The Punjab Assembly’s passage of the Punjab Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Bill, 2026, on Monday, amid protests and a walkout by opposition lawmakers, raises serious questions about the direction in which the country is moving on fundamental rights and rule of law. Under the new provisions, terrorism cases could be tried under a highly confidential regime in which the identities of judges, prosecutors, defence lawyers and witnesses would be kept secret. Legal experts have condemned the legislation, arguing that it takes away the right to a fair trial. The Punjab government, however, has defended the bill by pointing to the enormous human cost of terrorism. It says that the war on terror has claimed almost 100,000 lives in Pakistan, including those of high-profile figures, and that terrorists have carried out attacks on places of worship. It also argues that terrorists have often gone free because witnesses could not be adequately protected. The government’s argument, therefore, is that stronger legal protections are necessary to ensure that terrorism cases can be prosecuted effectively.
The problem is that protecting witnesses and ensuring the security of judges and lawyers does not require dismantling the right to a fair trial or handing extraordinary and potentially arbitrary powers to the executive. Under the proposed law, a designated authority – an officer of at least BS-20 whose own identity would remain confidential – could declare a case or even a class of cases a ‘special security case’. At the request of this authority, the chief justice of the Lahore High Court would assign the case to an anti-terrorism court judge. This arrangement gives enormous discretion to an executive official while making it harder for an accused person to know who is exercising power over their case and to challenge decisions made under the law. That is particularly troubling given that anti-terrorism courts have not always been confined to the prosecution of conventional acts of terrorism. If the identity of the judge hearing a case is concealed, an accused person would be unable to challenge many aspects of the proceedings as is normally possible in an open and accountable judicial system. The principle at stake here is bigger than any particular government or political party.
There are already warning signs elsewhere in Punjab’s recent legislative agenda. Observers have pointed to similarities between this bill and the Punjab Control of Habitual Offenders and Anti-Social Behaviour Bill, 2026. The breadth of those proposed powers was alarming enough to attract objections even from within the ruling PML-N. Such sweeping powers, critics argued, threatened every citizen while providing inadequate legal recourse against the state. The lesson should have been obvious: the PML-N may not be the target of such legislation today, but governments change, political alliances collapse and those in power eventually find themselves in opposition. The very powers a ruling party creates to deal with its opponents can, sooner or later, be turned against it. We have said this before and we will say it again: the PML-N needs to learn from its past mistakes. History repeatedly shows that draconian laws have a habit of coming back to bite the hands that signed them. The state has a legitimate responsibility to protect its citizens from terrorism. It must protect witnesses. It must ensure the physical security of judges, prosecutors, lawyers and others involved in terrorism cases. It must ensure that terrorists are prosecuted and punished. But the fight against terrorism cannot become a licence to erode fundamental rights.
