A high court in Pakistan’s largest city Karachi on Monday rejected the bail application of prominent social worker Sarim Burney, who faces charges of document forgery and human trafficking in connection with international adoptions.
Burney, who runs a well-known welfare organization, has been in custody for approximately one year while prosecutors build a case alleging systematic misrepresentation in foreign adoption processes.
During the hearing at the Sindh High Court, defense lawyers mounted a multi-pronged challenge to both the timing and substance of the case. They emphasized that while the alleged incidents occurred in 2019, the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) didn’t register the case until 2024. The defense team also questioned the fundamental basis of the trafficking charges, arguing that the children in question never left Pakistani territory.
"How can trafficking charges be applied when the children never left the country?” Burney’s lawyer argued before the court. The defense further maintained that Burney never signed any documents in his capacity as chairman of the trust, and insisted no forgery had taken place.
‘Burney trust never had authority to facilitate adoption’
The prosecution, led by the Assistant Attorney General, presented a starkly different picture, alleging a pattern of misrepresentation in international adoption cases. According to prosecution witnesses, the U.S. government had raised concerns about multiple child transfers facilitated by Burney’s organization in recent years.
Investigation officers told the court that documents submitted to the U.S. Consulate falsely declared the children as orphans, while evidence suggested at least some had living parents.
A key point of contention emerged over the trust’s legal status and authority to facilitate adoptions. "According to law, Sarim Burney Trust doesn’t have the authority to adopt children,” prosecutor Gul Faraz Khattak told the court. The FIA’s investigating officer supported this position, stating that the trust lacks proper registration with relevant authorities.
Justice Amjad Ali Sahito, while hearing arguments, noted that the initial complaint originated from the U.S. Consulate. The prosecution bolstered this point by presenting testimony from a television anchor who stated the trust was aware of at least one child’s mother being alive while processing adoption papers.
Prosecutors allege that children’s names were changed during the process, and the trust has been unable to produce original documentation of the children’s identities. "The trust doesn’t have any documents regarding children’s original names,” admitted the defense lawyer, though maintaining this wasn’t evidence of wrongdoing.
"These actions have affected public trust in NGOs working according to law,” the Assistant Attorney General told the court, suggesting the case could impact public confidence in legitimate adoption and child welfare organizations.
Background of the case
The case against Sarim Burney emerged in June 2024 when Pakistan’s Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) filed charges alleging illegal adoptions through his welfare organization. According to investigators, the trust transferred custody of multiple children to U.S. nationals, receiving $6,000 for three babies whose biological parents were later identified through DNA testing.
In November, prosecutors filed additional evidence showing discrepancies in the trust’s communications. While the organization reportedly told a family court that the children were found abandoned, documents submitted to the U.S. Embassy indicated they had been brought in by their biological parents. A non-bailable warrant was also issued for Burney’s wife, Aliya Naheed Malik, who remains at large.
The case has drawn particular attention due to Burney’s prominence in Pakistan’s social welfare sector and the international dimensions of the allegations. Monday’s denial of bail suggests the court sees merit in the prosecution’s case, though the defense maintains that the long gap between the alleged offenses and the filing of charges raises questions about the investigation’s validity.
