This article was migrated from an old version of our website in 2025. As a result, it might have some low-quality images or non-functioning links - if there's any issues you'd like to see fixed, get in touch with us at info@journalism.co.uk.
Press freedom and human rights groups have criticised a Pakistan
government commission report on the murder of a journalist in the country after it concluded
there was no evidence – direct or circumstantial – to single out a
culprit, despite widespread suspicion that the country's security
forces were involved.
Syed Saleem Shahzad, who was Pakistan bureau chief for Asia Times
and South Asia correspondent for Italian news agency Adnkronos
International, went missing from the capital Islamabad in May last
year. His body was found two days later and, according to the report , bore evidence of
torture.
Prior to his death, Shahzad had been investigating alleged ties
between Pakistan's chief security agency, the ISI, and militant
groups including al-Qaeda.
The commission's report, published on Friday, acknowledged that in
the wake of his death Pakistani citizens "were alarmed since the
net of suspicious [sic] was cast, amongst others, on institutions
of the state itself", but ultimately concluded that, "from what is
available on the record, unfortunately, the culprits cannot be
identified".
The commission, which was made up of a judge of Pakistan's Apex
Court, the chief justice of the Federal Shariat Court, inspector
generals of police for Punjab and Islamabad, and the president of
the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ), spent six months
investigating the murder and claimed it had conducted an "extensive
inquiry" and done "everything in its capacity to discharge its
burden".
But press freedom and human rights groups have heavily criticised
the inconclusive findings of the report. Brad Adams, executive
director of Human Rights Watch 's
Asia Division, told Journalism.co.uk that the commission had
"further muddied the water instead of clarifying it".
"The report failed to deal with what Pakistanis and Pakistani
journalists expected it to, which was to at least narrow down who
was responsible, including what institutions.
"Instead it made some ridiculous statements, one of which was that
the killing could have been carried out by anyone. They simply went
though the list of all of those that could have killed him and
further muddied the water instead of clarifying it."
Human Rights Watch was the recipient of an email sent by Shahzad in
October 2010, in which he detailed a meeting with the director
general of the media wing and another official from the ISI.
According to Adams, Shahzad told HRW that the meeting had included
a "veiled death threat" and asked the rights group to make the
details public "in case something happens to me or my family in
future".
The commission's report did acknowledged that suspicion had been
levelled at the ISI both inside and outside the media community,
and argued that: "All and sundry agreed that such blatant
violations of the fundamental right to life, particularly when
attributed to state agencies, cannot be tolerated. A vociferous
demand emerged that the matter be inquired into and those found
responsible be punished."
The failure to bring anyone to justice over the crime was
criticised by Benjamin Ismail, head of the Asia Pacific desk at Reporters Without Borders , who
told Journalism.co.uk it was "sad that the investigation was so
inconclusive and has led to so few results".
But despite the apparent failings, Ismail did say that the report
had, in some ways, been "a positive step".
"The findings are not very conclusive but we still approve that an
investigation was conducted, it's a first in the history of
journalist assassinations in Pakistan. This is a positive sign.
Echoing Ismail's comments, Adams said that the report had "not been
a complete whitewash".
"It did a couple of good things. It repeated the testimony of
witnesses and some of those statements are quite devastating for
the ISI. It indicates that the commission had a little bit of
courage, but not a lot."
Barring the few positive outcomes he identified, Ismail said
Reporters Without Borders was "not satisfied by the results and
wants the investigation to continue."
He said that the commission had failed to speak to a number of
high-ranking government figures, "including those in the security
agencies, and especially the ISI which is already widely suspected
by the majority".
According to the commission's report, Zahid Mehmood Khan, a ISI
brigadir stationed in Islamabad, was interviewed on several
occasions during the investigation, as well as two other ISI
officials. The ISI denies any involvement in Shahzad's death, and
Khan denied that the meeting mentioned by Shahzad contained any
kind of death threat. He also contended that Shahzad's continued
contact with the agency over clarifications and other issues –
which according to the report continued for seven months after the
alleged death threat – was "reciprocal and cordial".
Reporters Without Borders intends to comment officially on the
report soon, Ismail said, and will respond to it "in several
steps". One of those will be to send a team to Pakistan to meet
with as many of those involved in the compiling of the report as
possible.
Bob Dietz, asia programme director for the Committee to Protect Journalists , says
the problem was the decision to prioritise a commission inquiry
over a proper police investigation.
"I know a lot of Pakistani journalists were disappointed in how
inconclusive this report was," he told Journalism.co.uk today,
"what with the ISI being the major suspect".
"Our feeling is that these panels, these inquiries, are all well
and good but very often they're very inconclusive. What was needed
in this case was a proper police investigation, not an inquiry led
by judges interviewing people.
"Police going out and gathering facts and building a case, and
arresting people and bringing them to justice and making sure there
is a fair trial. But we don't see that in Pakistan in any
case."
Dietz flagged up the commission's recommendation that the
government pay compensation to Shahzad's family as odd, given the
lack of identification of any culprit, but said that otherwise,
apart from "a lot of hints being dropped and a lot of names thrown
around, there was no conclusive evidence from anyone".
Pakistan ranked as the most dangerous country for journalists and
media workers in 2011 on several international reports. The
International Federation of Journalists reported 11 journalist deaths in the country over the course of
the year and Reporters Without Borders 10 .
Pakistan also topped Reporters Without Borders' 2010 list , with 11 deaths, and was second in 2009 only to the Philippines after the a massacre in the
country claimed the lives of 32 journalists in one day.
As well as outlining the details of Shahzad's death and its
investigation, the commission recommended the strengthening of
legislative control of the media industry in order to make it "more
law-abiding and accountable".
Adams criticised the recommendation, saying it was "inexplicable to
call for more regulation of the media" and was "in effect blaming
Shahzad for sloppy journalism".
"The last thing the journalists in Pakistan need is the calling for
more regulation. It has nothing to do with this case."
The environment the commission was working in needed to be taken
into consideration, Adams said. It is one in which it is "dangerous
to accuse the ISI of anything". But, he added, "if it did not have
the courage to do so, it should have declined the offer to
undertake the investigation".
"What Pakistan needed at this time was someone with the courage to
call a spade a spade".
Despite calls from these groups and others for the investigation to
continue, Dietz said he thought the report was likely to draw it to
a close.
"Typically this is the end of the matter. Usually these reports
aren't even made public, and I don't think we'll see much more
action. You're not going to see any arrests made.
"More journalists have been killed in Pakistan than anywhere else
in the last two years and it remains a target country for us. I
don't see that changing.
"Saleem Shahzad was one step in this situation. We will remain
focused on Pakistan for some time to come."