How to Stop Extradition from Pakistan: Grounds for Refusal, Appeals and Deadlines

Section 7 was amended in 2025: the Secretary of the Interior Division, under the current allocation for extradition matters, may order the inquiry. The first-class Magistrate examines evidence; the Federal Government retains the surrender decision under section 11. The end-to-end stages are covered in Extradition from Pakistan: How the Procedure Works; this page focuses on refusal and remedies.

Which legal grounds make surrender impermissible?

Section 5(2) says a fugitive offender “shall” not be surrendered when a listed bar applies. Plead each ground separately and connect it to evidence; general claims that the foreign case is unfair are not enough.

Dual criminality is not a slogan: section 2 requires the act or omission to fit the Schedule and to constitute an offence under Pakistani law if committed in Pakistan, subject to the treaty or section 4 direction. A foreign label such as “fraud” or “terrorism” does not settle the test.

For a non-treaty State, section 4 requires a direction published in the official Gazette specifying the offences and applicable conditions. Obtain the actual notice; do not assume it exists. Pakistan’s reservation under CAT Article 8(2) says the Convention is not itself the legal basis for extradition cooperation, but CAT Article 3’s distinct protection against return to torture must still be analysed. For the broader treaty framework, see how treaties change an extradition case.

What must be challenged during the Magistrate’s inquiry?

Under section 7, as amended by the Extradition (Amendment) Act, 2025, the Secretary of the allocated Division may order an inquiry by a first-class Magistrate with local jurisdiction. Section 8(2) requires the Magistrate to take evidence for both sides, including evidence that the offence is political or not extraditable.

Under section 10, if no prima facie case is made out, the Magistrate must discharge the person and report to the Federal Government. If a prima facie case is found, the report goes to the Government and the person may be committed to prison awaiting its orders, subject to bail. This is not the foreign criminal trial, but the defence should test whether the request is supported and the legal prerequisites are met.

Section 9 allows duly authenticated foreign exhibits, depositions, copies and official or judicial documents to be received in evidence. Challenge the actual defect in authentication, identity, reliability or the link to the person; the mere absence of foreign witnesses in court may not be decisive.

In Nasrullah Khan Henjra v Government of Pakistan, PLD 1994 SC 23, the Supreme Court held that Article 15 does not give Pakistani citizens immunity from extradition. It also considered section 9 foreign evidence; the decision did not make every document sufficient, and one petitioner’s case was remanded because the evidence against him was inadmissible hearsay. The lawful response is a focused evidential objection, not reliance on citizenship alone.

In Muhammad Shahid v Federation of Pakistan, I.C.A. No. 359 of 2016, decided 17 May 2018, PLD 2018 Islamabad 258, the Islamabad High Court held that a section 4 notification issued three days after appointment of the inquiry Magistrate cured the timing irregularity on those facts. The court also held that detention before publication of the notification lacked lawful authority. The judgment does not establish that proceedings can continue when a required section 4 notification is entirely absent. High Court rulings bind within their own territorial hierarchy; verify the relevant High Court and any later Supreme Court authority.

In Haroon-ur-Rashid and another v Federation of Pakistan, I.C.A. Nos. 224 and 225 of 2019, decided 18 August 2020, PLD 2020 Islamabad 469, the Islamabad High Court held that foreign documents authenticated under section 9(2) may be considered in the inquiry without requiring each affidavit deponent to attend for cross-examination or the foreign investigating officer to appear. This does not mean every document establishes a prima facie case: the Court also said the executive authority initiating the inquiry should not merely forward the request, but should first check treaty-State status, coverage of the offence, its inclusion in the Schedule, the form of the requisition and the political-offence issue. The 2025 amendment changed the section 7 decision-maker to the Secretary of the allocated Division, so the current signatory must be checked in the actual case. The judgment binds within the Islamabad High Court’s territorial hierarchy and is persuasive elsewhere. The defence should challenge specific defects in authentication, legal coverage, identity, reliability, hearsay weight and sufficiency—not assume that absence of cross-examination alone excludes the documents.

Which deadlines apply before surrender?

The Act has no single appeal period for every challenge. The trigger is essential: the section 11 waiting period and section 12 delay remedy are different from a court-filing deadline.

The 15 days run from custody under the section 11 surrender warrant, not necessarily the first arrest. The two months in section 12 run from committal to await surrender, not the arrest date, and reasonable notice to the Federal Government is express. The Act specifies no fixed number of notice days.

Which court can review the decision, and what can it order?

A constitutional challenge is normally filed in the High Court with territorial jurisdiction over the relevant authority, proceedings or custody. Article 199 permits review of unlawful public action and detention. Article 202A provides for constitutional benches, but clause (7) makes its operation depend on the relevant activation resolution for the Islamabad High Court or the provincial High Court concerned. Do not assume that a constitutional bench is active in every territory: verify the current status and designated bench before filing. For the Islamabad-specific layer, see Extradition Lawyer in Islamabad.

