Reporting snapshot · 10 October 2026. Amnesty International published its assessment of the Punjab Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Act 2026 on 9 October, five weeks after the Punjab Assembly passed the law on 31 August. A constitutional challenge is pending before the Lahore High Court; no court has yet ruled on the amendment's validity and the law remains in force.
What happened
Amnesty International said on 9 October 2026 that the Anti-Terrorism (Punjab Amendment) Act, 2026, is “a glaring attack on the right to fair trial in Pakistan” and creates a mechanism for trials “shrouded in complete secrecy”. The organisation published the finding as a four-page public statement, which The Express Tribune reported the following day.
The Amnesty statement examines the amendment’s new “special security case” regime against Pakistan’s obligations under international human-rights law. It argues the regime exceeds the limited exceptions to the right to a public trial and deepens earlier concerns about the misuse of anti-terrorism laws.
The assessment comes five weeks after the Punjab Assembly passed the amendment on 31 August 2026 despite a walkout by opposition lawmakers, and as a legal challenge to the new section works its way through the Lahore High Court.
What the amendment allows
The Act inserts a new Section 21AAA into the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. Under it, a “designated authority” — an officer of at least BS-20 whose own identity is kept confidential and communicated only to the chief justice of the Lahore High Court — may declare a case, or an entire class of cases, a “special security case”.
At the authority’s request, the chief justice assigns the case to an Anti-Terrorism Court judge. Once designated, the identities of the judge, prosecutors, defence counsel, police officers and witnesses are not to be disclosed, and judicial orders carry official titles rather than names. Witnesses are identified by codes, the trial record is sealed, and hearings may be held at secure premises or by video link.
The amendment also gives the designated authority a role in selecting the prosecutor from a panel of five, and allows the regime to be applied to a “class of cases” rather than case by case. It includes no expiry date, and a residual clause lets the government adopt “such other measures as it may deem appropriate”. Al Jazeera’s explainer noted that the law does not define what “extraordinary protection” means, that an accused cannot contest being placed in the special regime, and that the provisions extend through every stage of proceedings, including appeals.
Pakistan’s anti-terrorism law already provides for protective measures under Section 21AA — screens, witness-anonymity orders and in-camera hearings — which courts can order case by case. Amnesty argues the new section shifts that control from the judiciary to an unnamed executive official.
The government’s case
The Act’s stated purpose is to respond to attacks and to threats faced by judges, prosecutors, investigators and witnesses, which it says existing provisions do not adequately protect in high-risk cases.
Defending the bill in the assembly on 31 August, Speaker Malik Muhammad Ahmad Khan cited the human cost of militancy, recalling that terrorism had claimed more than 100,000 lives in Pakistan and pointing to attacks on places of worship, Dawn reported. He argued that cases had collapsed for want of witness protection and said democratic countries, including the United States, had used anonymous courts for extreme threats.
Al Jazeera reported that the legislator who tabled the bill, Khalid Mahmood Ranjha, said the chief justice — not the designated authority — nominates the trial judge, and rejected the charge of executive interference. “This law [is] only for hardened terrorists,” he said, calling the criticism “propaganda to politicise and make the law controversial”. No single attack or case was publicly named as the trigger.
The fair-trial objections
Amnesty’s central objection is that the criteria for designation are vague and cannot be challenged. It points to Section 21AAA(5)(b), which it reads as giving the designated authority full discretion to decide whether a case or class of cases needs extraordinary protection, with the chief justice bound by that decision. The authority is not required to give reasons or a written order, and no oversight mechanism is provided, the organisation says.
It also argues that blanket non-disclosure of witnesses and police officers is incompatible with a fair trial, because credibility is tied to identity, and that hiding judges, defence counsel and prosecutors is incompatible with the requirement of a competent, independent and impartial tribunal. Amnesty notes that General Comment 32 of the UN Human Rights Committee has described trials by “faceless judges” as often incompatible with international human-rights law. Sealing the trial record, it adds, would leave an appellant unable to point to procedural or substantive errors, while the protections already in Section 21AA show that more targeted measures were available.
