Pakistan's Punjab Assembly passed a new law on 31 August 2026 that has become one of the most talked-about legal changes in the country this year. The law is called the Anti-Terrorism (Punjab Amendment) Act 2026. It changes the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997, which is Pakistan's main law against terrorism.
The new law creates something never seen before in Pakistan's legal history: "special security cases." In these cases, the judge, the prosecutor, the defence lawyer, the police, and the witnesses all stay hidden. Their names are not shared. The case records are sealed. The trial happens in a place that is not told to the public. Even the appeal stage follows the same secret process.
Supporters say the law protects witnesses and judges from terror threats. Critics say it ends the right to a fair, open trial. Amnesty International, a well-known human rights group, called it a "glaring attack" on fair-trial rights in a statement issued on 9 October 2026.
The law is already being challenged in the Lahore High Court. Several petitions are pending, including one filed by the Punjab Assembly Opposition Leader, Moeenuddin Riaz Qureshi.
This article explains everything in simple words. What is the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997? What exactly did the 2026 amendment change? What does a "special security case" look like in real life? What rights does an accused person still have? What happens to witnesses? How do these secret trials differ from normal anti-terrorism court trials? And where does the debate about Article 10-A of the Constitution fit in?
What is the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
Before we understand the new change, we need to understand the old law.
The Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (often shortened to ATA) is Pakistan's main law for dealing with terrorism. The government passed it after a series of violent incidents in the 1990s. The law defines what counts as a "terrorist act" — things like bombings, killings, kidnappings, and attacks meant to spread fear or pressure the government.
The law also created special courts called Anti-Terrorism Courts, or ATCs. These courts hear terrorism cases faster than regular courts. Normal criminal trials can take years. ATC trials are meant to finish quickly, because terror cases involve serious threats to public safety.
Under the ATA, the punishments are very strict. Terrorism charges can lead to life imprisonment or even the death penalty. That is why cases under this law are treated as some of the most serious in Pakistan's legal system.
The ATA has been amended many times over the years. Governments add new sections or change old ones as the security situation changes. The 2026 Punjab amendment is the latest big change, but it applies only in the province of Punjab — not in the rest of Pakistan.
How the law was passed
The Anti-Terrorism (Punjab Amendment) Act 2026 was passed by the Punjab Assembly on 31 August 2026. The passage was not smooth. Opposition members staged a walkout before the vote, meaning they left the assembly hall in protest instead of voting.
After the assembly passed the bill, the Governor of Punjab gave his assent, which is the formal step that turns a bill into law. With the governor's signature, the amendment became part of Punjab's legal code.
The amendment works by inserting a brand-new section into the original 1997 law. The new section is numbered 21AAA. Everything new that the 2026 law does flows from this single section.
What Section 21AAA creates: "special security cases"
The heart of the new law is a new category of cases called "special security cases." This is a completely new idea in Pakistani law.
Here is how the category works, step by step.
A senior officer decides which cases qualify. The law says a "designated BS-20 executive officer" can designate any case, or any class of cases, as a special security case. BS-20 is a very senior rank in Pakistan's government service. In simple terms, this means a top-level government officer — not a judge — gets to decide which cases go into this secret process.
Once a case is designated, identities stay hidden. The law says the identities of the judge, the prosecutor, the defence counsel, the police, and the witnesses "shall not be disclosed." This means nobody is told who is hearing the case, who is arguing it, who is defending the accused, or who is testifying. This is the "secret trial" part that has caused the most debate.
Records are sealed. The case file — all the papers, statements, and evidence — is sealed. Sealed means it cannot be opened or read by people who are not part of the trial.
The trial happens at an undisclosed secure location. The proceedings do not take place in the normal courtroom. They happen at a secure location that is not announced to the public.
The secrecy continues into appeals. The law says the same regime extends to appellate proceedings. This means when the convicted person appeals to a higher court, the appeal is also handled under the same secret system — hidden identities, sealed records, undisclosed location.
Secret trials vs open courts: why this is such a big deal
To understand why lawyers and human rights groups are worried, it helps to know how normal trials work in Pakistan.
Pakistan follows the common-law system. One of its oldest and most basic principles is that trials should be open to the public. Anyone can walk into a courtroom and watch. Journalists can report what happens. This openness is not just tradition — it is a safeguard. When the public can see the trial, it is harder for anyone to cheat the accused or hide a mistake.
Open courts also protect the accused in a different way. If the whole country can see how the trial was conducted, a wrong verdict becomes harder to defend. That is why the right to an open trial is connected to the right to a fair trial.
Secret trials turn this idea upside down. When nobody knows who the judge is, nobody can check whether the judge is qualified, independent, or biased. When nobody knows who the witnesses are, the public cannot judge whether their statements are believable. When records are sealed, even after the trial, no one can review what actually happened in the courtroom.
Supporters of the law give a different view. They say that in terrorism cases, judges, witnesses, and lawyers face real danger. Terrorist groups have threatened and attacked people connected to trials. If a witness knows their name will be kept secret, they will be more willing to come forward and tell the truth. In this view, secrecy protects justice rather than harming it.
