September 1, 2026
By Aitzaz Ibrahim
LAHORE
The new Anti-Terrorism (Punjab Amendment) Bill 2026 passed by the Punjab Assembly on Monday August 31 – despite strong opposition – seeks to amend the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 by inserting a new Section 21AAA dealing with the trial, inquiry and judicial proceedings of cases designated as “special security cases.”
Opposition lawmakers termed the proposed legislation a “threat to citizens’ fundamental rights” and raised concerns that its provisions could undermine the constitutional guarantees of a fair trial.
In fact the legislation was passed despite an opposition walkout and objections over its placement on the Assembly agenda. The opposition also questioned the lack of clarity over who would have the authority to designate a case as a special security case and whether the mechanism could potentially be used in cases beyond genuine terrorism-related threats.
The government defended the legislation, saying extraordinary security measures were necessary because judges, prosecutors, police officers and witnesses involved in terrorism cases could face threats, kidnapping and assassination.
The bill’s passage came after a heated exchange between Speaker Punjab Assembly Malik Muhammad Ahmad Khan and Leader of the Opposition Moin Riaz Qureshi over the constitutional validity of placing the bill before the provincial legislature.
Opposition calls bill an attack on citizens’ rights
Speaking on the floor of the House, Opposition Leader Moin Riaz Qureshi strongly criticised the legislation and said that, in his view, it should not be called an Anti-Terrorism Bill.
He argued that its name should instead be “bulldozing the rights of the citizens of Punjab.” Qureshi requested the Speaker not to allow the bill to be tabled and also objected to its inclusion on the Assembly’s agenda.
The opposition’s principal concern was not only the substance of the proposed security arrangements but also the manner in which the legislation was being brought before the House.
Responding to the objection, Speaker Malik Muhammad Ahmad Khan said parliamentary traditions required the government and opposition to engage with legislation through debate and amendments. He said a practice followed for decades was that when the government introduced a bill, the opposition could propose amendments and the House could then vote on those amendments. The Speaker said the issue before him was whether the bill could legally be placed on the Assembly’s agenda. He said the relevant constitutional provisions, including Articles 141 and 142, had been considered in determining the matter.
According to the Speaker, if provincial legislation conflicts with federal legislation, the federal law would prevail. However, he argued that criminal procedure and certain special laws fall within areas where both the federal and provincial legislatures have jurisdiction. He therefore ruled that bringing the bill before the Punjab Assembly was constitutionally permissible.
Speaker invokes Pakistan’s history of terrorism
While defending the need for legislation aimed at strengthening terrorism prosecutions, the Speaker referred to Pakistan’s long experience with terrorism. He said the country had suffered more than 100,000 deaths as a result of terrorism and that the violence had affected virtually every part of society.
The Speaker pointed to attacks on mosques, schools and imambargahs, saying even places of worship and educational institutions had not remained safe. He argued that when the government was attempting to strengthen the prosecution of terrorism cases, the Assembly was the appropriate forum for discussing the proposed measures.
He told lawmakers that both the government and opposition were present in the House and that concerns regarding the legislation should therefore be raised through debate and amendments.
PTI lawmaker questions definition of “special security case”
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf lawmaker Ahmar Rashid Bhatti also strongly criticised the bill during the proceedings. Bhatti said that since the present government came into existence, legislation of this nature had repeatedly been introduced and described the proposed measure as a “black law.”
He compared the legislation with laws introduced during British colonial rule, referring specifically to 1919 and saying that Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah had opposed such legislation at the time.
Bhatti said the Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to a fair trial and argued that the proposed legislation could violate that right. A major question raised by the PTI lawmaker concerned the bill’s definition of a “special security case.” He questioned why the legislation did not provide a clearer definition of what would constitute such a case and asked who would ultimately decide that a particular case or class of cases required special security measures.
He also questioned whether the law would be restricted to terrorism suspects or whether it could potentially be used in politically sensitive cases.
“Will this law not be used against political people?” he asked in substance, questioning whether the proposed mechanism was intended exclusively for terrorists. Bhatti also questioned the proposed Designated Authority, which would be an officer of BS-20 or equivalent rank.
He asked which institution the officer would belong to and how the public would know which authority was exercising these powers.
‘Act is for protecting participants’: Govt
Government lawmakers defended the bill against the opposition’s criticism, saying Pakistan was facing a continuing wave of terrorism and that people involved in prosecuting terrorism cases had themselves become targets.
