Opposition walks out as Punjab Assembly passes controversial Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Bill 2026

LAHORE: The Punjab Assembly on Monday passed the controversial Punjab Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Bill, 2026, despite objections and a full walkout by opposition lawmakers.

The session saw heated exchanges between government members and the opposition, centred on a debate between Punjab Assembly Speaker Malik Muhammad Ahmad Khan and Opposition Leader Moin Riaz Qureshi over the legal and constitutional implications of the new legislation.

Addressing the house, Speaker Khan issued a ruling confirming that the bill could legally be placed on the agenda, citing Article 142 of the Constitution concerning criminal-law jurisdiction.

Defending the move, the speaker referred to his personal experiences from the 1990s, recalling how terrorism claimed more than 100,000 lives in Pakistan, including those of high-profile figures such as Col (retd) Shuja Khanzada and Captain Mubeen, and led to attacks on places of worship such as Data Darbar.

He argued that, in the past, terrorists often walked free due to a lack of witness protection and physical security. He noted that even democratic nations such as the US had established “faceless” or anonymous courts to deal with extreme terror threats, urging the opposition to propose constructive amendments rather than block the bill.

However, Qureshi fiercely condemned the law, labelling it “draconian” and calling it a “bill to crush the citizens of Punjab”.

He accused the ruling government of introducing the amendment to target political rivals, particularly PTI leaders and activists, much like previous defamation and National Accountability Bureau laws.

He raised concerns over a provision under which a Grade-20 designated official would have the authority to advise the chief justice of the Lahore High Court on whether cases should be classified as “special security cases”.

Joining the debate, opposition lawmaker Ahmar Rashid Bhatti read out on the floor of the House an opinion column he had written for a daily newspaper, comparing the proposed law to a 1909 British colonial-era act that was opposed by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan.

He warned that allowing the identities and voices of judges, prosecutors, defence lawyers and witnesses to be concealed or altered would violate Article 10-A of the Constitution, which guarantees the fundamental right to a fair and transparent trial.

Following the intense debate, opposition members chanted slogans against the bill and walked out of the hall. As they exited, lawmaker Waqas Mann pointed out a lack of quorum, but the treasury benches successfully rallied enough members to maintain the quorum.

With the opposition absent, their proposed amendments were rejected, and the House voted to approve the Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Bill, 2026.

The Anti-Terrorism (Punjab Amendment) Bill 2026

The bill seeks to insert a new Section 21AAA into the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, creating a “special security case” mechanism for cases in which participants are considered to require extraordinary protection.

Under the proposed law, a designated authority — an officer of at least BS-20 whose identity would itself remain confidential — could declare a case or a class of cases a special security case. At the authority’s request, the chief justice of the Lahore High Court would assign the case to an Anti-Terrorism Court judge.

The bill also proposes that the identities of judges, public prosecutors, defence counsel, police officers, witnesses and other persons involved in such proceedings “shall not be disclosed”.

Judicial orders would carry official titles instead of the judges’ names, while witnesses would be identified through codes issued by the designated authority.

The proceedings could be held at secure premises or conducted through video links, including from prisons. The proposed provision would also allow the government to adopt other security measures it considers appropriate.

An accused person would not be able to challenge the constitution of the tribunal, seek the recusal of a judge or effectively question the judge’s independence if the judge’s identity remained concealed.

Under the existing anti-terrorism act, the trial record is required to be transmitted to the high court, while the accused is entitled to a copy of the judgment. However, keeping the record sealed with both the chief justice and the designated authority could make appellate scrutiny difficult.

The proposed provision also gives the designated authority a role in selecting prosecutors. The prosecutor general would provide a panel of five public prosecutors, from which the designated authority would assign one to the case.

Another contentious provision allows the regime to be applied to a “class of cases”, rather than requiring a case-by-case judicial determination.

The bill’s “notwithstanding” clause, which gives the proposed provision effect over the Anti-Terrorism Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure, has also been flagged as a potential source of conflict with federal legislation and constitutional provisions.