Both sides are talking about justice. They just disagree about what justice requires in dangerous cases.
What rights does an accused person still keep?
This is the question most people ask. Even in a secret trial, the accused does not lose every right. Here is what the legal position looks like, based on the law and general fair-trial principles.
The right to a defence lawyer. The law does not remove the right to legal counsel. The accused still has a lawyer to defend them. What is new is that the identity of the defence counsel is not disclosed to the public. The accused person themselves knows who their lawyer is — the secrecy is from outsiders, not from the accused.
The right to cross-examine witnesses. Cross-examination is the process where the defence lawyer asks the prosecution's witnesses tough questions to test whether they are telling the truth. This is one of the strongest tools a defence has. The new law does not cancel cross-examination. However, when witnesses are anonymous — when even their names are hidden — cross-examination becomes much harder. A lawyer can question what a witness says, but cannot easily investigate who the witness is, what their background is, or whether they have a reason to lie. This is one of the critics' main concerns.
The right to know the case against them. In any fair trial, the accused must know what evidence the prosecution has. The new law seals records from the public, but the accused and their lawyer still need to see the evidence to prepare a defence. How this works in practice — how a sealed-record system shares evidence with the defence — is one of the unclear areas that the courts may have to sort out.
The right to appeal. The law keeps the right to appeal. But as noted above, the appeal itself happens under the same secret system. So the accused can challenge the verdict, but the challenge is heard in the same hidden way.
The right to be presumed innocent. This is the golden rule of criminal law: every accused person is innocent until proven guilty. The new law does not change this rule. The prosecution must still prove its case. The standard of proof — that guilt must be proven "beyond reasonable doubt" — remains the same.
In short, the accused keeps the main defence rights on paper. The real question is whether those rights work as well in a secret system as they do in an open one. Critics argue that secrecy weakens every one of these rights in practice, even if the law does not cancel them directly.
What happens to witnesses under the new law?
Witness protection is the government's main argument for this law. Let us look at what the law actually does for witnesses.
Under Section 21AAA, a witness's identity is never disclosed. Their name does not appear in public records. They do not appear in an open courtroom where anyone can see their face. The location where they give their statement is kept secret.
For a witness who is afraid of revenge attacks, this is strong protection. In Pakistan's recent history, witnesses in terrorism cases have been threatened, attacked, and killed. Many people refuse to testify because they fear for their lives and their families. The government argues that without strong witness protection, terrorism cases collapse because nobody dares to speak.
But there is a trade-off, and critics point to it clearly. When a witness is completely anonymous, the defence cannot properly test their credibility. In a normal trial, if a witness says "I saw the accused plant the bomb," the defence lawyer can ask: Where were you standing? How do you know the accused? Have you been paid to say this? Do you have a grudge against the accused? Some of these questions can still be asked in a secret trial. But questions about the witness's identity, background, and motives become very difficult when even the lawyer may not know who the witness really is.
Another question is about witness safety after the trial. The law protects identity during proceedings, but long-term protection programs — safe houses, relocation, financial support — are a separate matter that the law does not clearly spell out.
How special security cases differ from normal ATC trials
It is useful to put the old and new systems side by side.
Normal ATC trial under the ATA: - The judge's name is public. Everyone knows which judge is hearing the case. - The prosecutor and defence lawyers are known to the public. - Witnesses testify in court, and their identities are part of the record. - The public and the media can attend and report on proceedings. - Case records are part of the court file and can be reviewed. - Appeals go to the High Court in the normal open process.
Special security case under Section 21AAA: - The judge's identity is not disclosed. - The prosecutor's and defence counsel's identities are not disclosed. - Witnesses' identities are not disclosed. - Proceedings happen at an undisclosed secure location — the public cannot attend. - Records are sealed. - Appeals follow the same secret process. - A BS-20 executive officer (a government official, not a judge) decides which cases enter this category.
The biggest practical difference is who decides and who watches. In a normal trial, a judge runs the case and the public watches. In a special security case, a government officer decides the case goes secret, and then almost nobody watches.
Another important difference is flexibility. In normal trials, closing a courtroom to the public is rare and needs strong reasons, decided by the judge case by case. Under the new law, secrecy is built into the whole category from the start. It is the default, not the exception.
The Article 10-A debate, explained simply
Article 10-A is a part of Pakistan's Constitution. It was added in 2010 through the 18th Amendment. In simple words, it says that every person has the right to a fair trial and due process.
"Due process" means the government must follow fair rules when it takes away someone's liberty or punishes them. It cannot just lock people up or convict them through an unfair system. A fair trial includes things like: knowing the charges against you, having a lawyer, questioning witnesses, and being heard by an independent judge.
Critics of the 2026 amendment say the new law violates Article 10-A. Their argument is straightforward. A trial where you do not know who the judge is, cannot properly test anonymous witnesses, and cannot have the public watch the proceedings is not a fair trial. They say secrecy destroys the basic conditions that make a trial fair.
The government side gives two main answers.
First, they point to Article 142 of the Constitution. This article gives provincial assemblies the power to make laws on subjects in their domain. The argument is that the Punjab Assembly had the legal authority to pass this amendment. In other words: the law was passed properly, by the right body, following the right procedure.
