Abstrict

There are certain organizations and individual, which involved in terrorist activities. The 2001 Anti-Terrorism amendment section 11-A that gives criteria to take certain measures against proscribed organization and individual. There is also restriction put on the office bearer carrying activities of terrorism or they involve with proscribe organization. To counter-terrorism activities, there is Anti-Terrorism law that dismantles the funding of terrorism. So in this response, AML/CFT plays a global standard role to stop the funding of terrorism. Pakistan has taken several steps to improve Money Laundering Law and confiscate, freeze assets of terrorists (Shaheena, N. 2006). But there is a defect it doesn’t show an act, which constitutes terrorism. And also it doesn’t show evidentiary criteria to declare organization is proscribed. There are several measures taken against proscribed origination in Section11-E of this act.  The main purpose of this to limit the activities of these proscribed organizations and stops the funding.

Keywords

Organization, Proscribed, Money Laundering, Confiscate, Assets, Freez, Evidentiary, Counter Terrorism

Introduction

There are certain organizations and individual, which involved in terrorist activities. The 2001 Anti-Terrorism amendment section 11-A that gives criteria to take certain measures against proscribed organization and individual. So any organization that is providing acts of terrorism, support and help in terrorism, encourage terrorism etc. are dealing in this section (Joseph, Y. 2012). So the Federal Government has the power to proscribe such organization. If in case proscribe organization carries his terrorist activities different name, such organization shall also be proscribe by the government notification. Where such groups are disturbed by government order than a right of review has given to them. There is also restriction put on the office bearer carrying activities of terrorism or they involve with proscribe organization (Victor, A. 2012). There shall not issue the passport or allow travel abroad to such person. This law also stops the growth of proscribes organization and also prevents its member to help from another organization. If a person has found supporting organization, collecting funds for it or giving speeches etc. shall be punished for a period of six months or more.

For terrorist activities money plays an important role. To counter-terrorism activities, there is Anti-Terrorism law that dismantles the funding of terrorism. So in this response, AML/CFT plays a global standard role to stop the funding of terrorism. Pakistan has taken several steps to improve Money Laundering Law and confiscate, freeze assets of terrorists (Assaf, M. 2014). A person also commission the offence of money laundering if he controls terrorist property, transfer, conceal etc. In section 11 K of this act, court order to confiscate his money, property that is received in connection of terrorism offence. There are different sections of ATA which deal seizes the money of proscribing organization. It also stops local financial institutions, bank, and office bearer to help proscribe organization. Federal Government allows competent investigation authority to check the assets account of that organization whose names are present in the Fourth Schedule. If they are found in the commission of the offence shall be punished for the term of one year. A restricted person name has entered in the fourth Schedule by the order of government for the reason to protect the public from terrorism. If a person is restricted so following measures are taken against him: to seize his passport or other travel documents, seize his license, to check and restriction his movement etc. Such person is also restricted to do dealing with funds or other services (Polina, B, 2014).

Anti-Terrorism Law is also the handling particular nature of sectarian conflict in the country. This is combating violence between the Sunni and Shia community. Since that religious conflict motivated terrorist activity. This Act primary concerned to handle terrorism, heinous offences, and sectarian violence. The definition of terrorism has defined in this Act is a challenging task. So any act is committing that religious, sectarian violence comes under section 6 because it constitutes terrorism. This law also prevents a person from hatred sectarian speech that creates terrorism. Section 8 is also sectarian antagonism between the Muslim and non-Muslim community. The section 8 of ATA is creating a balance between the people and expressing him by preventing the act of terrorism. The people who have material and provoke the people for sectarian violence also handle by this act.  Under section 11 state, seize the printing, publishing material that is used for inciting religious, sectarian hatred commit act of terrorism (Simanti, L. 2021). 

Proscribe Organizations and Preventive Detention

This section deals with a terrorist’s organization or any individuals who have a connection with such organizations. There are several factors to determine that the organization or individuals have a connection with terrorists. The Federal government declares any individual or organization as proscribed in need of time. To prevent terrorism the government has restricted the individual or detain. This section shows lacunas in the current system.

