Pakistan’s Punjab allows ‘secret’ terrorism trials: Why it’s controversial

Published On 3 Sep 20263 Sep 2026.

Key points

• After opposition politicians staged a walkout in protest, the Anti-Terrorism (Punjab Amendment) Bill 2026 passed the Punjab Assembly on August 31.
• Ahmer Rasheed Bhatti, the independent legislator affiliated with jailed opposition leader Imran Khan's Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) party, led objections on the floor.
• Since 1997, been applied against almost every major political party in Pakistan, he remarked the law has.
• The official's identity is kept confidential, known only to the chief justice of the Lahore High Court.
• Khalid Mahmood Ranjha, the legislator who tabled the bill, informed Al Jazeera that the chief justice, not the designated authority, nominates the trial judge.

Islamabad, Pakistan – Politicians in Punjab, Pakistan's most populous province, have passed a law allowing terrorism trials to be held in near-total secrecy, with the judge, prosecutor and witnesses permitted to remain anonymous.

Under the law, a person facing the country's most serious criminal charge could be convicted without learning who heard the case against them. This person prosecuted it or who testified.

Meanwhile, the trial record can be sealed, and an appeal could be heard by judges never informed who presided over the original trial.

Four days earlier, the administration had appeared to relent, agreeing to have the bill reviewed by the law department or a parliamentary committee.

When it returned to the floor, it was unchanged and passed without amendment on Monday.

Meanwhile, the law has drawn criticism from opposition politicians, lawyers, rights groups and analysts. This person say it concentrates enormous power in a single, unnamed official and could be applied against administration critics. What does the new law do?

For context, the law lets the administration appoint a senior bureaucrat as a "designated authority" tasked with deciding what cases are to be heard under the special provisions earmarked in the legislation.

Meanwhile, the official's identity is kept confidential, known only to the chief justice of the Lahore High Court.

Meanwhile, the official can declare any terrorism case, or even a whole category of them, a "special security case" if they conclude that the individuals involved need special "protection".

Notably, the law does not clearly define the parameters that need to be met, and the accused cannot contest being placed under this category. Once the official requests it, the chief justice assigns the case to a sitting anti-terrorism court judge. A panel of five public prosecutors is drawn up, and the official picks one.

From there, the identities of the judge, prosecutor, police officers, witnesses and defence lawyers cannot be disclosed under any circumstances. Official titles are applied instead of names, and court orders are signed without revealing who signed them.

Witnesses are identified only by codes. Hearings can be held over videolink, including from inside a prison, with voice-altering technology applied to disguise participants.

Meanwhile, the case file is sealed and held jointly by the chief justice and the official.

For context, the law includes no expiry date, and a final clause allows the administration to adopt "such other measures as it may deem appropriate", leaving room to add further powers without further legislation. Why is the administration doing this, and why now?

Notably, the government's official justification, laid out in the bill itself, points to rose cases of attacks by armed groups, and rising threats faced by judges, prosecutors, investigators and witnesses. It argues that the existing law does not adequately protect them.

Speaker Malik Muhammad Ahmad Khan, on the floor of the assembly, invoked Pakistan's toll from terrorism over the past two decades to argue that the assembly was the right forum to strengthen prosecutions.

Khalid Mahmood Ranjha, the legislator who tabled the bill, informed Al Jazeera that the chief justice, not the designated authority, nominates the trial judge. "There is no interference of the executive, " he remarked.

He dismissed fears that the law could be applied against political opponents.

"It is just an apprehension, " the politician remarked, calling the criticism "propaganda to politicise and make the law controversial". "This law only for hardened terrorists."

But no single attack or case has been publicly named as the trigger.

Punjab additionally records only a small share of Pakistan's terrorism-related deaths each year.

For context, the vast majority occur in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan. It together account for more than 90 percent of the country's terrorism deaths.

Al Jazeera contacted Azma Bokhari, Punjab's provincial minister for information, Marriyum Aurangzeb, senior minister in the Punjab administration, and Rana Muhammad Iqbal, Punjab's law minister, but did not receive a response. What are critics saying?

Rida Hosain, a Lahore-based constitutional lawyer, remarked the threats facing judges, prosecutors and witnesses in Pakistan are real.

"There is no denying that Pakistan's people and land have paid a devastating price for terrorism, " she informed Al Jazeera. But she remarked no one who has actually read the amendment "can reasonably claim that it is consistent with due process".

Opposition politicians argued the law violates the constitutional right to a fair trial and hands judicial-style powers to an unelected official with no oversight.

"It creates a parallel procedure in which the executive, not the court, decides what a fair trial will look like, " he informed Al Jazeera.

Notably, the designated authority must consult the chief justice, he remarked, but does not need their agreement. Hosain remarked the secrecy itself removes a basic safeguard.

"By introducing faceless courts, an accused is deprived of the ability to challenge judicial bias and safeguard judicial impartiality, " she informed Al Jazeera. "While this law remains in force, the right to a fair trial and due process is effectively suspended in Punjab." The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) additionally raised the alarm.

"The bill does not adequately define the circumstances in which these extraordinary powers may be invoked, " the commission's spokesperson informed Al Jazeera.

That, HRCP remarked, creates scope for abuse against ordinary citizens, political opponents or protesters in the name of security.

Mian Dawood, a Lahore-based constitutional lawyer, remarked existing law already lets courts protect witnesses and hold closed hearings under a judge's control.

Notably, the new law, he remarked, moves that control to the executive rather than filling a gap. He remarked someone wrongly caught up in the system would have little recourse. Remedies such as a malicious-prosecution claim exist on paper but are "impracticable" in Pakistan's courts, he remarked.

"A citizen has to suffer the misuse of powers by the state authorities, " the constitutional expert remarked.

Majid Nizami, a Lahore-based analyst, informed Al Jazeera that Punjab province's original antiterrorism law – enacted in 1997 and now amended with the controversial new provisions – was additionally misused.

"It looked very good on paper too, " Nizami remarked. "But what happened, eventually, was that it was used for political point-scoring and political manoeuvring."

In short, pakistan's Punjab allows 'secret' terrorism trials: Why it's controversial is the central thread here, and readers can expect follow-up reporting as the picture becomes clearer.