make such determinations. It also highlights the importance of the pending civil suit for resolving the nationality issue.

Case Name: 2011 SCMR 558 Supreme Court
Appellant: Human Rights Case (Application by Qazi Muhammad Anwar, President Supreme Court Bar Association, Islamabad)
Opponent: None

Key Points:

This case relates to constitutional jurisdiction and the investigation of a criminal case. Key points include:

• The grievance of the petitioner was that although the murderers had been identified, they had not been arrested.
• The Supreme Court considered this case important, particularly in violation of Article 9 of the Constitution, and issued notices to police authorities.
• The Supreme Court asked the Secretary Interior, Government of Pakistan, to supervise the investigation and ensure the arrest of the accused to face trial.
• The Secretary Interior informed the Supreme Court that efforts were being made for the extradition of the accused from abroad to Pakistan, subject to the completion of formalities.
• Efforts made by the Secretary Interior in constituting and guiding the police party and involving all other concerned quarters led to achieving the intended objectives.
• The petition was disposed of after the required actions were taken.

Case Name: 2010 YLR 1573 Islamabad
Appellant: Muhammad Younas Marwat
Opponent: Government of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Interior

Key Points:

This case involves a former officer of the National Bank of Pakistan who joined the Development Bank of Afghanistan in Kabul as Chief Executive and faced charges of embezzlement. Key points include:

• The petitioner’s name was placed on the Exit Control List (ECL) on the recommendation of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) based on a complaint filed by the State Bank of Pakistan, which relied on photocopies supplied by the Afghan Government.
• The inquiry initiated by NAB against the petitioner was still pending as the Afghan Government had not provided the original documents related to the alleged charge.
• The petitioner had not caused any loss to the Government of Pakistan while serving in the National Bank of Pakistan.
• No proceedings regarding extradition were pending against the petitioner.
• The impugned order did not provide grounds for placing the petitioner’s name on the ECL.
• The High Court directed the petitioner to apply to the Ministry of Interior to have his name removed from the ECL, emphasizing that the petitioner’s liberty, guaranteed by the Constitution, could not be curtailed for an unlimited period and on the basis of photocopies without evidentiary value.

This case underscores the importance of proper grounds for placing an individual’s name on the ECL and the need to follow due process, especially when extradition proceedings are not pending.

Case Name: 2009 PLD 215 Lahore High Court Lahore
Appellant: Mirza Iftikhar Mehmood
Opponent: Area Magistrate, Police Station Nekapura, Sialkot

Key Points:

This case concerns a fugitive offender who was arrested and detained. Key points include:

• The petitioner was arrested by the police and produced before a Magistrate.
• Later, the petitioner was informed that he was arrested for offenses under Sections 393, 394, and 397 of the Belgium Penal Code.
• The petitioner contended that he could not have been arrested without following the procedure provided by the Extradition Act, 1972.
• The Magistrate’s opinion was that a prima facie case had not been made out in support of the requisition for surrender of the fugitive offender.
• The Deputy Attorney General conceded that the provisions of the Extradition Act, 1972 had not been followed.
• The High Court declared the detention of the petitioner improper and without lawful authority and ordered his release.

This case highlights the importance of following proper extradition procedures and ensuring that the rights of fugitive offenders are protected.

Case Name: 2004 PLD 119 Karachi High Court Sindh
Appellant: Federation of Pakistan, Ministry of Interior Federal Secretariat, Islamabad
Opponent: Muhammad Haris Hassan

Key Points:

This case relates to the jurisdiction and extradition of a fugitive offender. Key points include:

• The ultimate jurisdiction to extradite or not rests with the Federal Government.
• The Federal Government may stay proceedings, cancel summons or warrants, and order the discharge of a fugitive offender if the nature of the offense appears to be trivial, the request for extradition is not made in good faith, or extradition is not in the interest of justice.
• The Federation may challenge the opinion recorded by the Enquiry Magistrate if it is considered perverse and not in accordance with the law.

This case underscores the authority of the Federal Government in extradition matters and its ability to challenge opinions that are not in line with legal requirements.

Case Name: 2004 PLD 119 Karachi High Court Sindh
Appellant: Federation of Pakistan, Ministry of Interior Federal Secretariat, Islamabad
Opponent: Muhammad Haris Hassan

Key Points:

This case involves an extradition enquiry and the competency of filing a revision petition. Key points include:

• A revision petition under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code is maintainable in the High Court against the opinion expressed in the extradition inquiry by the Enquiry Magistrate.

