In Lahore, proceedings on the contentious Anti-Terrorism (Punjab Amendment) Bill 2026 were postponed by Punjab Assembly Speaker Malik Muhammad Ahmad Khan following significant objections from opposition members. The bill, which proposes significant alterations to current anti-terrorism legislation, faced criticism from opposition lawmaker Rana Aftab Ahmad Khan on the grounds of constitutional and procedural issues, particularly regarding the provincial assembly’s jurisdiction.
The proposed legislation aims to introduce a new section into the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997, allowing for the establishment of ‘special security cases’ where extraordinary protection is considered necessary. Under this proposal, the identities of those involved in such trials, including judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and witnesses, would remain confidential. The decision to classify a case as a special security case would be made by a high-ranking officer whose identity would also be kept secret.
Rana Aftab of the PTI labeled the bill as unconstitutional, asserting that it undermines the principles of open and fair trials. He argued that such secrecy could lead to ‘anonymous proceedings,’ potentially infringing on the rights of the accused to challenge the tribunal’s constitution or question the independence of judges.
Contrarily, Law Minister Rana Muhammad Iqbal argued that the bill had been thoroughly examined by the standing committee and that the opposition should have voiced their concerns during those discussions.
The bill’s critics highlight several contentious issues, such as the potential for abuse due to the lack of a clear definition of ‘extraordinary protection’ and the absence of mechanisms for challenging or reviewing the classification of cases. Furthermore, the proposal to allow the executive authority a role in selecting prosecutors and managing trial records has raised alarms about the separation of judicial and executive powers, a principle enshrined in the Constitution.
Existing laws, such as Section 21 of the Anti-Terrorism Act and the Punjab Witness Protection Act 2018, already provide frameworks for protecting participants in terrorism trials. Critics argue that the new bill may create overlapping legal structures rather than addressing any specific legal gaps.
The proposal’s ‘notwithstanding’ clause, which prioritizes the new provisions over existing laws, could also lead to conflicts with federal legislation and constitutional mandates.
Despite its aim to enhance security for those involved in terrorism cases, the bill’s approach, particularly regarding judicial anonymity and an expanded role for executive authorities, remains a focal point of contention. The debate centers on finding a balance between ensuring safety and upholding constitutional guarantees of fair trials and judicial independence.