The government argued that judges hearing terrorism cases, witnesses and other participants had in the past faced threats, kidnapping and killings.
According to the government position presented in the Assembly, keeping the identities of judges, witnesses and prosecution officials confidential was intended to protect them from security threats rather than deprive accused persons of their legal rights. Government members rejected the opposition’s characterisation of the legislation as a “black law.”
They argued that the right to a fair trial had not been removed because cases would still be heard by judges of the Anti-Terrorism Courts and the defence would retain its right to contest the prosecution’s case. The government’s argument was therefore that the bill sought to change the security arrangements and identity-protection mechanisms surrounding proceedings, rather than abolish the accused person’s right to defend themselves.
The bill’s own Statement of Objects and Reasons similarly says the proposed amendment is aimed at addressing threats and intimidation faced by judges, public prosecutors, investigators and witnesses and creating mechanisms for secure proceedings in high-security-risk cases.
Opposition walks out, bill passed
Following the heated debate, opposition lawmakers staged a protest and boycotted the proceedings. The walkout meant its members were no longer present for the final stage of voting on the bill. The government, however, retained sufficient numbers in the House and proceeded with the vote.
The Anti-Terrorism (Punjab Amendment) Bill 2026 was subsequently passed with the votes of government members, despite the opposition’s objections and boycott.
What does the Bill say?
Supreme Court advocate Shabbir Hussain, while speaking to Voicepk, criticised the bill and raised concerns over its implications for the constitutional right to a fair trial.
“The amendment raises serious concerns regarding the constitutional right to a fair trial under Article 10A. If implemented without adequate safeguards, the proposed measures may prejudice the accused by restricting access to relevant evidence, impairing the ability to effectively cross-examine witnesses, limiting meaningful consultation with counsel and preventing the accused from fully challenging the prosecution’s case. Excessive anonymity, virtual proceedings or the sealing of records could also make the proceedings effectively secret, undermine the presumption of innocence and place disproportionate control over the trial in the hands of an executive authority. Such restrictions may further weaken judicial transparency and hinder the preparation of an effective defence.”
Special security cases: A designated authority may declare a case or class of cases a “special security case” if judges, prosecutors, police officers, witnesses, lawyers or others involved require extraordinary protection.
Appointment of judges and prosecutors: The designated authority may request the Lahore High Court Chief Justice to assign an Anti-Terrorism Court judge, while one prosecutor would be selected from a five-member panel provided by the Prosecutor General.
Identities to remain confidential:The identities of judges, prosecutors, police officers, witnesses, defence lawyers and others involved would not be disclosed, while court orders would also be signed without revealing personal identities.
Court records to remain sealed: The names of judges and prosecutors on the panel would not be published in the official Gazette, while the complete record of proceedings would remain sealed.
Video links and voice modification: Special security cases could be conducted through video conferencing and electronic links, while audio-video recording and voice-modification technology could also be used to protect identities.
Secure premises and prison trials: Proceedings could be held at secure premises with restricted access, while virtual proceedings could also be conducted from prison where security or logistical difficulties arise.
Appellate courts: The same special-security measures may also be applied, with necessary modifications, to proceedings before appellate courts.
Senior lawyer raises fair-trial concerns
Senior lawyer Abid Saqi, while speaking to Voicepk, criticised the legislation, saying its “sole purpose is to suppress dissent.” He argued that the Constitution guarantees the right to a free and fair trial and questioned how that right could be protected under the new law when, according to him, an accused may not know the identity of the witnesses appearing against them or the judge hearing the case. Saqi raised concerns that the secrecy surrounding key participants and proceedings could undermine transparency and the accused’s right to a fair trial.
What do international standards say about a fair trial?
Pakistan ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) on June 23, 2010. Article 14 guarantees equality before courts and the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal, along with other safeguards for accused persons.
However, the ICCPR allows the public and press to be excluded from all or part of a trial in limited circumstances, including national security, public order, privacy or where publicity could prejudice the interests of justice. Such restrictions do not remove the basic requirement of a fair trial.
The UN Human Rights Committee has also stressed that judicial proceedings must remain free from direct or indirect influence, pressure and intimidation.
Constitutional right to fair trial
Article 10-A of Pakistan’s Constitution guarantees the right to a fair trial and due process. The opposition argues that the bill could undermine this protection, while the government maintains that accused persons would still be tried before courts and retain their right of defence.
The bill itself states that its purpose is to strengthen security in terrorism-related proceedings while protecting the constitutional guarantees of fair trial, dignity and security of person.