This case clarifies the competency of filing a revision petition in the context of an extradition enquiry.

Case Name: 2003 YLR 1241 Supreme Court Azad Kashmir
Appellant: Muhammad Mumtaz Malik
Opponent: Station House Officer, Police Station Kotli, Azad J&K

Key Points:

This case involves the rejection of a plaint in a suit for declaration. Key points include:

• The plaintiff, a resident of District “K” in Azad Jammu and Kashmir, entered into an agreement of sale of a tractor with the defendant, a resident of District “K” in Pakistan.
• The entire amount for the purchase of the tractor was paid to the defendant at a place “S” in Pakistan between the parties.
• A dispute arose regarding the tractor, leading to an FIR in place “R” in Pakistan, where it was alleged that the tractor had been forcibly snatched from someone and was in the custody of the plaintiff.
• Necessary proceedings were taken under the provisions of the Extradition Act, and the tractor was recovered from the plaintiff.
• Since the defendants were shown in the plaint as residents of Districts “S” and “R” in Pakistan, the High Court held that the plaint was not maintainable in District “K” in Azad Jammu and Kashmir, as it did not disclose a cause of action in that district.
• The High Court, therefore, rejected the plaint.

This case underscores the importance of the proper venue for filing suits and the need for a cause of action within the jurisdiction of the court.

Case Name: 2000 SCMR 1536 Supreme Court
Appellant: Abdul Ghaffar
Opponent: Federation of Pakistan

Key Points:

This case concerns an extradition inquiry and the use of affidavits as evidence. Key points include:

• Material/evidence brought against a fugitive offender included the deposition of a witness in the form of an affidavit duly recorded before a Magistrate of a Treaty State and certified by the Attorney-General.
• The material and evidence produced before the Inquiry Magistrate were in line with the requirements of Section 8(2) of the Extradition Act, 1972.
• The personal appearance of witnesses before the Inquiry Magistrate was not deemed necessary in these circumstances.

This case clarifies the use of affidavits as evidence in extradition inquiries and highlights that personal witness appearances may not always be required.

Case Name: 2000 SCMR 1536 Supreme Court
Appellant: Abdul Ghaffar
Opponent: Federation of Pakistan

Key Points:

This case relates to an extradition of a fugitive offender and challenges to the inquiry process. Key points include:

• The fugitive offender contended that the inquiry was not conducted by a Competent Authority under Section 8 of the Extradition Act, 1972.
• The evidence was not properly appraised by the Inquiry Magistrate.
• The Federal Government did not form its own independent opinion.
• A written statement from the fugitive offender was not obtained.
• The fugitive offender argued that he was entitled to be discharged under Section 12 of the Extradition Act, 1972.
• The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, indicating that the observations made in the case of Muhammad Azim Malik (PLD 1989 SC 519) were applicable to the facts of this case.

This case emphasizes the need for proper procedures and adherence to the law in extradition inquiries.

Case Name: 1998 SCMR 1072 Supreme Court
Appellant: Nasrullah Khan Henjra
Opponent: Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Interior and Narcotics Control (Interior Division), Islamabad

Key Points:

This case deals with the scope of inquiry before the Enquiry Officer in an extradition case. Key points include:

• The scope of the inquiry before the Enquiry Officer was to find a prima facie case.
• The impugned judgment was in consonance with the law.
• No interference by the Supreme Court was called for.

This case underscores the limited scope of the inquiry before the Enquiry Officer in extradition cases.

Case Name: 1998 PLD 266 Lahore High Court Lahore
Appellant: Mst. Shaheen Iqbal
Opponent: Federation of Pakistan

Key Points:

This case involves a constitutional petition regarding the repatriation and imprisonment of the petitioner’s husband. Key points include:

• The petitioner’s husband was serving a sentence of seven years when he was extradited to the United States of America to face trial there.
• After serving the sentence in the United States, the petitioner’s husband was repatriated to Pakistan.
• Upon his return, he was arrested at the airport to undergo the remaining sentence in the case in which he stood convicted in Pakistan and to face trial in remaining cases that were pending at that time.
• Rules 36 and 37 of the Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1978, made provision for the suspension of a convict’s sentence.
• The sentence of the petitioner’s husband was deemed to be suspended on his extradition and would revive after his return.
• The petitioner’s husband was required to undergo the remaining sentence, and no exception could be taken to this.
• Extradition laws did not provide for the waiver of criminal liability or the withdrawal of pending cases due to extradition.

