LAHORE: An anti-terrorism court (ATC) handed down on Wednesday five-and-a-half-year rigorous imprisonment (RI) each to Jamaatud Dawa (JuD) chief Hafiz Mohammad Saeed and his aide Malik Zafar Iqbal in two of the cases relating to terror financing.

Imran Fazal Gill, the counsel for JuD, told journalists outside the court that the verdict would be challenged in the Lahore High Court. He claimed that the charge of fundraising for terrorism purposes was not established before the trial court, but the conviction was given under pressure from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the international terror financing watchdog.

It may be mentioned that the FATF is scheduled to meet in Paris in next few days to decide Pakistan’s grey list fate.

ATC-I presiding judge Arshad Hussain Bhutta convicted both the JuD leaders under Section 11-N of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 and sentenced them to five years RI with a fine of Rs10,000 each and six months RI under Section 11-F (2) of the Act with a fine of Rs50,00.

JuD lawyer says verdict will be challenged in LHC

The convicts were present in the court and heard the verdict with calm on their faces.

The Counter Terrorism Depart­ment (CTD) had registered two FIRs, one each in Lahore and Gujranwala, against the two under Sections 11-F (5) (6), 11-H2, 11-I, 11-J and 11-N of the ATA 1997.

Hafiz Saeed and other leaders of JuD were already under detention of the Punjab government when the CTD lodged as many as 23 cases in 2019 under similar charges against them in different cities of the province. The judge in his verdict said the prosecution had successfully proved its case under Sections 11-F (1) and 11-I (2) of the ATA.

The Section 11-F (1) deals with offence of membership, support and meetings relating to a proscribed organisation and states that a person is guilty of this offence if he belongs or professes to belong to a proscribed organisation. The Section 11-I deals with the offence of using and possessing money or property and intending to use, or has reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used, for the purposes of terrorism.

The ATC judge observed that in addition to evidence presented by the prosecution, both accused also admitted the ownership of the property by Tanzeem Markaz Dawatul Irshad, a proscribed organisation.

“Careful scanning of Section 11-F (1) of ATA 1997 reflects that a person is guilty of an offence if he belongs to a proscribed organisation and it is not mentioned in the said section that the said membership is post-proscription or pre-proscription and in this case ... it is established by the prosecution that accused Hafiz Mohammad Saeed and Malik Zafar Iqbal belong to proscribed organisation[s] Jamaatud Dawa and Tanzeem Markaz Dawatul Irshad,” observed the judge.

He said it had been established on record that the property in question was in the name of Dawatul Irshad and the same remained in possession of the accused persons being trustees.

However, the judge ruled that the offence under Section 11-J of the ATA (funding arrangements for purpose of terrorism) had not been proved by the prosecution. He said the prosecution had placed on record photographs of the property, but the investigation officer admitted in his statement that he had neither collected original source nor had the original source from which the same were downloaded.

The judge said the photographs had not been sent to the Punjab Forensic Science Agency for determination of their genuineness nor the photogrammetric test of the accused persons had been conducted at the agency.

However, he observed: “Since it has been admitted by the investigating officer that he has not collected evidence regarding the use of property in terrorism, provisions of funds to any terrorist organisation, the same are the facts which directly relate to the investigation and there is no cavil to the proposition that case of the prosecution cannot be discarded due to the lapse on the part of investigating officer or his negligence.”

The verdict said the sentences passed in both cases would run concurrently and the convict would also have the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which says that length of any sentence of imprisonment imposed upon an accused shall be treated as reduced by any period during which he/she was detained in custody for such offence.

Previously, the court had allowed an application by the JuD leaders and decided to announce the verdict in all pending cases simultaneously by the end of this week.

However, special prosecutor Abdul Rauf Wattoo had asked the court, in writing, to recall its decision and announce verdicts in cases where arguments had already been closed.

Published in Dawn, February 13th, 2020