While Mamnoon Hussain was the acting president, two parties headed by Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, namely the Jamaatud Dawa (JuD) and the Falah-i-Insaniyat Foundation (FIF) were banned under the UN resolution. It has recently been reported that the said resolution has lapsed, freeing the parties from that ban.
Under the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997, the two parties mentioned above were categorized as terrorist entities under a list provided by the UN Security Council.
The former president amended the act to include the two lists and appease the council. However, since the change in government, it has been informed that the ban has not been extended by the newly elected PTI government.
Deputy Attorney General Raja Khalid Mehmood Khan confirmed the news. The demand to provide a statement on the matter was however, denied. Mehmood Khan later claimed that since the two parties were never listed as respondents, their names under the council list cannot be carried forward.
The judge later also stated that since this is a concern, another petition needs to be filed if they wish for the parties to be placed under the ordinance again. In a response to the claims that JuD is a terrorist organisation, Hafiz Saeed claimed that it was in early 2002 that the party ceased all ties with Lashkar-i-Taiba.
However, Saeed also claimed that despite stating all ties had been cut, the Indian media continued to defame the party as a terrorist organization.
The JuD chief termed it against the dominion of Pakistan that an ordinance was issued to ban his organization. The petitioner claimed that the promulgation of the ordinance and addition of Section 11-EE were not only prejudicial to the sovereignty but also contradictory to the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.
He said that any law violating the constitutional provisions was accountable to be taken down. The petitioner argued that under Article 199 of the Constitution, the court was competent to strike down any legislation which was beyond the scope of the Constitution. He requested the court that the vires of the ordinance and consequent amendment in sections 11 B and 11-EE of the ATA might be declared illegal.