This case highlights the application of prison rules in the context of extradition and the need to serve remaining sentences upon repatriation.

Case Name: 1998 PLD 266 Lahore High Court Lahore
Appellant: Mst. Shaheen Iqbal
Opponent: Federation of Pakistan

Key Points:

This case pertains to the extradition of the petitioner’s husband and the subsequent arrest in Pakistan. Key points include:

• The petitioner’s husband was serving a seven-year sentence when he was extradited to the United States of America to face trial there.
• After completing the sentence in the United States, he was repatriated to Pakistan.
• Upon his return, the petitioner’s husband was arrested at the airport to serve the remaining sentence in the case for which he was convicted in Pakistan. He also faced trial in pending cases.
• Pakistan Prison Rules 1978, particularly Rules 36 and 37, provide for the suspension of a convict’s sentence during extradition, with the sentence reviving upon return.
• The petitioner’s husband was deemed to have his sentence suspended during his extradition and was required to serve the remaining sentence.
• Extradition laws did not provide for the waiver of criminal liability or the withdrawal of pending cases solely because of extradition.
• The petitioner’s husband received benefits for the period spent in jail in Pakistan from the United States District Court.
• Consequently, the petitioner’s husband was not entitled to a remission of his sentence or the withdrawal of remaining cases due to his extradition to the United States and imprisonment there.

This case highlights the application of prison rules in extradition cases and the requirement for serving remaining sentences upon repatriation.

Case Name: 1998 PCRLJ 1097 Lahore High Court Lahore
Appellant: Mir Aimal Kansi
Opponent: The State

Key Points:

This case deals with the arrest and extradition of a person. Key points include:

• The case involved a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan.
• The person whose unlawful arrest and extradition were questioned was not in custody of any government functionaries nor was he in Pakistan.
• The High Court could not determine the validity of the arrest and extradition in this situation.
• The person in question had already been convicted and sentenced by a court in the United States of America, and this conviction had been confirmed by an appellate court.
• Given these circumstances, the High Court could not issue a writ that would be uncertain, ineffective, or futile in regulating the custody of a person whose custody was under the jurisdiction of a foreign court.
• When a person is arrested and taken out of the country before the institution of judicial proceedings, no direction for repatriation or production can be issued by the High Court.
• The mere illegal manner of arrest and production of an accused before a competent court would not affect the validity of the trial.

This case emphasizes the limitations of the High Court in matters of extradition and the need for legal proceedings to address issues related to arrest and extradition.

Case Name: 1997 PCRLJ 1527 Supreme Court Azad Kashmir
Appellant: Muhammad Ilyas
Opponent: S.H.O., Baddomalhi, District Narowal

Key Points:

This case involves the enforcement of the Prohibition of Intoxicants Act, 1979, and the power of the High Court to interfere with police investigations. Key points include:

• The power of the High Court cannot be exercised to interfere with police investigations by denying the custody of the accused.
• Questions about whether a warrant of arrest pertains to another person or to the accused should be resolved during the investigation or at trial by the Trial Court, not in extradition proceedings.
• After the arrest of the accused, it was obligatory for the District Magistrate, under Section 5 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Extradition of Fugitive Offenders Act, 1984, to hand him over to the Anti-Narcotics Force at “R” (Pakistan), rather than making a reference to the High Court/Shariat Court.
• The impugned order of the Shariat Court was set aside with a direction to the District Magistrate to hand over the custody of the accused after his arrest to the concerned police, as mandated by the relevant law.

This case underscores the role of the High Court in extradition matters and the importance of proper legal procedures in investigations.

Case Name: 1997 MLD 2926 Supreme Court Azad Kashmir
Appellant: Chairman, Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council
Opponent: Abdul Latif

Key Points:

This case pertains to the validity of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council Extradition of Fugitive Offenders Act, 1984, and a subsequent ordinance. Key points include:

• The Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council Extradition of Fugitive Offenders Act, 1984, was declared invalid by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction, as it was passed without lawful authority by the Council.
• During the pendency of an appeal in the Supreme Court against this High Court order, an ordinance known as the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council Extradition of Fugitive Offenders Ordinance, 1995, was promulgated, containing a validation clause.
• In light of the validation clause, the Supreme Court vacated the High Court’s judgment and ordered the dismissal of the related writ petition filed in the High Court.
• However, the Supreme Court’s judgment was passed on 21-6-1995, while the High Court had accepted a writ petition on 1-4-1996, declaring the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council Extradition of Fugitive Offenders Act, 1984, as ultra vires.
• The High Court’s judgment, even if technically valid, became meaningless and could not be acted upon due to its conflict with the previous Supreme Court judgment.