The statement cites the comparable Balochistan law enacted in September 2025 and the June 2026 conviction of Baloch activists Mahrang Baloch and Sibghat Ullah Shah, who it says were tried under a secret procedure without being told why or allowed their own counsel. It warns the Punjab law could prompt similar legislation in other provinces.
Where the challenge stands
Opposition Leader in the Punjab Assembly Moeenuddin Riaz Qureshi filed a constitutional petition in the Lahore High Court on 17 September, Dawn reported. The petition argues that Section 21AAA is void under Article 143 because it conflicts with the near-identical Section 21AA, which vests protective powers in the courts; that it violates the rights to open justice and fair trial under Articles 9, 10-A and 14, equality before law under Article 25 and separation of powers under Article 175(3); and that it is an excessive delegation of legislative power because it sets no objective criteria. It also cites the UK House of Lords’ 2008 ruling in R v Davis on anonymous witnesses.
At a hearing on 19 September, The Express Tribune reported, Justice Shahram Sarwar Chaudhry sought arguments on the petition’s maintainability and the basis for calling the legislation unconstitutional, and adjourned proceedings after the petitioner’s counsel asked for time. No stay has been reported, and the law remains in force. Amnesty says several petitions have been filed, and the Lahore High Court Bar Association has separately called the law a violation of fundamental rights.
What is still uncertain
- The Lahore High Court has not ruled on the validity of Section 21AAA or suspended its operation, so whether the mechanism survives is unresolved. The case will likely turn first on maintainability and on the scope of a provincial assembly’s power over criminal procedure.
- It is not publicly known whether any Punjab case has been designated a “special security case”. Al Jazeera reported that Balochistan’s comparable 2025 law had been in force for about a year without any publicly known use.
- The government has not named a specific incident that prompted the amendment, and Punjab records only a small share of Pakistan’s terrorism deaths, a gap critics say undercuts the urgency. Ministers say the law targets only hardened terrorists, and its interaction with federal law and the Code of Criminal Procedure remains untested.
Sources & reporting notes
This is a synthesis of published material, not eyewitness reporting. Sources were reviewed on 10 October 2026 (Asia/Karachi). The article's account of what the amendment does rests on the published text as summarised by Amnesty International, Dawn and Al Jazeera; the assessment of its legality is attributed to Amnesty, the petitioners and the cited lawyers and bodies, and no court has yet ruled.
- Primary source — Amnesty International public statement: "Secret trials allowed under Anti-Terrorism (Punjab Amendment) Act, 2026"Published 9 October 2026 · The organisation's full fair-trial analysis of Section 21AAA, its international-law objections, and its account of the amendment's passage and challenges.
- Independent source — The Express Tribune: "Amnesty International says Punjab anti-terror law raises concern on 'right to fair trial'"Published 10 October 2026 · Reports the statement, the amendment's provisions and the earlier Lahore High Court proceedings.
- Independent source — Dawn: "Opposition walks out as Punjab Assembly passes controversial Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Bill 2026"Published 31 August 2026 · The passage of the bill, the assembly debate, the speaker's security justification and the detailed content of Section 21AAA.
- Independent source — Dawn: "Punjab opposition leader moves LHC against law allowing trials under confidential regime in terrorism cases"Published 17 September 2026 · The opposition leader's petition, its constitutional arguments and the relief sought.
- Independent source — The Express Tribune: "LHC seeks arguments on anti-terror bill's legality"Published 19 September 2026 · The maintainability hearing before Justice Shahram Sarwar Chaudhry and the adjournment.
- Background source — Al Jazeera: "Pakistan's Punjab allows 'secret' terrorism trials: Why it's controversial"Published 3 September 2026 · An explainer on the law's mechanics, the government's rationale, critics' responses and comparative provincial legislation.
.jpg){kind=link}