Organizations and power of Government to Proscribe organization 

The Anti-Terrorism Amendment Ordinance 2001 included Section 11-A and 11-B that shows the guideline that which one organization is included in terrorism (Haspeslagh, S. 2021). This is important to prevent terrorism by organizations. This act specifically deals with to proscribe organizations of terrorism. The Federal Government proscribes the organization that is a reason to believe involved in activities of terrorism.

But there is a defect it doesn’t show an act, which constitutes terrorism. And also it doesn’t show evidentiary criteria to declare organization is proscribed. But such responsibility is left at the discretion of the Federal Government. It is necessary for transparency; there must be evidentiary criteria to proscribe the organization (Brian, J. 2020). There is also a need to establish a threshold except the evidently requirement to warrant proscribe the organization. To protect the rights of individuals and organizations of such employee, there must be a specific way to determine the proscription. 

The right of review against the Federal Government to the aggrieved organization is awarded under Section 11-C of this act (Audrey, K. 2009). This right has given to the aggrieved proscribe organization and Federal Government set up Review Committee and also review the application against proscription. But unfortunately, it doesn’t clear the more the role of the committee and also doesn’t clear what people constitute this committee (Todd, S. 2019). This is the lacuna of this act the committee must be strong. Another defect is that the Government doesn’t give any reason for the rejection of the appeal. It is necessary for Federal Government decision should be made on strong ground. By the arbitrary use of this power is a violation of fundamental rights of the aggrieved person.

If proscribe organization application is refused by the Federal Government, then second right to appeal comes after 3 years of the first approach to Federal Government. But there is a flaw in this; it needs effective steps for DE proscription. There ought to have three functions for proscription under this act (Dongfang, H 2019). Firstly, proscription should neutralize terrorism and also prosecute if member involved in terrorism. Secondly, proscription should stop the organizations to the activities of terrorism. Thirdly, the proscription should encourage the organizations that are away from terrorism organization. This is an arbitrary requirement of the right to appeal after 3 years; the right of appeal proscription organization should lie as soon as possible.

Measures against Proscribed Organizations

There are several measures taken against proscribed origination in Section11-E of this act (Martin, C. 2008). The main purpose of this to limit the activities of these proscribed organizations and stops the funding. It is also taking measures against office bearers who are running the activities of the proscribed organizations.

But there is right to appeal to be given proscribed organization to carry their social welfare activities. Though the measures, which are taken in this section, are creating effective result to curtail action of a banned organization. But this is important to accept some groups aren’t a single body and they are charting other, but if these organizations are banned so difficulties are faced by Pakistan (Beth, A. 2004). In 2005 the earthquake rule against the extremist organization, i.e. Jamaat-ul-Dawa and Lashkar-e-Taiba too stricken.  So the welfare activities of these organizations were affected (Jones 2008). 

This act the Federal Government takes certain action against the suspected person whose involvement in terrorism. But the weak point of this restriction is lowered standard. It restricts the persons or organizations from the interaction with the public. The fundamental rights, i.e. the right of freedom and the right of trade etc. are affected by this restriction. These constitutional rights are restricted by standard reason not, information has received from another source of person. 

This act the Federal Government takes certain action against the suspected person whose involvement in terrorism. But the weak point of this restriction is lowered standard (Tim, L. 2018). It restricts the persons or organizations from the interaction with the public. The fundamental rights, i.e. the right of freedom and the right of trade etc. are affected by this restriction. These constitutional rights are restricted by standard reason not, information has received from another source of person. 

Additionally, many of these restrictions are difficult because it is a possible person under observation lives with no official i.e. DPO. Under this DPO grants excessive amount for the sureties determining observation. But this act doesn’t allow DPO corruption or abuse (Hyeran, J. 2020). 

If a person is under observation and he or she is moved from his place for a specific period so keep informed that place and he would be visiting and also meeting during the stay. But under this act section 11EE stop a person for visiting and surrounding such area which is mentioned in the order and also bars from engaging the public activities or participating in it. The judiciary of Pakistan is not pointing out restrictions and enforces it as fundamental rights of the constitution. According to this point, the fundamental rights are granted by the constitution that are explained before and reasonable limitations of these rights (Beth, A. 2004). However, the court opinion at this point focused on the lieu evidentiary requirement is a prerequisite to the restriction.