This case illustrates the impact of a subsequent ordinance with a validation clause on the validity of a previous law and the consequences of conflicting judgments.

Case Name: 1995 CLC 1958 Supreme Court Azad Kashmir
Appellant: Chairman, Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council
Opponent: Nisar Ahmad

Key Points:

This case challenges the validity of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council Extradition of Fugitive Offenders Act, 1984, on the grounds that the Council stipulated under S. 21 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, did not exist at the relevant time. Key points include:

• The High Court declared the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council Extradition of Fugitive Offenders Act, 1984, as void because it was passed in the absence of the Council, making it void.
• During the appeal’s pendency before the Supreme Court, the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council Extradition of Fugitive Offenders Ordinance, 1995, was promulgated. This ordinance contained provisions similar to those in the 1984 Act and included Section 7, which validated all actions taken under the old Act.
• The validating provision stipulated that all actions, notifications, orders, appointments, proceedings, jurisdiction, and powers exercised under the old extradition Act, 1984, would be deemed valid under the 1995 Ordinance.
• Even if actions taken against respondents were not justified under the old Act of 1984, the 1995 Ordinance provided protection, allowing the concerned authority to continue actions initiated under the old Act.
• Consequently, the relief granted to the respondents by the High Court was no longer sustainable due to the enactment of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council Extradition Ordinance, 1995.
• Respondents or any other person had the option to challenge the 1995 Ordinance, but in the absence of such a challenge, Section 7 of the Ordinance protecting all actions under the old Act had to be enforced.

This case illustrates the legal consequences of validating ordinances and their impact on the validity of previous laws.

Case Name: 1994 SCMR 1706 Supreme Court
Appellant: Nargis Shaheen
Opponent: Federation of Pakistan

Key Points:

This case deals with the extradition of a fugitive criminal charged with smuggling heroin into the United States. Key points include:

• A prima facie case was established based on the Enquiry Report to support the requisition received from the United States government, requesting the extradition of the fugitive criminal.
• The petitioner’s contention was that the Enquiry Officer relied on affidavits of two witnesses that were inadmissible.
• The witnesses in question not only deposed facts based on information conveyed to them by a person in league with the accused but also provided facts demonstrating their personal and direct knowledge of the case.
• The petitioner’s plea that the accused was not allowed the opportunity to produce defense witnesses was found to be incorrect, as the accused had been given opportunities for the production of defense witnesses but did not avail of them.
• Leave to appeal was refused in these circumstances.

This case underscores the establishment of a prima facie case in extradition proceedings and the admissibility of evidence.

Case Name: 1994 PCRLJ 229 Lahore High Court Lahore
Appellant: Akhtar Malik
Opponent: Federation of Pakistan

Key Points:

This case addresses the validity of extradition proceedings under the Extradition Treaty between the United States of America and Pakistan. Key points include:

• The provisions of the Extradition Act, 1972, and the Extradition Treaty between the two countries were found to be consistent with Article 15 of the Constitution of Pakistan and in accordance with the Injunctions of Islam.
• The government of Pakistan had jurisdiction to conduct proceedings in line with the provisions of the Extradition Act, 1972.
• Section 12 of the Extradition Act, which relates to the limitation on the extradition order, was considered not to be mandatory in nature. Even if an extradition order is not passed within two months from the date of committal, it would not make a difference, and the order would remain lawful.
• The Magisterial inquiry under Section 8 of the Extradition Act and the “trial” under the Criminal Procedure Code have different connotations.
• The failure of the prosecution to formally tender in evidence admissible material, being just a technicality, would not adversely affect the prosecution’s case.

This case emphasizes the validity of extradition proceedings and the flexibility of certain provisions of the Extradition Act.

