The High Court in London ruled that orders imposed under UN laws to freeze terror suspects’ assets are not lawful because they “bypassed” parliament. The imposed orders are “frankly, another example of an immediate reaction without it being thought through properly – which is rather the pattern with the anti-terrorism measures,” the judge, Mr Justice Collins said. The ruling, which comes after a series of successful legal challenges to emergency legislation, is expected to force the government to rewrite the latest terror law going through parliament to cover the freezing of assets. The case was brought by five men, known only as A, K, M, Q and G, who were designated terror suspects last year under two orders imposed by the Treasury Department under section 1 of the UK’s 1946 UN Act in order to implement resolutions of the UN Security Council. Some 70 suspects have been listed Terrorism (UN Measures) Order 2006 and the 2006 al-Qaeda and Taleban (UN Measures) Order with bank accounts containing a total of about Pnds 500,000 (Dlrs 1 million) frozen. However, the judge said that the financial sanctions were unfair and absurd, and breached the fundamental rights of individuals.
ASSET-FREEZING POWERS OF UK
The High Court in London ruled that orders imposed under UN laws to freeze terror suspects’ assets are not lawful because they “bypassed” parliament. The imposed orders are “frankly, another example of an immediate reaction without it being thought through properly – which is rather the pattern with the anti-terrorism measures,” the judge,
