There is no question that Pakistan needs strong laws to deal with terrorism. Judges, prosecutors, witnesses and police officers involved in terrorism cases can face very real threats. Protecting them is not only reasonable; it is the responsibility of the state. But there is another responsibility that cannot be pushed aside: protecting the right of an accused person to a fair trial.
This is why the Punjab Assembly’s passage of the Punjab Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Bill 2026 deserves serious public discussion. The bill introduces a system for what it calls “special security cases”, under which the identities of judges, prosecutors, police officers, witnesses and defence lawyers could be kept confidential. A government-designated officer would also have the power to declare a case a special security case. The intention may be to protect people involved in dangerous terrorism cases. But good intentions are not enough when fundamental rights are involved.
Fair Trial Cannot Become a Secondary Concern
Article 10-A of Pakistan’s Constitution guarantees the right to a fair trial and due process. That right is particularly important when the state is accusing someone of a serious crime and seeking to deprive them of their liberty. Of course, security sometimes requires restrictions. Witnesses may need protection. Court proceedings may have to be held away from public view. Sensitive information may need to be kept confidential. But there is a line between protecting a trial and making the trial itself so secretive that the accused struggles to properly defend himself. That is the concern being raised over the Punjab bill.
If the identity of a judge is withheld, how does the defence raise a genuine concern about possible bias or seek recusal? If witnesses appear only through codes or protected identities, how can the defence fully test their evidence? And if important records are sealed, will an appeal still provide the meaningful review that a fair trial requires? These questions deserve clear answers before such powers become part of the legal system.
Pakistan Has Been Here Before
There is another reason to be cautious: Pakistan has a long history of laws created for exceptional circumstances eventually being used in circumstances that were never supposed to fall within their original purpose. The Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was introduced to deal with terrorism and serious violence. Over the years, however, anti-terrorism provisions have also appeared in cases involving political protests and political activity.
During the 2014 political sit-ins in Islamabad, terrorism provisions were included in cases registered against political leaders and workers. In 2020, terrorism charges were added to a case involving PML-N leaders Maryam Nawaz and Capt (retd) Muhammad Safdar following a clash outside the NAB Lahore office. The more recent political turmoil has produced further examples. Anti-terrorism provisions have been widely used in cases arising from the violence of May 9, 2023, including prosecutions involving PTI supporters. None of this automatically proves that the current amendment will be used against political opponents. That would be an unfair conclusion without evidence. But history does tell us something important: powers created for extraordinary situations can eventually find their way into ordinary political disputes. That possibility alone should make lawmakers careful.
The Real Danger Is What Happens Tomorrow
Perhaps the easiest mistake in politics is to judge a law according to the people currently in power. A government may genuinely believe that additional powers are necessary today. But governments change. Political parties move from government to opposition. The people who support a powerful law today may find themselves facing it tomorrow. That is why constitutional safeguards are designed to survive changes in government.
The concern surrounding the Punjab amendment is not simply about whether judges or witnesses should be protected. They should. The bigger question is who gets to decide when secrecy is necessary, how far that secrecy can go, and what safeguards remain for the accused? Rights groups, including the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, have expressed concern that the proposed framework could undermine fair-trial protections by allowing the identities of key participants to remain undisclosed. That criticism should not simply be dismissed as political opposition.
Security and Justice Can Coexist
Pakistan does need better protection for judges, prosecutors and witnesses. But protecting them does not necessarily require creating a parallel system of secret justice. There are other possibilities: stronger witness-protection programmes, secure courtrooms, restricted disclosure of sensitive information, in-camera proceedings where genuinely necessary, and most importantly judicial oversight over any restrictions on openness.
The decision to restrict fundamental rights should not rest too heavily with the executive branch. The safer approach would be to make any secrecy necessary, proportionate and case-specific, with the judiciary retaining meaningful control over how and when it is used. That would allow the state to address genuine security threats without creating a system that could later be exploited.
A Law Must Be Safe Even in the Wrong Hands
This is ultimately the test that should be applied to the amendment. We should not ask only whether today’s government can be trusted with these powers. We should ask whether any future government, including one we strongly distrust, should have them. That is a much harder question and perhaps the more important one. Pakistan has fought terrorism for decades. The state has lost soldiers, police officers, judges and civilians in that fight. Nobody can seriously argue that terrorism should be treated lightly.
But defeating terrorism does not require abandoning the principles of justice. The Anti-Terrorism Act should help the state prosecute terrorists effectively while ensuring that innocent people are not trapped by an overly broad system. The two objectives are not enemies. In fact, they depend on each other. A justice system earns public trust when people know that even the most serious accusations will be tested fairly.
Punjab’s lawmakers should therefore take a second look at the proposed changes. Protect judges. Protect witnesses. Protect prosecutors. Protect the public. But protect the fair trial as well. Because once secrecy becomes normal in the name of security, restoring transparency may prove much harder than removing it was.
References
