The government of Pakistan has arguably taken a bow in the direction of the White House with the petition to the Supreme Court.

After a bout of indecision, even prevarication, Islamabad has appealed against the almost incredible acquittal in the Daniel Pearl murder case. It thus comes about that the Supreme Court has been urged to review the decision to free the British-born Pakistani, Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, and his three accomplices who had been convicted for kidnapping and beheading the American journalist, Daniel Pearl.

Advertisement

This has turned out to be an almost exceptional tussle between the executive and the judiciary, the two primary players in the power-games in Pakistan. (The military of course remains the overwhelming participant.) The petition was filed by the provincial government of Sindh on Friday, a day after the court acquitted Sheikh and others convicted for the Wall Street Journal reporter’s murder in 2002. “The petition was filed to seek a review and request the court to recall the order of acquittal,” said the Sindh governments’ prosecutor-general.

The American involvement ought not to be discounted, however. In the immediate aftermath of the Supreme Court’s verdict, the Biden administration had made it pretty obvious that the acquittal was a “complete travesty of justice”.

Indeed, it had expressed its outrage. The White House press secretary, Jen Psaki, had even underlined the new US administration’s commitment to secure justice for Pearl’s family, which was astonished by the acquittal. “This decision to exonerate and release Sheikh and other suspects is an affont to terrorism victims everywhere, including in Pakistan,” she said in a sniper attack on the judiciary to the west of the Radclffe line.

She urged the Pakistan government to “expeditiously review its legal options, including allowing the US to prosecute Sheikh for the murder of an American citizen”. Washington was explicit on the point that it “stands ready to take custody of Omar Sheiklh”.

Carried to its logical conclusion, it would have been tantamount to an international disgrace for Pakistan and a contentious issue of interference in the legal affairs of another country. Pakistan’s laws do not allow another country to undertake such an intervention.

And this has been America’s red herring across the subcontinental trail. It shall not be easy for its government to shore up its image. Ms Psaki’s remarkably forthright presentation must have caused a flutter in the Pakistani roost. Both the government and Supreme Court have now relented with their backs to the wall.