The Punjab government has proposed major amendments to the anti-terrorism law that would introduce a confidential trial mechanism for cases involving individuals deemed to require extraordinary security, including provisions to conceal the identities of judges, prosecutors, defence lawyers and witnesses.
The Anti-Terrorism (Punjab Amendment) Bill 2026 drew strong opposition from PTI lawmaker Rana Aftab, who described it as “unconstitutional” and called for terrorism cases to be tried openly and fairly.
Law Minister Rana Muhammad Iqbal, however, defended the legislation, saying the standing committee had examined the bill in detail and the opposition should have raised its concerns during those proceedings.
The bill proposes inserting Section 21AAA into the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, to establish a “special security case” framework for proceedings where participants are considered to face extraordinary security risks.
Under the proposed provision, a designated BS-20 or above officer, whose identity would also remain confidential, could declare an individual case or an entire class of cases as a special security case. On the authority’s request, the Lahore High Court chief justice would assign the matter to an Anti-Terrorism Court judge.
The legislation proposes keeping the identities of judges, public prosecutors, defence lawyers, police officials, witnesses and other participants confidential. Court orders would carry official designations instead of judges’ names, while witnesses would be referred to through codes issued by the designated authority.
Trials could be conducted at secure locations or through video links, including from prisons. The government would also be empowered to introduce additional security arrangements it considered necessary.
The proposed framework has raised concerns over judicial independence, fair-trial rights and the separation of powers, particularly because it gives an executive authority powers traditionally exercised by the courts.
In his legal and constitutional objections, Mr Aftab argued that the proposed system went beyond witness protection and could result in “anonymous proceedings”.
He maintained that concealing a judge’s identity could prevent an accused from challenging the composition of the tribunal, seeking the judge’s recusal or effectively questioning the judge’s independence.
The proposed sealing of trial records has also raised concerns over the right to appeal. Under the existing anti-terrorism law, trial records are sent to the high court and the accused is entitled to a copy of the judgment.
The legal objections state that keeping records sealed with both the chief justice and the designated authority could hinder effective appellate review.
The bill would also give the designated authority a role in appointing prosecutors. The prosecutor general would submit a panel of five public prosecutors, from which the authority would select one for the case.
Another contentious provision allows the special-security mechanism to cover a “class of cases” rather than requiring a separate determination for each case.
Critics argue that this could create a broad exception to open justice, particularly because the bill does not clearly define “extraordinary protection”. The proposed framework also lacks a specific procedure for challenging a case’s classification, periodic review or a sunset clause.
The proposal has also been questioned on the grounds that existing laws already provide security measures for participants in terrorism cases.
Section 21 of the Anti-Terrorism Act permits courts to hold proceedings in camera and restrict disclosure of the identities of judges, prosecutors, defence counsel and witnesses. The Punjab Witness Protection Act 2018 also provides mechanisms for witness protection and secure proceedings.
Critics say the proposed amendments could therefore create an overlapping legal framework rather than address an existing gap.
Concerns have also been raised over the separation of judicial and executive powers. The legal note argues that matters relating to the conduct of trials, appointment of prosecutors and custody of judicial records should remain within the judicial domain and under high court supervision.
The bill’s “notwithstanding” clause, which would give the proposed provision overriding effect over the Anti-Terrorism Act and Code of Criminal Procedure, has also been flagged as a potential source of conflict with federal laws and constitutional provisions.
The government has proposed the amendments amid security concerns involving judges, prosecutors, investigators and witnesses handling terrorism cases. It says the measures are intended to provide extraordinary protection while preserving fair-trial safeguards.
The legal objections, however, recommend retaining judicial control over the mechanism. They call for judges’ identities to remain known to the parties and appellate courts, with witness anonymity permitted only through a reasoned judicial order.
They also propose removing the provision allowing the mechanism to apply to entire classes of cases and limiting the executive authority’s role to arranging security rather than selecting prosecutors or influencing trial proceedings.
The objections further call for trial records to remain accessible to the high court, judicial review of special-security classifications and the inclusion of a sunset clause.
The debate centres on whether enhanced security for participants in terrorism cases can be provided without undermining judicial independence, fair-trial protections and the right to an effective appeal.