Second, they argue about witness security. They say that fair trial rights must be balanced against the right to life and safety of witnesses, judges, and lawyers. If witnesses are too scared to testify, guilty terrorists walk free — and that is also a failure of justice. In their view, the secrecy provisions make trials fairer in a practical sense, because they allow evidence to be heard that would otherwise never reach a courtroom.
This is the core disagreement. One side says: fairness means openness. The other side says: fairness means protecting the people who make justice possible. The Lahore High Court will now have to decide which view the Constitution supports.
It is worth noting that international law also cares about this question. The right to a fair and public hearing is part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Pakistan has signed. Amnesty International's statement drew on these standards when it called the law a "glaring attack" on fair-trial rights.
The Lahore High Court challenge: where things stand
The new law is not going unchallenged. Several petitions have been filed in the Lahore High Court (LHC) asking the court to strike down the amendment.
One of the petitions was filed by Moeenuddin Riaz Qureshi, the Opposition Leader in the Punjab Assembly. Other petitions have also been filed by lawyers and concerned citizens. The petitions argue that Section 21AAA violates fundamental rights in the Constitution, especially Article 10-A's guarantee of a fair trial and due process.
As of mid-October 2026, these petitions are pending. That means the court has received them but has not given a final verdict yet. No final decision has been announced.
This status matters for ordinary readers. When petitions are pending, the law technically remains in force unless the court suspends it. At the same time, the court's final word could change everything — it could uphold the law, strike it down completely, or strike down only parts of it.
Anyone following this story should watch for the LHC's next hearings. The outcome will decide whether secret trials under Section 21AAA continue or come to an end.
Frequently asked questions
Can a case be moved into the special security category in the middle of a trial?
The law allows a designated BS-20 executive officer to designate "any case or class of cases" as a special security case. The wording is broad. It does not clearly say whether a case that started as a normal ATC trial can be shifted into the secret system halfway through. This is one of the unclear areas. If it happens, serious questions would arise about the fairness of changing the rules mid-trial. The courts may need to clarify this point.
Can the media report on special security cases?
The law seals records and hides identities. It does not contain a clear, detailed section about media reporting. But in practice, if the location is undisclosed, identities are hidden, and records are sealed, there is very little for the media to report. Journalists would not be able to attend proceedings or name the people involved. This is one reason press freedom advocates are concerned about the law.
Can the public attend these trials?
No. The proceedings take place at undisclosed secure locations. The public cannot attend because the public is not told where the trial is happening. This is a complete departure from the normal rule that courtrooms are open to everyone.
Does the accused know who the judge is?
The law says identities "shall not be disclosed." The most natural reading is that the accused and their lawyer know who is involved in their own case — the secrecy is aimed at the public, not at the parties. However, the exact practical arrangements are not spelled out in detail, and this may become clearer as cases proceed or as courts interpret the law.
Does this law apply outside Punjab?
No. This is a Punjab Assembly amendment to the federal Anti-Terrorism Act, and it applies in Punjab. Other provinces have their own legal setups. However, if the LHC upholds the law, other provinces might consider similar amendments.
What should I do if someone I know is charged under this law?
Get a lawyer immediately — preferably one experienced in anti-terrorism cases. Do not make public statements about the case. Keep copies of all documents. Because the procedures are new and partly unclear, experienced legal guidance is especially important.
Why this law matters for ordinary Pakistanis
You might think this law only affects terrorists and their lawyers. But laws about trial fairness affect everyone.
First, the category of "special security cases" is decided by a government officer, not a judge. The law speaks of terrorism cases, but the designation power is broad. Citizens and lawyers worry about whether the power could be used more widely than intended.
Second, the right to a fair trial protects ordinary people. Most of us will never face a terrorism charge. But the principles — open courts, known judges, the right to question witnesses — are the same principles that protect anyone accused of any crime. When these principles are weakened in one area of law, it becomes easier to weaken them elsewhere.
Third, witness protection is a real problem that needs a real answer. Pakistan has struggled for years with witnesses who are too afraid to testify. If the new law genuinely helps honest witnesses come forward, that serves justice. The debate is about whether total secrecy is the right tool, or whether there are better ways — like witness protection programs, video testimony, or screened identities — that protect witnesses without closing the whole trial.
The bottom line
The Anti-Terrorism (Punjab Amendment) Act 2026 is one of the most significant changes to Pakistan's justice system in recent years. It creates secret trials for terrorism cases in Punjab, hiding the identities of everyone involved and sealing the records. The government says this is needed to protect witnesses and deliver justice against terrorists. Critics, including Amnesty International, say it destroys the right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 10-A of the Constitution.
The Lahore High Court is now hearing petitions against the law, including one from Opposition Leader Moeenuddin Riaz Qureshi. As of mid-October 2026, no final verdict has been given. Until the court decides, the law stands — and the debate over security versus fairness continues.
This article is legal information, not legal advice. If you or someone you know is affected by this law, consult a qualified lawyer for guidance on your specific case.