New Delhi: Pakistan’s hardline tactics have taken a new form: secret terror trials. The Punjab Assembly has approved legislation that allows terrorism cases to be tried entirely in secret, without revealing the names of the judge, prosecutor, police officers, witnesses and defence lawyers. The government’s reasoning is that it wants to protect the people involved in these cases, but the country’s civil society calls it a ‘black law,’ describing it as ‘outrageous and terrifying.’
Under the new law, everyone associated with any terrorism case, designated as a ‘special security case’ by a bureaucrat appointed by the government, can remain anonymous. Court records may be sealed, hearings can be conducted by video link, and technology may be used to disguise participants’ voices.
“This bill is a dangerous case of executive overreach that shatters the separation of powers and violates the constitution’s Article 10A right to a fair trial. This isn’t a tool for justice; it is a mechanism of state control that weaponises the legal system to bypass due process in the dark. RIP Constitution, RIP fair trial, RIP Justice,” Pakistani human rights lawyer Shafiq Ahmed told ThePrint.
The legislation, known as the Anti-Terrorism (Punjab Amendment) Bill 2026, was passed by the Punjab Assembly on 31 August amid a walkout by Opposition leaders.
The government had agreed to review the bill, but brought an unchanged bill to the Assembly and approved it without amendment.
What the new law entails
The law creates the position of a senior government bureaucrat known as the “designated authority.” The official’s identity will remain confidential, known only to the chief justice of the Lahore High Court.
This authority can then designate an individual terrorism case — or an entire category of cases — as a “special security case” if officials believe those involved require special protection. The law does not clearly define the circumstances that would justify such a designation, and defendants cannot challenge it.
“By giving a government bureaucrat—not a judge—the authority to trigger secret trials, the state is gatekeeping judicial procedures. When the executive branch can force citizens into closed-door proceedings with anonymous witnesses, meaningful legal defense becomes impossible,” Ahmed, who was himself a victim of enforced disappearance in 2023, added.
Once a case is designated as a ‘special security case’, the chief justice assigns it to an anti-terrorism judge. A panel of five prosecutors is established, from which the designated authority selects one. The identities of the judge, prosecutor, police officers, witnesses and defence lawyers are then shielded. Court documents use official titles rather than names, while witnesses are identified by codes.
Proceedings may be conducted remotely, including from prisons, and participants’ voices can be altered to conceal their identities. The case file is sealed and jointly held by the chief justice and the designated authority. The legislation contains no expiration date. A final provision also gives the government broad authority to introduce additional measures it considers appropriate.
What about ‘fair trial’?
Lawyers, opposition politicians and human rights groups warn that the measure could undermine basic guarantees of a fair trial.
“Faceless trials as introduced by the provincial assembly, run counter to Article 10A of the constitution and violate the right to a fair trial. Such laws are used against political opponents to suppress opposition. The authoritarian character of a garrison state is manifested through such legislation,” Abid Saqi, senior Supreme Court advocate and former vice-chairman of the Pakistan Bar Council, told ThePrint.
The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan warned that the legislation does not sufficiently define when its extraordinary powers may be used, creating the possibility that they could eventually be directed at protesters, political opponents or ordinary citizens.
‘While protecting judicial and investigative personnel from genuine threats is legitimate, the need for such sweeping measures is not established. The secrecy they impose raises serious concerns under Articles 9, 10A and 14 of the Constitution and Article 14 of the ICCPR. A wrongly accused person could be unable to effectively challenge the evidence or proceedings. The Bill also reflects a broader pattern of invoking security justifications to expand state power at the expense of fundamental rights,” it wrote on X.
Rights activist Usama Khilji described the law as terrifying, calling it an attempt to give “legal cover to enforced disappearances while providing impunity to those responsible for criminal treatment of accused persons”.
Reema Omer, a legal adviser to the International Commission of Jurists, said the bill effectively “abolished the right to a fair trial.”
“Punjab’s atrocious Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Bill, 2026, passed by the assembly yesterday, has effectively abolished the right to a fair trial in all cases and “class of cases” that a BS-20 officer nominated by the Govt considers “special security” cases. Yet another example of our assemblies making a complete mockery of fundamental rights in the name of “security” and “extraordinary circumstances,” she wrote on X.
Ijaz Ahmed, a Supreme Court advocate, however, disagreed.
“This amendment does not expressly curtail the key-elements of a fair trial i.e. right to defence counsel of choice, right to cross examine, reasoned judgments and appeals. It is mostly focussed on keeping the identities secret,” he told ThePrint.
Does the govt have a case?
While government officials defended the measure as a response to Pakistan’s long-running struggle with terrorism, they did not identify any particular attack or case that prompted the legislation.
Many also questioned the rationale behind introducing such sweeping measures in Punjab. The region experiences far fewer terrorism-related cases than Pakistan’s northwestern and southwestern regions. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan together account for more than 90 per cent of the country’s terrorism-related deaths. Roughly 68 per cent of Pakistan’s terrorism-related fatalities were concentrated in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, according to a US State Department report on Terrorism in 2025.
“Punjab has the most sensitive of the military installations including the GHQ in Rawalpindi. Also, Punjab is being ruled by the same political party as the Federation and it could have been seen as politically expedient to first pass this amendment in Punjab and for the other provinces to follow suit. This is just a commoner’s view as there has been no larger public debate on this issue,” said advcoate Ahmed.
Pakistan has experimented with extraordinary anti-terrorism measures before, often with controversial results. Punjab’s original anti-terrorism law dates to 1997. The law had been invoked over the years against major political parties across Pakistan, raising concerns that new powers could similarly be used for political purposes.
Grassroots and regional movements, including the Pashtun Tahaffuz Movement (PTM) and the Jammu and Kashmir Joint Awami Action Committee (JKJAAC), have faced bans or been designated as “proscribed organisations” under anti-terrorism laws. Rights groups have warned that such measures can be used to restrict peaceful protests, public assemblies and legitimate political dissent, according to an Amnesty International report.
Activists and lawyers say the central problem is not the need to protect witnesses and judicial officials, but who controls the process and how little oversight the new system provides.
(Edited by Prashant Dixit)