The Punjab provincial assembly passed the Anti-Terrorism (Punjab Amendment) Bill 2026 on August 31, establishing procedures for conducting terrorism trials under conditions of near-total secrecy. The law permits judges, prosecutors, police officers, witnesses, and defense lawyers to remain anonymous throughout proceedings, with court orders and identifications concealed through the use of official titles and identifying codes rather than names.
Under the legislation, a senior bureaucrat designated as the “designated authority” holds significant discretionary power to classify terrorism cases as “special security cases” based on assertions that participants require special protection. This official’s identity remains confidential and known only to the chief justice of the Lahore High Court. Once such a classification is made, the accused cannot contest the designation. Hearings may be conducted via videolink, potentially from within prisons, using voice-altering technology. The case files are sealed and held jointly by the chief justice and the designated authority, with no built-in expiry date for the law.
Government officials justified the measure by citing increased attacks by armed groups and threats to judicial personnel, prosecutors, and witnesses. They argued existing legal protections proved inadequate. However, Punjab experiences only a small proportion of the country’s terrorism-related deaths, with more than 90 percent occurring in other provinces.
The law has generated substantial opposition from multiple quarters. Constitutional lawyers, human rights organizations, and opposition legislators contend it violates constitutional guarantees of fair trial rights and due process protections. Critics argue the law concentrates judicial-style authority in an unelected official without adequate oversight, effectively suspending due process rights in the province. The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan raised concerns that vague provisions defining when these extraordinary powers may be invoked create potential for abuse against ordinary citizens, political opponents, or protesters under the guise of security measures.
Legal experts noted that existing law already permits courts to protect witnesses and hold closed hearings under judicial control, suggesting the new law represents a shift of authority from courts to the executive branch rather than addressing a legal gap. Opposition legislators staged a walkout to protest the bill’s passage.
Article Attribution | Read More at Article Source
Article summary produced by Claude AI