Case Name: 1993 PCRLJ 1082 Lahore High Court Lahore
Appellant: Nasar Ullah Khan Hunjra
Opponent: Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Interior and Narcotics Control (Interior Division)

Key Points:

This case discusses the extradition proceedings under the Extradition Act, 1972, and its procedural mechanism. Key points include:

• The Extradition Act, 1972, being a special statute, has an inbuilt self-contained procedural mechanism and rules of evidence for the inquiry proceedings.
• The Act is designed to ascertain the existence of a prima facie case meriting extradition in accordance with Section 10 of the Act.

This case highlights the specialized nature of the Extradition Act and its procedures for establishing a prima facie case for extradition.

Case Name: 1990 MLD 1611 Lahore High Court Lahore
Appellant: Zulqarnain Khan alias Zulfiqar Ali Khan
Opponent: Government of Pakistan

Key Points:

This case deals with a constitutional petition’s maintainability under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan. Key points include:

• The petitioner had filed a constitutional petition challenging certain aspects of his case under the Extradition Act (XXI of 1972).
• The issue at hand was whether the constitutional petition was maintainable when the petitioner had not availed the remedy available to him.
• The court held that the remedy available to the petitioner was remotely efficacious. As a result, the constitutional petition could not be dismissed on the grounds that the petitioner had not used the available remedy.

This case underscores the importance of considering the efficacy of available remedies when determining the maintainability of a constitutional petition.

Case Name: 1969 PLD 129 Lahore High Court Lahore
Appellant: Jose Gonzalo de Garcia de Balseras
Opponent: The State

Key Points:

This case involves the interpretation of the Extradition Act 1903, particularly in the context of Spain’s requisition for the surrender of a fugitive criminal. Key points include:

• Spain was considered “not a foreign State” in terms of S. 2(c) of the Extradition Act 1903.
• The requisition made by the Government of Spain for the surrender of a fugitive criminal was made “under offer of reciprocity.”
• The procedure prescribed in S. 9 of the Extradition Act was applicable in such a case.
• The scope of the requisition was not confined to accusations of an extradition offence.

This case highlights the interpretation of extradition laws and the applicability of reciprocity in extradition proceedings.

Case Name: 1962 PLD 119 Dhaka High Court
Appellant: Chandra Sekhar Shome
Opponent: The Province of East Pakistan

Key Points:

This case addresses the initiation of extradition proceedings in the absence of mutual and reciprocal arrangements between Pakistan and the concerned State. Key points include:

• The case focused on whether extradition proceedings could be instituted when there was no mutual and reciprocal arrangement between Pakistan and the State concerned.
• The court emphasized that extradition proceedings required such arrangements to be in place.

This case highlights the necessity of mutual and reciprocal arrangements for the initiation of extradition proceedings.

Case Name: 1951 PLD 66 Sindh Chief Court
Appellant: Akhtar Hussain alias Kaley Khan
Opponent: Crown

Key Points:

This case involves the arrest of a person accused of murder committed in India and the legality of his detention. Key points include:

• The arrest was made in Karachi of an individual accused of murder committed in India.
• The sanction of the Central Government for the detention of the accused was obtained more than two months after the arrest.
• The detention was deemed legal under the provisions of the Extradition Act (XV of 1903), particularly Ss. 10(3) and 23.

This case illustrates the legal aspects related to the arrest and detention of individuals accused of crimes committed in foreign countries and the requirements of the Extradition Act.

Pakistan has extradition treaties with the following countries:

• Argentina
• Belgium
• France
• Greece
• Switzerland
• USA
• Iran
• Monaco
• Netherlands
• Denmark
• Austria
• Yougoslavia
• Iraq
• Equador
• Portugal
• Luxembourge
• Colombia
• Liberia
• Cuba
• San Marino
• Italy
• Egypt
• Australia
• Uzbekistan
• Algeria
• China
• UAE
• Libya
• Kuwait

UK and Pakistan Extradition Cases

The absence of a formal extradition treaty between the United Kingdom and Pakistan does have significant implications for cross-border criminal investigations. Extradition treaties are crucial tools that facilitate the extradition of individuals who are accused or convicted of crimes from one country to another.

In the absence of such a treaty between countries in general, several key impacts can be observed.

