What are Balochistan’s ‘secret courts’ and how will they function?

QUETTA: The Balochistan Assembly has approved amendments to the Anti-Terrorism Act 2025, allowing for the establishment of “special and secret courts” to hear terrorism-related cases.

According to government functionaries, the special new judicial system aims to protect the identities of judges, lawyers, prosecution witnesses, and others appearing in anti-terrorism cases.

Under the new system, the names of judges, lawyers, prosecutors, and witnesses involved such cases will be kept confidential, and even voice-altering technology will be used to conceal identities.

The Balochistan Assembly passed the Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Bill 2025 during its ongoing session with the stated aim of “providing protection to judges, witnesses, lawyers, and other related persons in terrorism cases.”

PM announces special courts, university quotas for overseas Pakistanis

Maulana Hidayat-ur-Rehman, a member of the “Haq Do” movement, opposed the law, saying that verdicts would now “come through WhatsApp.”

Balochistan Chief Minister Mir Sarfraz Bugti, however, defended it, saying that “extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary measures.”

Constitutional and legal experts, meanwhile, have opposed the amendment, calling it a violation of the Constitution and fundamental rights.

Senator Kamran Murtaza, a senior lawyer, sarcastically said: “It would be better to establish an artificial intelligence-based judicial system and obtain desired verdicts from it rather than passing this amendment.”

What changes have been made to the law?

The amendments have been made in Section 21(AAA) of the Anti-Terrorism Act.

According to the amendments, “if the nominated authority determines that extraordinary protection is indispensable for judges, lawyers, prosecutors, defence counsel, witnesses, or other persons in connection with a case or cases, the Balochistan High Court chief justice will constitute a panel of three judges. The list will then be sent to the nominated authority, which will then appoint one of them to preside over the hearing and proceedings of a case.”

A panel of up to five government prosecutors will also be formed, from which one will be chosen for a case.

Special courts formed for lawyers’ protection

The real identities of all individuals linked to the case — including judges, lawyers, and witnesses—will remain undisclosed, with only their designations mentioned in court records.

Witnesses will be identified through special codes or symbolic references. All judicial records will be sealed, accessible only to the Chief Justice and the nominated authority, the amendments says.

Cases may be conducted using technology such as video conferencing, electronic communication, and audio recording, while voice-distortion technology may also be employed to protect identities.

Where in-person hearings are held, they will take place in a secured, restricted courtroom with access limited to those directly connected to the case. If logistical or security issues arise, hearings may be conducted from prisons or other secure locations via virtual arrangements.

The government of Balochistan will also appoint a nominated authority — an officer of grade 21 or equivalent — to coordinate with the BHC chief justice and assign cases to judges.

Criticism and concerns

During the assembly session, very few opposition members were present. Maulana Hidayat-ur-Rehman argued that under the law, defendants would not even know who was testifying against them. “If an innocent person is killed or denied justice after this law, the current government will be responsible,” he warned, suggesting reforms to the existing judicial system instead.

CM Bugti clarified that the law would not apply to ordinary murder or political cases but only to terrorism-related cases. He said that countries like the United States and France had also passed special laws under extraordinary circumstances such as after the 9/11 terror attacks.

He insisted that defence lawyers would still have access to witnesses, and that judges would continue to preside over trials. “Are we not supposed to provide protection to our judges and prosecutors?” he asked.

Senator Kamran Murtaza, who was also the former president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, criticized the bill, saying, “The Constitution requires open trials. Where will the principle of open court go now? If defendants don’t even know who is testifying against them, how can they instruct their lawyers?”

He said that if courts are meant to deliver “desired” verdicts, “then why not appoint an AI judge instead of passing such laws?”

Habib Tahir, a lawyer linked with the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, said such laws had “never been seen before” and were contrary to fundamental rights. “The Constitution guarantees fair trial — when everything is kept secret, where is the fair trial?” he asked.

He further noted that when access to lawyers is restricted, courts are secretive, and security institutions interfere, justice becomes impossible. While acknowledging the need for judges’ and lawyers’ protection, he said other provisions of the law go against human rights.

He also criticised the lack of consultation with civil society and legal experts before the amendments were introduced.