LAHORE: Opposition lawmakers and the Judicial Activism Panel (JAP) have moved the Punjab governor to block the Anti-Terrorism (Punjab Amendment) Bill, 2026, warning that the proposed law would create “secret and executive-controlled” trials that violate fundamental rights.

Opposition Leader in Punjab Assembly Moeen Riaz Qureshi, PTI MPAs Ejaz Shafi and Sheikh Imtiaz Mehmood, the JAP and other concerned citizens have submitted an urgent constitutional representation to the governor requesting him to withhold assent to the bill and return it to the assembly for reconsideration under Article 116(2)(b).

The representation states the bill was passed by the Punjab Assembly on Sept 1, 2026 amid a complete opposition walkout. It maintains that legislation affecting citizens’ liberty, dignity, due-process protections and fair-trial rights must not be enacted without transparent deliberation and full parliamentary scrutiny.

In a similar representation sent to the governor, the chief minister, the PA speaker and the chief secretary earlier on Aug 31, the petitioners have objected to the proposed insertion of section 21AAA into the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, arguing it would allow for “faceless” criminal trials where the identities of judges, prosecutors, defence counsel and witnesses could be concealed, and where an unnamed executive authority would control case classification, witness coding and sealed proceedings.

They say the provision violates Articles 4, 9, 10A, 14, 25, 175(3) and other constitutional guarantees of fair trial, judicial independence and may also be void under Article 143 for encroaching on a federal law. While supporting protection for judges and witnesses, they contend such safeguards must be “narrowly tailored, case-specific and court-supervised”; but not as blanket secrecy.

They have warned they will challenge the law in the Lahore High Court and Supreme Court, if it is assented to in its present form.

The representation signatories emphasise that they fully support effective protection for judges, prosecutors, witnesses, victims and court staff against intimidation and reprisals. However, they contend that security measures cannot lawfully extinguish the essential constitutional features of a criminal court, including judicial independence, transparency, impartiality, meaningful defence rights, reasoned decisions and effective appellate scrutiny.

The representation maintains that an accused person must be able to know the lawful identity and authority of the judicial officer deciding the case, seek recusal where appropriate, challenge conflicts of interest, consult counsel freely, test prosecution evidence and pursue a meaningful appeal.

It further submits that Article 10A guarantees fair trial and a process in which the identity of the judge is concealed, proceedings are sealed, witnesses are coded or voice-distorted without case-specific judicial safeguards, and executive officials determine the architecture of the trial would negate rather than qualify the constitutional right to a fair trial.

The document also raises concern under Article 175(3), which mandates the separation of the judiciary from the executive. It argues that allowing an executive or administrative officer to designate cases for special treatment, choose prosecutorial arrangements, regulate secrecy, control witness identity measures or otherwise shape criminal-trial procedure would amount to an unconstitutional encroachment upon the judicial domain.

The representation also contends that the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 is a federal statute enacted by Parliament, and that any provincial measure inconsistent with or repugnant to that federal framework may be void under Article 143. It calls for a formal, written and published legal opinion on the Punjab Assembly’s legislative competence to amend or supplement the federal anti-terrorism regime.

The signatories also rely on Pakistan’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture. They note that international fair-trial standards permit limited protective measures. The representation argues that such standards do not support blanket secrecy.

The representation states that existing law already provides judicially supervised tools to protect participants in sensitive cases. It refers in particular to section 21 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, which permits in-camera proceedings. The authors, therefore, argue that the proper response to security concerns is stronger implementation, court security, witness-protection capacity and prosecution of intimidation, not dismantling normal constitutional safeguards.

The signatories have requested that the bill be referred to a Special Select Committee or Standing Committee for scrutiny; and subjected to a comprehensive constitutional review. They have further sought consultation with the Lahore High Court, bars and criminal-law experts. Any future measure, they submit, must be narrowly tailored, judicially authorised on a case-specific basis, supported by written reasons, subject to proportionality review and meaningful appellate oversight, and include a clear sunset clause and parliamentary supervision.

Published in Dawn, September 3rd, 2026