First of all, without a formal extradition treaty in place, the process of extraditing individuals can become legally complex and time-consuming. Both countries may have to rely on their domestic laws and procedures, which may not align perfectly, leading to delays and complications in the extradition process. We have observed this many times in the legal review requests we get from the UK where we have witnessed a number of serious flaws pointing to an abuse of the process of law. Secondly, extraditing individuals without a treaty can be challenging because it often requires a case-by-case approach. The requesting country must provide substantial evidence to justify the extradition, which can be subject to legal challenges and disputes in the other country’s jurisdiction. In the instances where the accused has to be extradited from Pakistan to the UK, these complications become even more pronounced. Then, of course, the absence of a treaty may result in limited cooperation between law enforcement agencies in the two countries. Mutual legal assistance mechanisms are never as good as extradition treaties. To make things more complicated, individuals accused of crimes in one country may find safe havens in the absence of an extradition treaty. In the case of UK-Pakistan, as we have frequently noticed, cross-border investigations may be hampered as suspects or key witnesses residing in the other country may not be easily accessible. Another practical example of problems arising from the principle of “aut dedere, aut judicare,” which is fundamental in international criminal law and extradition cases. This principle suggests that if an act is an offence under the laws of both sovereign states, the offender can be tried and punished in either state. In the absence of a formal extradition treaty, the application of this principle can become complex. The requirement of double criminality becomes essential, making it necessary to establish that the act is an offence in both countries. This adds to the intricacies of extradition proceedings and can lead to disputes and delays.

In UK extradition requests, Pakistani courts have tried to ensure that the process is fair by strict adherence to legal requirements, proper authentication of documents, and the opportunity for cross-examination to ensure a fair and just extradition process during cross-border investigations. In the case of Abdul Qadar Ahsan (2019 PLD 434 Islamabad), the court set aside the initial order of the Inquiry Magistrate due to the lack of proper authentication of documents and the absence of an official who could verify the documents’ authenticity. The case was remanded back to the Inquiry Magistrate with clear directions to address these issues and conclude the proceedings within a specific timeframe.

In a significant development, Josh and Mak International  , has been closely following and analyzing the recent landmark agreement between the UK and Pakistan concerning the removal of overstayers and criminals. The agreement was officially signed on August 17th, 2022, between the then-Home Secretary, Priti Patel, and Pakistan’s Interior Secretary, Yousaf Naseem Khokhar, marking a pivotal moment in immigration and criminal removal policy.

Priti Patel emphasized the importance of this agreement, highlighting the need to remove dangerous foreign criminals and immigration offenders who have no legal right to remain in the UK. This move aligns with the UK Government’s New Plan for Immigration policy, aimed at ensuring fairness and border security. Patel expressed her commitment to ending the delays caused by last-minute claims and appeals through the newly proposed Borders Act.

The agreement’s rationale can be traced back to the growing concern over the presence of Pakistani nationals among foreign criminals incarcerated in England and Wales. They constitute a significant proportion of the foreign national offender population in the UK, making it crucial for both nations to address this issue collaboratively. The deal underscores the commitment of both the UK and Pakistan to combat illegal migration and enhance law enforcement cooperation.

While the UK Government, including MPs like Steve Baker, has welcomed the returns agreements with various countries, concerns have arisen regarding its impact on Pakistan. Some legal experts have raised questions about whether Pakistan will be inundated with deported criminals from the UK. They argue that the agreement lacks critical information sharing, potentially posing significant challenges for Pakistan, making the UK the primary beneficiary.

Under this new arrangement, Pakistani nationals without the legal right to remain in the UK, including criminals, failed asylum seekers, visa overstayers, and immigration offenders, may be repatriated to Pakistan. However, it’s worth noting that the policy is not expected to affect dual nationals holding both Pakistani and British identities. Instead, it will primarily target those involved in immigration offenses and organized crimes, such as sex grooming and paedophilia.

While the UK has been deporting foreign criminals to Pakistan for nearly a decade through Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) and individual case arrangements, this formal state-to-state level agreement marks a significant milestone. Nevertheless, the precise implications and changes resulting from this agreement remain to be seen as both countries navigate the complex terrain of criminal removal and immigration enforcement. Josh and Mak International UK continues to monitor developments in this area, ready to provide legal expertise and support as needed.

On August 17, 2022, Pakistan and the United Kingdom (UK) signed a significant agreement aimed at repatriating Pakistani nationals involved in crimes and immigration law violations. British Home Secretary Priti Patel expressed her pride in signing this landmark agreement, emphasizing its alignment with the UK’s New Plan For Immigration policy. The agreement does not function as an extradition treaty and does not directly impact individuals like former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, who resides in London for medical reasons.