Judicial review is not a full rehearing of the foreign allegations. Muhammad Shahid explains that certiorari is supervisory and may address jurisdictional error, an error of law apparent on the record or denial of natural justice; it is not simply a chance to substitute another factual view. Nasrullah Khan Henjra also forecloses citizenship alone as a bar. Lead with a specific statutory bar, missing legal prerequisite, evidential defect or substantiated constitutional/treaty risk.

The 60-day FCC period is computed under the Limitation Act, 1908. The Court may extend time for sufficient cause, but do not assume an extension will be granted; obtain the written High Court order promptly and have counsel calculate the deadline.

Section 13 is a separate executive safeguard. If surrender would be unjust or inexpedient because the case is trivial, the request was not made in good faith, it is not in the interests of justice, or for another reason, the Federal Government may stay proceedings, cancel process and discharge the person. This is discretionary. Give the specific reason and supporting evidence, but do not wait for an executive response if transfer is imminent.

Bail is separate from refusal. Section 19 applies the relevant Criminal Procedure Code bail provisions to a person arrested or detained under the Act. Bail may address custody while the case proceeds; it does not decide whether the request is valid or itself cancel a surrender warrant. Make a separate application supported by identity, residence, ties and a realistic attendance plan.

Can a torture-risk or refugee claim stop extradition?

Pakistan is party to the Convention against Torture. Article 3 prohibits extradition or return where substantial grounds indicate a danger of torture. Present individualised evidence to the Magistrate, Federal Government and, where appropriate, the High Court: who may harm the person, why, the likely receiving authority and whether protection is realistic. Assess any assurance for specificity, authority, monitoring and practical enforceability.

The Council of Europe Treaty Office’s current Treaty 005 chart lists the parties to the European Convention on Human Rights; Pakistan is not among them. An ECtHR Rule 39 measure therefore cannot be used directly against Pakistan itself. If the person is in another Convention State and that State plans the removal, the jurisdictional question is different. Pakistan has not accepted the ICCPR First Optional Protocol, and no Pakistani declaration accepting individual complaints under CAT Article 22 was identified in the material checked. Do not present an international individual complaint as a substitute for domestic relief without verifying jurisdiction and current declarations.

Pakistan is not party to the 1951 Refugee Convention or 1967 Protocol and has no comprehensive national asylum law or refugee-status procedure. UNHCR conducts status determination under its mandate and the 1993 cooperation arrangement. A pending or recognised UNHCR claim may be relevant evidence, but is not an automatic section 5 bar; raise the underlying risk directly in the extradition case.

Will an INTERPOL challenge suspend the Pakistani case?

No. A Red Notice or diffusion is not a Pakistani surrender warrant. Since 26 March 2026, requests to INTERPOL’s Commission for the Control of Files (CCF) must use its dedicated secure portal. Published timeframes are generally up to four months after admissibility for access requests and nine months for correction or deletion requests.

A CCF request does not release the person, cancel a Pakistani warrant or suspend the Extradition Act timetable. Run both tracks in parallel: challenge the Pakistani legal basis and evidence, seek an express interim order if needed, and separately explain why INTERPOL data may breach its rules. See INTERPOL Red Notice removal and CCF representation and how to check for a Red Notice.

What evidence should the defence prepare now?

• Obtain the requisition, treaty or section 4 Gazette direction, section 7 order, warrants, inquiry report and section 11 surrender warrant.
• Build a chronology of alleged conduct, foreign proceedings, any prior judgment, Pakistani proceedings, arrest, committal and custody under the surrender warrant.
• For every section 5 ground, state the exact provision, triggering fact and supporting exhibit; translate and authenticate documents where needed.
• For political or discriminatory risk, collect specific threats, official statements and individualised country evidence; for torture risk, add medical records and evidence about the likely receiving authority.
• For section 12, preserve the committal order, custody record, two-month calculation and proof of reasonable notice to the Federal Government.
• For a High Court or FCC application, identify the challenged act, legal error, requested relief and need for interim protection; keep filing and service proof.

Example. If a non-treaty State requests surrender, do not rely only on “there is no treaty.” Obtain the Gazette record and check whether a section 4 direction covers that State and offence. Muhammad Shahid shows why the dates of appointment and later notification matter. Raise any separate section 5 bar and request an express interim order if transfer is imminent.

Which mistakes most often weaken a challenge?

• Equating a Red Notice with extradition. Obtain the Pakistani statutory orders.
• Relying on citizenship alone. Nasrullah Khan Henjra rejects that general bar.
• Counting section 12 from arrest. The two months run from committal to await surrender, after reasonable notice.
• Calling the section 11 15 days an appeal deadline. It is a minimum waiting period from custody under the surrender warrant.
• Making general fairness claims. Link each argument to the Act, the applicable treaty/notification and specific evidence.
• Assuming filing creates a stay. Ask for an express interim order and ensure it reaches the responsible authorities.
• Importing European procedures. Pakistan is not an EAW state; verify treaty status before invoking international remedies.

The immediate task is to identify a legally available ground, preserve the evidence and act before delivery. A local lawyer should verify the current Gazette record, court practice and later binding judgments against the actual request and orders.

For a case-specific assessment, cross-border defence coordination can be arranged with local counsel. Submit the relevant orders, dates and request documents through the consultation request page.