The proposed amendment introduces Section 21AAA into the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, creating a category of “special security cases” where judges, prosecutors, police officers, witnesses, defense counsel and others involved in the proceedings are considered to require extraordinary protection.

Under the proposed Section 21AAA, the identities of judges, prosecutors, police officers, witnesses, defense counsel and other persons connected with a special security case may be withheld.

The Bill provides for a government-nominated officer, not below BS-20 or equivalent, who can determine whether a case or even a class of cases should be treated as a special security case.

“When the protection of those who deliver justice risks weakening the justice they are meant to deliver.”

Imagine standing before a court that has the power to decide your fate, yet the process through which that decision is made remains beyond your reach. You know that a judgment will determine your future, but the institutions behind that judgment seem distant, inaccessible and, at times, almost invisible.

A court is not merely a room in which a judge sits and an order is pronounced. Justice depends upon something deeper: transparency, accountability, the right to be heard, the ability to challenge evidence, access to counsel, and a meaningful opportunity to question the process that may ultimately determine a person’s liberty, dignity or life. When these elements begin to disappear behind layers of secrecy, justice risks becoming faceless.

The danger of a faceless justice system is not limited to the question of whether a decision is legally correct. It concerns whether the person affected by that decision can understand, participate in and meaningfully challenge the process that produced it. A judgment may carry the authority of law, but authority alone cannot substitute for fairness.

Pakistan’s Constitution does not treat fair trial as a privilege reserved for circumstances. Article 10A guarantees the right to a fair trial and due process. Article 9 protects life and liberty according to law, while Article 14 recognizes the inviolability of human dignity. These guarantees are not decorative promises. They represent the minimum conditions under which the State may exercise its coercive power over an individual. Yet the distance between constitutional guarantees and their practical experience remains a serious concern.

For an ordinary person, justice can........

© Minute Mirror