The Lahore High Court in case of Hafiz Bilal Ahmad vs. the station House Police Officer, Tehsil and District Jhang said that prerequisites are required for inclusion of a person in the Fourth Schedule. The court opinion on these issues is below:

1. The involvement of the person is an activist, office bearer or proscribed organization in terrorism so there must be a strong reason.

2. The information or material should be such nature that present to Government and satisfy it that the particular person entry comes under the Fourth Schedule.

3. And the capable group has to show rightness of his decision.

In Khwaja Mureed vs. the Government of Punjab the Lahore Court affirmed that there should be a strong material reason to establish to show activist person and involved in terrorism or sectarian organization so his name comes on Fourth Schedule (Marieke, D.2008). But the court hasn’t scrutinized the justification and restriction enforced under this Act section 11EE and 11D. According to the constitutional context, it is problematic to impose restriction under Section 11EE. Because it is contradictory on one side, it excludes the restricted person from a particular place and venue delineate, on the other place and also restricted from public life and engaged public activity.

Powers to Stop and Confine Individual Associated with Banned Organization

Government has additional power under this Act has given additional power to arrest and detain individuals who is linked with proscribed organization or that are presently under observation. This is poorly drafted because it is creating confusion to arrest an individual whose name is present in the Fourth Schedule. Motive under this section is to stop a banned person whose name is present in index (Kent, R. 2018). But it does not state what the individual stopped from i.e. engaging terrorist activities or in acting in proscribe organization. 

The Government is satisfying the requirement of such detention. In case Mrs, Majeeda Fatima vs. District Magistrate and Deputy Commissioner, District Central, Karachi, elucidate contentment word in relation with preventive detention, “ satisfaction is not subjective nature that authority is acting without material ground, satisfaction is to be objective nature”. 

In the case of Iffat Razvi vs. Government of Punjab and other the Government had not presented any material evidence that the individual has a member of ban organization. So the Punjab High Court stated that declaring a person a member of ban organization is not sufficient to stop his freedom. In detention order, substantial material should be produced (Fishman S. 2009). 

There must be evidence to order deprivation of person, liberty under Section 11EEE. But some decision of court inadequacy has pointed out, so this section needs to be reworded. 

Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing

Money plays an important role in terrorism. For all terrorist activities, first thing is to collect money and to conduct their activities. Furthermore, for terrorist propaganda, infrastructure and recruitment money plays a crucial role in the execution of particular terrorist attacks. In Pakistan money has used by militant group Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) to endanger international and domestic security and peace. Shaheena, N. (2006). District Police Officer, Bahawalnagar and another P.Cr.L.J 33 Lahore High Court. 

