International

JuD, FIF-outfits lead Hafiz Saeed no more on banned list: Report

Hafiz Saeed lead Jamaatud Dawa (JuD) and Falah-i-Insaniyat Foundation (FIF) are no more on the list of banned outfits after the presidential ordinance that proscribed them under a UN resolution lapsed, reported the Dawn.

During the hearing on Thursday of a petition filed by Saeed, his counsel informed the Islamabad High Court that the presidential ordinance had lapsed and it had never been extended.

The petitioner had challenged the ordinance under which his organisations had been banned for being on the watch list of the United Nations Security Council.

ALSO READ: UNSC’s terror list has 139 entries from Pakistan including Hafiz Saeed

In February this year, former president Mamnoon Hussain promulgated an ordinance amending the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 to declare JuD and FIF as proscribed groups.

The report said that Saeed contended in the petition that he established JuD in 2002 and cut off all ties with the banned militant outfit Lashkar-i-Taiba, but India continued to malign the JuD for its past association with the banned outfit.

Hafiz Saeed’s counsel Raja Rizwan Abbasi and Sohail Warraich appeared before Justice Aamer Farooq of the IHC. On a query, the counsel informed the court that the PTI government did not extend the ordinance or table it in parliament to convert it into an act.

ALSO READ: Court tells Pak election commission to allow Hafiz Saeed to register his political outfit

Deputy Attorney General Raja Khalid Mehmood Khan confirmed that the ordinance had lapsed. He, however, declined the request of advocate Abbasi for giving a statement on behalf of the interior ministry regarding the lapse of the ordinance.

Mr Khan informed the court that since the petitioner did not cite the interior ministry as a respondent, he could not give a statement unless the petition was amended and the interior secretary added as a party in the petition.

Subsequently, Justice Farooq held that the petition became infructuous since the ordinance challenged by the petitioner had lapsed.

Click to comment
To Top