Pakistan was right to say “absolutely not”

Pakistan’s firm refusal to accept responsibility for convicted UK grooming gang offender Shabir Ahmad was the correct decision. More importantly, it was a reminder that a sovereign state must make decisions based on its own national interest, public safety and the rule of law—not external political or media pressure.

The controversy emerged amid renewed debate in Britain over historical grooming gang scandals. Sections of the British media and some politicians have called for foreign-born offenders to be removed from the UK after serving their prison sentences where the law permits. In that context, attention turned to Pakistan because of Shabir Ahmad’s place of birth.

Islamabad’s response, however, was unequivocal.

Foreign Office spokesperson Tahir Andrabi stated that Pakistan strongly condemns child sexual abuse and believes offenders must be investigated, prosecuted and punished regardless of race, ethnicity or religion. He also made it clear that Shabir Ahmad is a British national who spent his entire adult life in the United Kingdom, committed his crimes on British soil and was convicted by a British court. Therefore, any decision regarding his release, supervision or legal status rests solely with the British authorities.

The Foreign Office also stressed that Pakistan has “no connection whatsoever” with the case.

This was not an attempt to defend a criminal. On the contrary, Pakistan unequivocally condemned his crimes. The issue was about legal responsibility and national sovereignty.

If an individual has lived his entire adult life in Britain, committed his offences there and been prosecuted under British law, responsibility for dealing with him should remain with the British justice system. Shifting that responsibility elsewhere risks undermining the principle that countries remain accountable for crimes committed within their own jurisdiction.

There is also a legitimate public interest dimension. Any government has a duty to consider the safety and welfare of its own citizens. Many would argue that accepting responsibility for a person convicted of serious child sexual abuse offences, in circumstances where Pakistan has no legal connection to the crimes, would not serve the country’s national interest.

Pakistan’s response therefore demonstrated that it was prepared to take an independent position based on its understanding of the law and its own national priorities. Supporters of the government’s stance see this as an example of sovereign decision-making rather than yielding to political narratives surrounding a highly sensitive case.

Ultimately, child sexual abuse is a crime that deserves the strongest possible condemnation wherever it occurs. But accountability should remain with the jurisdiction that investigated the offences, secured the conviction and is responsible for enforcing the sentence. Pakistan’s refusal to assume responsibility for this case reflects that principle.