‘Secret’ terrorism trials

On August 31, 2026, the Punjab Assembly in its wisdom chose to pass the Punjab Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Bill 2026 after uproar and objections by the Opposition. The Bill was passed after the Opposition walked out. The latter’s criticisms were ‘naturally’ given short shrift. The content, timing, need for the Bill simply beggar the imagination.

The Bill adds a new Section 21AAA into the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. According to this new Section, a BS-20 grade officer (whose identity will remain secret) will be empowered to designate certain cases “special security cases” in which the identities of judges, prosecutors, police officers, witnesses and defence counsel can be withheld.

The BS-20 grade bureaucrat will not only be empowered to decide which cases require these ‘protective’ measures, he will help coordinate case specifics.

The record of such cases will be sealed with the Chief Justice and the ‘designated authority’, which means they will be denied access to the accused, thereby making appellate scrutiny and pursuit difficult.

The ruffled Opposition within the Punjab Assembly and the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) have both warned that such draconian measures would undermine constitutional fair trial guarantees and create scope for abuse of state power.

HRCP in a statement published on September 3, 2026 has expressed serious concern at the passage of the Bill; warning that its provisions allowing certain cases to be designated “special security cases” could undermine constitutional fair trial guarantees and create scope for abuse of state power.

The HRCP says the amendment did not adequately define the circumstances in which these extraordinary powers could be exercised, raising concerns that they could be used against ordinary citizens, political opponents or protestors on the pretext of security.

HRCP acknowledges that protecting judicial investigative officials from genuine threats is a legitimate state responsibility. However, it questions whether the need for such sweeping measures had been established.

It needs to be noted that no other province has felt constrained to pass a similar law as Punjab has done. Is there an argument that Punjab is more afflicted by terrorism than say, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa or Balochistan? In those two provinces, and especially Balochistan, the resort is to ‘enforced disappearance’, which naturally then obviates any need of a trial despite the disappeared’s family and human rights organisations pleading for judicial proceedings to confirm the disappeared are alive and well.

Punjab has secreted a high-ranking bureaucrat into its ‘secret’ trials experiment, which beggars the imagination as to need or efficacy.

HRCP has also raised serious concerns about the secrecy imposed by the Amendment. Such secrecy violates security of person, right to a fair trial and protection of dignity under Articles 9, 10A and 14 of the Constitution.

HRCP also quotes Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which guarantees fair trial rights. HRCP argues that the secrecy surrounding the identities of key participants in proceedings under the new legislation could have serious consequences for an accused person.

A person wrongly accused of an offence could be prevented from effectively challenging the evidence against them or questioning the fairness of the proceedings per se. HRCP says the Amendment is part of a broader pattern in which security justifications are invoked to expand state powers at the expense of fundamental rights. HRCP calls for the Bill to be reconsidered and brought into conformity with Pakistan’s constitutional and international fair trial guarantees. It demands that any security measures intended to protect judicial or investigative officers should be narrowly defined, clearly regulated and subjected to independent judicial oversight, so that such exceptional powers could not be used arbitrarily.

In the light of these compelling arguments and objections, one can feel nothing but pity for Punjab Information Minister Azma Bokhari attempting to defend the Amendment on television. As is her brief and wont, Ms Bokhari says the changes are aimed at strengthening the legal framework (!) and would not be used for political purposes (!!). She argues the amendments have been made within the existing legal framework and cases would be dealt with according to the law (?). Ms Bokhari may sincerely believe that her government had no intention of interfering in judicial proceedings but fails to address the concerns about a highly placed bureaucrat making such interventions. As it is, the people of Pakistan have grave concerns about the direction legislation, rules, etc., are steering the judicial system. This Amendment may well prove the icing on the cake of our present ignominy.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2026