This agreement, originally finalized by the PTI government, enables the UK to return Pakistanis involved in minor criminal activities and visa violations. It addresses issues related to individuals seeking asylum in the UK on weak grounds. Previously, without a bilateral treaty, the UK faced challenges in deporting such individuals. Under the new agreement, those with expired visas, illegal overstays, or charges related to sex offenses may be repatriated to Pakistan, and their details will be shared between the two countries. This agreement aims to address issues related to Pakistani immigrants who arrive in the UK for various reasons but often seek asylum and remain there indefinitely. With this agreement, illegal immigrants will be subject to repatriation if they cannot provide a valid reason to stay in the UK.

The concept of extradition has evolved significantly over time, transitioning from a practice influenced by the arbitrary decisions of sovereigns to a more legally grounded process. Extradition, in its basic sense, involves handing over a person to foreign authorities, typically for trial or punishment in the country where a crime was committed. Historically, extradition was often used for political purposes, involving individuals who had fallen out of favor with their own government and sought refuge in another country. In such cases, whether extradition was granted or denied often depended on the whims of the ruling sovereigns.

However, as democratic institutions and responsible forms of government developed, extradition began to acquire a more systematic and legal foundation. The growing awareness of the need for international cooperation in various areas of state activity led to the use of extradition as a tool to combat international crime. This shift marked extradition as one of the most important means of addressing transnational criminal activities.

Today, extradition is primarily governed by national legislation, extradition treaties (bilateral or multilateral), accession to international conventions, and international courtesy. These legal frameworks dictate the conditions under which a country may grant or refuse a request for extradition. Extradition requests can apply to both foreigners and nationals of the requesting country or even nationals of the asylum country.

Generally, countries are hesitant to grant extradition in cases involving political refugees seeking asylum. This reflects the evolving recognition and acceptance of fundamental human rights, where legislation and treaty obligations are expected to balance individual liberty and the right to asylum while also facilitating cooperation with foreign states in dealing with criminals.

In summary, extradition has transitioned from a practice guided by sovereign discretion to a more structured and legally grounded process. It now plays a crucial role in addressing international crime while respecting fundamental human rights and principles of cooperation among nations. The legal reference provided (Jose Gonzalo De Garcia De Balseras v. The State) underscores the legal foundations of extradition in Pakistan and its alignment with international norms.

Understanding the UAE-Pakistan Extradition Treaty: Key Insights and Legal Implications

This comprehensive guide below, tailored for understanding the extradition process between the UAE and Pakistan, serves as an informative resource for legal professionals and individuals interested in international law. For further information, please consult with legal experts or refer to the specific extradition treaties and laws.

The legal landscape of extradition treaties plays a crucial role in international law, particularly in the facilitation of cross-border criminal justice. This article, prepared for Josh and Mak International, delves into the specifics of the extradition treaty between the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Pakistan, highlighting its key features and legal implications.

Background of the Treaty

On 29 January 2005, a significant development occurred in the legal frameworks of the UAE and Pakistan. The UAE officially recognized the extradition treaty signed with Pakistan, marking a pivotal shift in how these countries handle extradition requests.

Treaty Recognition and Superseding Local Laws

The treaty’s recognition by the UAE signifies that from 29 January 2005 onwards, it takes precedence over local UAE laws pertaining to extradition. This alignment of international agreements with domestic law is a common practice in international legal cooperation.

Key Provisions of the Treaty

The treaty outlines specific conditions under which extradition should be carried out between the UAE and Pakistan. These conditions are designed to ensure a fair and legal process, respecting the sovereignty and legal systems of both nations.

Conditions for Extradition

1. Dual Criminality: Extradition is contingent upon the act being criminalized in both the UAE and Pakistan, with expected sentences of no less than one year, regardless of whether a criminal judgment has been passed.
2. Sentence Threshold: In cases where extradition is based on a criminal judgment, the sentence should not be less than six months.
3. Exclusivity: The treaty’s scope is limited to extradition between the UAE and Pakistan, excluding third parties.
4. Evidence Requirement: For extradition requests based on a criminal complaint without judgment, sufficient evidence must indicate the accused’s involvement in the crime.

