The significance of the Supreme Court’s decision in Ahmed v HM Treasury [2010] 2 AC 534

Resumen o Introducción

This essay relates to the case of Ahmed v HM Treasury, the first case that
was heard by the newly constituted Supreme Court of the United Kingdom,
concerning with the freezing of assets of five men who were suspected of
involvement in financing terrorism. It can be conceived as the most influential
Supreme Court case to date not only because of its constitutional significance
but also because of its raising of issues relating to abuse of executive power,
personal liberty and international terrorism. The Court’s confronting issue is of
the lawfulness of the Terrorism Order 2006(‘the TO’)1 & the Al-Qaida and
Taliban Order 2006 (‘the AQO’) art. 3(1)(b)2, to be introduced by the
Treasury under the United Nations Act of 19463 with respect to fighting
terrorism by freezing the assets of suspected individuals. Further analysis will
be given through explanation over the basic facts and the Supreme Court’s
decision, then processes to clarify its significance in national and international
contexts respectively, the last section will conclude and draw summary. The
major viewpoint is that despite the court’s increasing power in prohibiting
unlimited executive power, the decision highlights a shift in power back to the
legislature as the court has no power to strike down any irreconcilable
primary legislation or secondary legislation authorised by primary legislation.
The decision also depicts the court’s aggravating effect at international level
in deciding which legal regime to apply in a single case through either
constitutionalism or pluralist logic.