The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan has a problem with the province’s newest anti-terrorism law, and it isn’t shy about saying so. On Wednesday, the HRCP came out with a pointed warning about the Punjab Assembly bill fair trial protections it says are now at risk, after lawmakers pushed through the Punjab Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Bill 2026 despite loud opposition on the floor.

The core objection is simple enough to state: certain cases can now be labelled “special security cases,” and once that label is applied, the identities of the judges, prosecutors, police officers, witnesses and even defence lawyers involved can be kept hidden. HRCP fair trial advocates say that’s a lot of secrecy to hand over without much explanation of when or why it should be used.

Background

Punjab’s anti-terrorism courts have existed for decades, built on the 1997 Anti-Terrorism Act. Lawmakers have long argued the law needs updating because judges, prosecutors and witnesses in terrorism cases face real threats, sometimes fatal ones.

The new amendment inserts a fresh section into that 1997 law, Section 21AAA, creating the special security case category. The bill passed the Punjab Assembly on August 31, after the speaker had briefly paused proceedings days earlier when opposition lawmakers objected on constitutional grounds. When it finally came up for a vote, the opposition walked out rather than support it.

This isn’t Punjab’s first brush with this kind of criticism either. A similar national-level anti-terrorism bill drew HRCP’s objections back in 2024, when the commission called preventive-detention powers a threat to due process. The pattern, in other words, isn’t new — just the province.

Details

Here’s how the mechanism is supposed to work. A government-designated officer, holding at least the rank of Grade 20, gets to decide whether a case counts as a special security case. That officer’s own identity stays confidential too, which HRCP concerns center on almost as much as the secrecy around trial participants.

Once a case gets that designation, the chief justice of the Lahore High Court assigns it to an Anti-Terrorism Court judge. From there, proceedings can be conducted virtually, sometimes from inside a prison, using video links, audio-video recording and even voice-modification technology to further mask who’s speaking.

Court records in these cases can be sealed. That means an accused person and their lawyer may struggle to know exactly who testified against them, who prosecuted the case, or who signed off on the ruling. HRCP argues the bill never clearly spells out the threshold for triggering all this secrecy, which leaves room for it to be applied well beyond genuine terrorism threats.

The commission was careful to note it isn’t dismissing the underlying problem. Threats against judges and witnesses in terrorism cases are real, and protecting them is a legitimate state function. What HRCP is pushing back on is the scale of the tool being used to do it.

Quotes

HRCP’s statement points to specific constitutional provisions it believes the bill puts at risk — Articles 9, 10A and 14, covering the security of the person, the right to a fair trial, and the protection of human dignity. It also cites Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which lays out international fair-trial standards Pakistan has signed on to.

On the assembly floor, the objections were more blunt. PTI’s Rana Aftab Ahmad Khan called the bill “unconstitutional” and pressed for open, transparent hearings in terrorism cases rather than the confidential regime the amendment sets up. Other opposition members raised procedural questions too, including whether a provincial legislature even has the authority to restructure trial secrecy in this way.

Impact

For ordinary defendants, the practical effect could be significant. If you can’t verify who’s prosecuting you, who’s judging you, or who testified against you, mounting an effective defence gets a lot harder. That’s the crux of HRCP’s fair trial argument — secrecy protects officials, but it can just as easily protect bad decisions from scrutiny.

There’s a broader angle too. Rights groups have watched a pattern build over the past few years where security justifications get used to expand state power, often with vague enough language that the expansion outlives the threat that justified it. HRCP explicitly frames this bill as part of that pattern, not an isolated case.

The political fallout is already visible. The opposition’s walkout during the vote signals this fight isn’t over on the legislative side, and legal challenges in the courts are a realistic next step given how squarely the bill runs into constitutional fair-trial language.

Conclusion

HRCP isn’t calling for the bill to be scrapped outright — it wants it reconsidered and rewritten so it actually lines up with constitutional and international fair-trial guarantees. Its specific ask is that any special protections for judges or witnesses come with a narrow, clearly defined trigger and independent judicial oversight, so the powers can’t be stretched to cover cases they were never meant for.

What happens next probably plays out on two fronts: continued political pressure from opposition parties in the assembly, and the likelihood that someone challenges the law in court. Given how directly this touches constitutional rights, a legal challenge looks less like a possibility and more like a matter of time.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Punjab Assembly bill that raised concerns about fair trials?

It’s the Anti-Terrorism (Punjab Amendment) Bill 2026, passed by the Punjab Assembly on August 31, 2026. The bill adds a new section to the province’s 1997 Anti-Terrorism Act, creating a category called “special security cases.” Once a case gets that label, the identities of the judges, prosecutors, police officers, witnesses and defence lawyers involved can all be kept confidential, and proceedings can be held virtually with audio and video recording, including voice-modification technology in some instances. Supporters say it’s needed to protect court officials from real threats; critics, including HRCP, say the trigger for using these powers isn’t defined clearly enough.

Why is HRCP concerned about the Punjab Assembly bill?

HRCP’s main worry is that the bill hands out a lot of secrecy without setting clear limits on when it can be used. A single government-designated officer, whose own identity also stays hidden, decides which cases qualify as special security cases. HRCP says that without a tighter definition, these powers could end up being used against ordinary citizens, political opponents, or protesters, not just genuine terrorism suspects. It also flags that hiding the identities of prosecutors, witnesses and judges could make it much harder for an accused person to challenge the evidence against them, which strikes at the heart of what a fair trial is supposed to guarantee.

What are fair-trial guarantees in Pakistan?

Pakistan’s Constitution protects the right to a fair trial mainly through Article 10A, which guarantees due process for everyone, alongside Article 9 on the security of the person and Article 14 on human dignity. These protections generally mean an accused person has the right to know the charges against them, see the evidence, question witnesses, and have their case heard by an identifiable, impartial court. Pakistan has also signed on to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, whose Article 14 sets out similar fair-trial standards at the international level. Laws that introduce broad secrecy around trial participants, like the new Punjab amendment, are the kind of measure rights bodies typically scrutinise closely against these guarantees.