In defence of Hafiz Saeed

‘Wanted’ for more than the obvious reasons

The US State Department claims that the $10 million reward on Hafiz Saeed is for information leading to evidence that can stand judicial scrutiny in the court of law. The US State Department’s briefings on the issue are in fact an admission that there is no evidence against the man on whom they have bestowed the ‘honour’ of being one of the most dangerous men in the world.

In the absence of any indictment and without confronting Hafiz Saeed or the Government of Pakistan with any allegation of his involvement in an act of terrorism, the US announced a bogus reward in blatant disregard of international laws and diplomatic norms. So then I ask myself, ‘Why did they come up with such a decision?’ For the answer to this $10 million question, let us take a back seat and revisit the events as they unfolded after the horrific and tragic 26/11 Mumbai attacks.

It all started in December, 2008 when, after the unfortunate Mumbai episode, India successfully managed to designate Hafiz Saeed and Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD) on the United Nations Security Council’s Al-Qaeda and Taliban Sanctions Committee’s consolidated list. This enlistment was termed by the Indian foreign policy analysts as a smart and prompt move which would serve as a good pressure tactic with regards to the newly born democratic government and the decades old security establishment of Pakistan. India’s success at the UN also helped it in discrediting the Kashmir issue with the argument that it is nothing but an insurgency sponsored by the terror outfits affiliated with Al-Qaeda.

Hafiz Saeed successfully challenged his detention before the Hon’ble Lahore High Court, where he argued that ‘detention’ was never a part of the measures authorised by the UNSC’s Sanctions Committee. He also pleaded that such actions were an example of over-compliance on the part of the government and that too in violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution of Pakistan. By invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, Hafiz Saeed made it clear that he was ready to face all allegations. By confronting the allegations being levelled by the Indian lobby, he not only exposed their innate weakness but also asserted that in fact it was his support for the Kashmiri cause that was bothering the Indian pundits.

The High Court, while setting aside his detention orders, observed that there was no evidence that Hafiz Saeed had any links with Al-Qaeda or any terrorist movement and there was no evidence of any linkage or his involvement in the Mumbai attacks.

Committed to confronting the allegations being tabled by the Government of India, Hafiz Saeed also approached the UNSC’s Sanctions Committee through its focal point for de-listing, and urged them to confront him with any evidence that was available on record. While pleading his right to a fair trial, he also highlighted that the Sanctions Committee was bound to respect the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the decisions of the superior judiciary in Pakistan. The request for de-listing filed on behalf of Hafiz Saeed not only questioned the procedure being adopted by the Sanctions Committee as violation of due process, but also confronted the political overtones that were taking toll at the UN.

Through his request for de-listing, Hafiz Saeed strongly condemned the Mumbai attacks and expressed his sorrow over the tragic incident. While rejecting any suggestions of his association with Al-Qaeda or Lashkar-e-Taiba, he reaffirmed that he does not prescribe to any act of a terrorist nature that kills innocent civilians and damages civilian property. He reiterated his political and moral support for the Kashmiri people which he still believes to be in line with various UN Resolutions on the subject. He not only relied upon the judicial pronouncements of the Pakistani courts but also emphasised that neither he nor his organisation, JuD, are proscribed under the anti-terrorism laws of Pakistan.

As expected, the de-listing request was turned down by the Sanctions Committee. The focal point for de-listing, responsible for communication between the Committee and Hafiz Saeed, has now been scrapped by the UN and an Office of the Ombudsperson has been set up instead. Hafiz Saeed is now in the process of approaching the Ombudsperson for a de novo consideration of his de-listing request.

We might have our own opinions about the man and might disagree with what he believes in, but it would be fair to conclude that Hafiz Saeed does not face any charge related to terrorism, either in Pakistan or the US, nor is he a convict or a fugitive from the law that would justify a $10 million bounty for his arrest or conviction. The sanctions imposed by the UNSC are mere preventive measures; detention was never a part of the Sanctions Committee’s mandate. The decisions taken by the committee cannot be used to justify a reward that could lead to Hafiz Saeed’s arrest in relation to any alleged anti-US activity, the proof of which the US is itself looking for.
Terming a difference of opinion or disagreement with US policy as analogous to an act of terrorism would be nothing but an absurdity which appears to be the driving force behind the bounty on Hafiz Saeed. Such actions of the US encourage me to believe that the US has given itself the license to bypass all legal norms and to rely upon its ‘might is right’ policy to harass the citizens of another state.

The timing of announcing such a reward suggests that there is more to it than just the US wanting to arrest Hafiz Saeed. The answer to the question that I initially asked appears to be that the decision has not been taken to please the Indians, but in fact is an effort to pressurise both Pakistan and India. For India, the US tactic appears to be building up the public pressure focused on discouraging any future India-Pakistan economic cooperation, such as the gas pipeline initiative, till Hafiz Saeed is arrested by Pakistan. For the Pakistanis, the announcement appears to be yet another arm-twisting effort to restore NATO supply routes.

Whatever the reasons might be, one thing is crystal clear: the US Policy makers genuinely believe that they are beyond the scrutiny of international and national laws and nothing can stop them from achieving their objectives, which they bizarrely believe are justified in the name of national security. With the realisation that there is more to come, I hope the policy makers in Pakistan soon chalk out a broader and more sustainable foreign policy, which talks of something other than just reliance on US dollars.

The writer is counsel for Hafiz Muhammad Saeed before the UNSC Al-Qaeda Sanctions Committee