Akmal Shaikh (5 April 1956 – 29 December 2009) was a Pakistan born British businessman who was convicted and executed in China for illegally trafficking approximately 4kg[5] of heroin.
The trial and execution attracted significant media attention in the UK, namely as Shaikh's poor mental health was taken advantage of to commit the crime.
He travelled from Poland to China and was arrested by Chinese customs officers at Ürümqi Diwopu International Airport on 12 September 2007 with 4 kilograms (8.818 lb) of heroin hidden in a compartment in his baggage.
[6] Reprieve, an anti-death penalty organisation, argued that Shaikh had mental illness which was exploited by criminals who tricked him into transporting the heroin on the promise of a recording contract.
After two appeals, the Supreme Court confirmed the death sentence he was given at his first trial in October 2008, and Shaikh was executed by lethal injection in Ürümqi on 29 December 2009.
[15] The Chinese embassy in Britain said Shaikh had no "previous medical record" of mental illness and that his "rights and interests were properly respected and guaranteed".
It said the Chinese stance underlined the "strong resentment" felt by its public to drug traffickers, in part based on "the bitter memory of history" – a reference to the First and Second Opium Wars.
[citation needed] He married his Polish secretary – who was then pregnant with his child[6] – and moved to Poland permanently in 2005,[20] reportedly with ambitions to start an airline.
[21] In 2007, he joined in a month-long demonstration for nurses outside the Warsaw office of the Prime Minister of Poland,[citation needed] and met British musician Gareth Saunders, according to whom Shaikh was destitute, living off handouts and ate at a soup kitchen.
A recording of this 'out of tune' song, whose lyrics include a refrain 'Only one world, only one people, only one God', was released by Reprieve to raise awareness for their campaign to save him.
[6] Reprieve said that Shaikh claimed the suitcase was not his; and he cooperated with the Chinese authorities in an attempt to catch "Okole", who was supposed to arrive on the next plane, but who never turned up.
[28] His lawyer, Cao, confirmed that the documents he received from Reprieve contained "medical information about bipolar disorder, and a list of symptoms and case studies" not specific to Shaikh.
[8] Xinhua also reported the Supreme People's Court's view that medical records provided by the British Embassy contained no documentary evidence to support claims of Shaikh's condition.
[2][4] Family members and British consular officials were refused access to Shaikh during the final hours by the Chinese authorities, and were not allowed to witness the execution.
[38] They did not dispute that he was carrying a large amount of heroin,[39] but argued for the release of Shaikh based on their assertions that he was mentally ill at the time of the offence[18] saying that the court did not take his condition into account during the trial.
[39] The case attracted support from Amnesty International;[40] and UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, Philip Alston, who said there were "strong indications" that Shaikh may have had a mental illness.
[26] Reprieve also released hundreds of emails that Shaikh had sent in 2007 to embassy staff in Warsaw and to a group of 74 individuals and organisations including Tony Blair.
[48] Xue Jinzhan said the administration of the death penalty related to a country's history, culture and other conditions: "It's human nature to plead for a criminal who is from the same country or the same family, but judicial independence should be fully respected and everyone should be equal before the law";[17] Wang said it was understandable that British media ran emotional stories and local people reacted with sorrow or anger as Britain did not retain the death penalty.
Sally Rowan, their legal director, said that any talk of 'special treatment' was "ridiculous"– as Chinese law has provisions to protect those with mental illness, but they chose not to invoke them.
Among the journalists who supported the UK government's stance were Dominic Ziegler, author of The Economist's Banyan column on Asian affairs,[53] who felt that the issue raised questions about effective use of protections for defendants during judicial process;[35] and Daniel Korski, who wrote in The Spectator that he felt that China was "a revanchist power" seeking the status and rights of the Western world, though not the responsibilities[54] – Prospect magazine held a similar opinion that the Chinese authorities wished to "stand up to its old oppressors" and show the Chinese people that they [the nation] were "being led in the right direction [by the unelected Communist Party in a time of economic crisis]".
[29] An editorial in The Independent noted that some other Asian countries impose the death penalty for drug-smuggling, and commented that the execution "was less the arrogance of a rising power than evidence that China is still feeling its way in the wider world".
[55] George Walden wrote in The Times that he felt if the British government had been more discreet Shaikh might have been reprieved, and that "if we wish to influence China on capital punishment, a little historical humility may be in order".
[32] Tony Parsons of the Daily Mirror supported China's strong stance against drug peddling, and said the British government's reaction was "shrill beyond belief".
"[14] The Chinese Embassy in London said "The legal structures of China and UK may be different, but it should not stand in the way of enhancing our bilateral relations on the basis of mutual respect.
"[14] Further, the Embassy cited "the bitter memory" of the Opium trade of the 19th century as a reason for the "strong resentment" felt by the Chinese public to drug traffickers and foreign (especially British) interference.
[61] A professor at the Shanghai Institute for European Studies accused Labour politicians of trying to capitalise on the issue of China's human rights for political advantage in the upcoming election.
"[51] Citing polls and comments on websites of British press, the Chinese media also reported how politicians' outcry was "unrepresentative" of the vast majority of Britons' understanding of and support for China's action.
[51] In an editorial published by China Daily, Han Dongping, Professor of History and Political Science at Warren Wilson College, hailed the execution, saying that the decision "upheld the dignity of Chinese law.
[67] Newsweek felt that the Chinese authorities had consolidated their position domestically by giving the impression to Chinese citizens that the government will "protect them the best way it knows how from the mentally unstable, whether they are carrying machetes or suitcases full of drugs",[64] and Ireland's Sunday Independent felt that the West was being hypocritical for overlooking other human rights concerns in China while enjoying the Beijing Olympics.