References

• Baron de Montesquieu, C. L. de S. (1748). Complete Works, vol. 1 The Spirit of Laws. Classics of Liberty, Online Library of Liberty.
• Beckett, C. (1988). Separation of Powers and Federalism: Their Impact on Individual Liberty and the Functioning of Our Government. William & Mary Law Review, 29(3),
• Bonica, A. (2016). Avenues of influence: On the political expenditures of corporations and their directors and executives. Business and Politics, 18(4), 367–394.
• Bradley, C. A. (2007). Unratified Treaties, Domestic Politics, and the U.S. Constitution. Harvard International Law Journal, 48(2).
• Cameron, C. M. (2011). The Presidential Veto. In G. C. Edwards III & W. G. Howell (Eds.), the Oxford Handbook of the American Presidency. Oxford University Press.
• Coleman, K. J. (2015). The voting rights act of 1965: Background and overview. Congressional Research Service Washington, DC.
• Contrubis, J. (1999). Executive Orders and Proclamations. Congressional Research Service - CRS.
• Disch, L. (2002). The Tyranny of the Two-Party System. Columbia University Press.
• Foran, C. (2016, March 1). How Bernie Sanders Raised Millions and Set Records. The Atlantic.
• Galapa, L. (2013). The doctrine of separation of powers: a critical analysis of whether it has achieved its general application in Zambia and to what extent has it been applied. [Thesis].
• Gerston, L. N. (2007). American Federalism: A Concise Introduction. Routledge.
• Gwyn, W. B. (1986). Review of Essays on the History and Meaning of Checks and Balances [Review of Essays on the History and Meaning of Checks and Balances, by E. P. Panagopoulos]. The William and Mary Quarterly, 43(3), 505–507.
• Halstead, T. J. (2005). An Overview of the Impeachment Process (p. 6). Congressional Research Service - CRS.
• Knoke, D., & Felson, R. B. (1974). Ethnic stratification and political cleavage in the United States, 1952-68. American Journal of Sociology, 80(3), 630–642.
• Laney, G. P. (2003). The Voting Rights Act of 1965: Historical background and current issues. Nova Publishers.
• Locke, J. (1689). Concerning Civil Government. WW Norton & Company.
• Lorell, M. A., Kelley, C. T., & Hensler, D. R. (1985). Casualties, Public Opinion, and Presidential Policy during the Vietnam War: R-3060-AF. RAND Corporation.
• Madison, J. (1788). The Federalist No. 51 (February 6, 1788). Federalist Papers, the Constitutional Sources Project.
• Mainwaring, S. (1990). Presidentialism, multiparty systems, and democracy: The difficult equation, Working Paper #144. Helen Kellogg Institute for International Studies, University of Notre Dame.
• McCarty, N. (2009). Presidential Vetoes in the Early Republic: Changing Constitutional Norms or Electoral Reform? The Journal of Politics, 71(2), 369–384.
• Miller, G. (2008). Women’s suffrage, political responsiveness, and child survival in American history. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123(3), 1287–1327.
• Pakistan Election Commission. (1972). Report on general elections, Pakistan, 1970-71. Manager of Publications.
• Peters, J. W., & Martin, J. (2016, April 13). Donald Trump, Losing Ground, Tries to Blame theSystem. The New York Times.
• Popowski, D. (2012, July 25). Suppressing Protest: Human Rights Violations in the U.S. Response to Occupy Wall Street. Human Rights @ Harvard Law.
• Popper, A. F. (2005). A Perspective on Independent Judicial Review in Vietnam and the United States. Universidad Alfonso X El Sabio, Canada.
• Prakash, S. B., & Yoo, J. C. (2003). The Origins of Judicial Review. The University of Chicago Law Review, 70(3), 887–982.
• Roberts, D. (2009). Why We Don’t Vote: Low Voter Turnout in U.S. Presidential Elections. Chancellor’s Honors Program Projects.
• Shogan, C. J. (2015). The President’s State of the Union Address: Tradition, Function, and Policy Implications, R40132. Congressional Research Service - CRS.
• Sollenberger, M. A. (2004). The Presidential Veto and Congressional Procedure: RS21750 (United States) [Report]. Congressional Research Service - CRS.
• Steinmo, S. (1989). Political Institutions and Tax Policy in the United States, Sweden, and Britain. World Politics, 41(4), 500–535.
• Stephens, J. O. H., & Scheb, I. J. M. (2011). American Constitutional Law: Civil Rights and Liberties, Volume II (Vol. 2). Cengage Learning.
• Stephens, J. O. H., Scheb, I. J. M., & Glennon, C. (2014). American Constitutional Law, Volume I, Sources of Power and Restraint, 6th. Cengage Learning.
• Still, J. W. (1981). Political Equality and Election Systems. Ethics, 91(3), 375–394.
• Uggen, C., & Manza, J. (2002). Democratic contraction? Political consequences of felon disenfranchisement in the United States. American Sociological Review, 777–803.
• US Government. (2021, January 1). Presidential Vetoes. US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives.
• Vicente, J. J. (1998). Impeachment: A Constitutional Primer, No 318. CATO Institute.
• Wai-lam, C. (2000). The Process of Appointment of Judges in Some Foreign Countries: The United States. Research and Library Services Division, Legislative Council Secretariat.