September 12, 2026
By Rehan Piracha
LAHORE: The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) on Friday held a roundtable on the Punjab Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Bill 2026, bringing together civil society representatives, lawyers and political party leaders to discuss how the legislation could be resisted for undermining constitutional guarantees of fair trial and due process.
Opening the discussion, HRCP Director Farah Zia outlined the bill and its implications for fair trial rights and due process.
Jaffer Ahmed, Manager of HRCP’s Criminal Justice Programme, gave a detailed briefing on the bill’s provisions. He explained that it inserts Section 21AAA into the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, creating a new category of “special security cases” in which judges, prosecutors, police officers, defence counsel and witnesses are identified only by designation rather than by name, whenever a “designated authority” deems that a case requires extraordinary protection for those involved. The government’s Statement of Objects and Reasons frames the measure as a response to threats against judges, prosecutors and witnesses in terrorism cases.
Ahmed drew a comparison with Peru, which used anonymous “faceless judges” in the 1990s to prosecute suspected members of terrorist groups — a system that led to the wrongful conviction of hundreds of innocent people for want of due process, and was condemned by UN human rights bodies and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights because it made it nearly impossible to assess judicial impartiality, raise recusal challenges, or appeal on grounds of misconduct or bias.
Under the Punjab bill, the designated authority — an executive official rather than a judicial one — decides which cases fall under the secrecy regime and who will try and prosecute them. The bill sets out no defined criteria for what constitutes a “special security case,” gives the accused no stated right to challenge that designation, and provides for no external oversight body. Consultation with the Chief Justice under subsection (5) is the only check, and even this is discretionary rather than a binding approval requirement. Ahmed noted that the identity of the designated authority is known to no one except the Chief Justice — not even the Prosecutor General.
He further explained that, at the designated authority’s request, the Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court assigns the case to a specific Anti-Terrorism Court judge, while the Prosecutor General supplies a panel of five eligible public prosecutors from which the designated authority selects one to conduct the trial. In effect, an executive official hand-picks the prosecutor and triggers the process that determines which judge hears the case.
Hina Jilani, former HRCP chairperson, said anti-terrorism laws have long occupied a grey area globally, with courts in different jurisdictions both striking down and upholding provisions that curtail fair trial rights. She argued that the present law conflicts with Article 10A of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair trial and due process. Jilani said the purpose of the roundtable was to devise a strategy of resistance to laws and measures eroding civil liberties, and called for civil society, lawyers and political parties to mobilise so that the Punjab government recognises the damage such legislation does to society.
Faisal Meer, Lahore division president of the Pakistan Peoples Party, said the provincial government had passed the bill not to target terrorists but to target political workers of opposition parties such as the PTI and PPP, in order to consolidate its hold on the province.
Saroop Ijaz, legal counsel for Human Rights Watch, said the organisation had that day issued a statement warning that the bill would threaten the right to a fair trial in counterterrorism proceedings. HRW urged the provincial governor to return the bill to the assembly, and called for the development of rights-respecting protections for such proceedings, subject to independent oversight.
Usama Khawar, Legal Adviser to the Speaker of the Punjab Assembly, said the Punjab bill was virtually identical to amendments passed by the Balochistan Assembly in September 2025, with one notable difference: the unidentified executive official empowered to decide which cases are tried under the new provisions is a Grade 20 officer in Punjab, compared to Grade 21 in Balochistan’s law.
Senior lawyer and activist Asad Jamal said such laws were designed to silence dissent and move the country toward authoritarianism, describing the provincial anti-terrorism law as a disguised version of the military courts that the establishment has repeatedly sought to impose over the decades to target political workers and parties.
Rabiya Bajwa, former vice president of the Lahore High Court Bar Association, said the law’s real objective was to target political workers, rights activists, journalists and dissent of any kind. She questioned the need for additional protection of witnesses, judges and prosecutors, noting that the Anti-Terrorism Act already contains such provisions, in addition to a separate witness protection law.
Participants noted that the Punjab Assembly had passed the bill on August 31, and agreed on a strategy of resistance. It was proposed that an HRCP delegation meet the Punjab Governor to convey concerns that the law infringes on constitutional provisions and should not be given assent, but instead returned to the assembly. HRCP chairperson Asad Butt, treasurer Hussain Naqi, Punjab vice chair Raja Ashraf, and veteran activist Salima Hashmi also spoke at the roundtable and offered suggestions on mobilising resistance to the legislation.
Participants agreed to raise awareness of concerns that the secrecy surrounding trial proceedings could impair defendants’ access to evidence needed for an effective appeal, and that the bill’s poorly defined scope of authority could be used against political opponents, peaceful protesters and others. HRCP also proposed writing to the Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court to argue that allowing a government executive to decide which cases are tried under these special provisions contravenes judicial independence. Participants further proposed that additional research be carried out on the bill to help build a case for challenging it once the governor gives his assent.