Exceptions to Extradition

Several scenarios exempt individuals from extradition, ensuring protection against misuse or political manipulation:

1. Political Accusations or Motives
2. Double Jeopardy
3. Statute of Limitations
4. Already Served Sentence
5. Right to Asylum
6. Military Crimes

Execution and Suspension of Extradition

The treaty also addresses scenarios where extradition can be delayed:

1. Pending Criminal Charges: If the individual faces charges in the resident country, extradition is suspended until the conclusion of these proceedings.
2. Sequential Execution of Sentences: If the individual is subject to sentences in both countries, they must first serve the sentence in the country of residence before extradition.

Practical Example

Consider a Pakistani national residing in the UAE, facing criminal charges in both countries. According to the treaty, this individual must first address the charges in the UAE, including serving any sentence imposed, before being extradited to Pakistan.

Legal Implications and Future Insights

This treaty exemplifies the complexities and nuances of international extradition laws. It underscores the importance of dual criminality, respect for sovereign legal processes, and the need to balance the rights of individuals against the demands of cross-border criminal justice.

References:

• UAE Law No. 39 of 2006 on Judicial Cooperation.
• UAE-Pakistan Extradition Treaty.
• Arab Country Treaty (1972) and Riyadh Treaty (1999).
• International Extradition Guidelines.
• UAE-Pakistan Extradition Treaty, Article No. 07, 10, 15.
• International Extradition Principles.
• Legal Provisions on Non-Extradition of Nationals.
• Procedures for International Legal Cooperation and Extradition
• Extradition Treaty between the United Arab Emirates and Pakistan, 29 January 2005.
• Principles of International Extradition Law.
• UAE and Pakistan Legal Frameworks (relevant sections).

Extradition, a vital tool in international criminal justice, involves the transfer of individuals accused or convicted of crimes from one country to another. In this extensive guide, we explore the nuances of the extradition process between the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Pakistan, detailing the legal framework and addressing specific scenarios and questions.

Introduction to Extradition in the UAE

The UAE governs its extradition procedures through Law No. 39 of 2006, which outlines judicial cooperation mechanisms. However, when an extradition treaty exists between the UAE and another country, the provisions of that treaty supersede local laws. The UAE has signed extradition treaties with various countries, including Pakistan, which will be the focus of this article.

Extradition Treaties and Conventions

The UAE is a party to numerous bilateral extradition treaties and multilateral conventions, including:

1. Arab Country Treaty (1972): Encompasses Arab nations including Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt.
2. Riyadh Treaty (1999): Includes broader Arab participation, with countries like Bahrain, Tunisia, Jordan, Algeria, and others.

The UAE-Pakistan Extradition Treaty

On 29 January 2005, the UAE officially recognized its extradition treaty with Pakistan, making it a primary legal instrument for extradition matters between the two countries.

Key Provisions

• Dual Criminality: Extradition applies if the offense is criminal in both the UAE and Pakistan, with a potential sentence of at least one year.
• Minimum Sentence Requirement: For extradition requests based on a criminal judgment, the sentence must be at least six months.
• Exclusivity: The treaty applies solely to extradition between the UAE and Pakistan.

Exemptions from Extradition

• Political accusations or motives
• Double jeopardy (charged for the same crime in another country)
• Statute of limitations
• Sentence already executed
• Right to asylum
• Military crimes

Suspension of Extradition

Extradition can be deferred if the individual faces charges in the country of residence. They must first resolve these charges before extradition can proceed.

Non-Extradition of Nationals

Neither country will extradite its own citizens, though they can face charges in their national courts.

Post-Extradition Protections

After extradition, the individual cannot face charges for a different offense than the one specified, except if a new crime is committed post-extradition.

Documentation and Legal Process

Required Documents

Under Article No. 07, extradition requests must include identity proof, crime details, relevant legal provisions, evidence, and an arrest warrant or criminal judgment.

Legal Proceedings

Following an arrest warrant, the individual can be detained for up to two months, pending extradition. The criminal court has the discretion to approve or deny extradition. If approved, the individual has one month to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Frequently Asked Questions

Multiple Extradition Requests

Scenario: A Pakistani national in the UAE faces extradition requests from both Pakistan and a third country.

Resolution: As per Article No. 10, the UAE decides based on crime seriousness, location, request timing, nationality, and extradition feasibility.

Extradition Costs

Responsibility: The requesting country bears the costs, as stated in Article No. 15, unless exceptional expenses arise.

Post-Extradition Obligations

Update Requirements: The requesting country must inform the extraditing country about the legal proceedings’ outcome, as per Article No. 15.