Strengthening Pakistan’s Justice System Against Terrorism

Pakistan’s longstanding challenge in dealing with terrorism has never been limited to identifying and apprehending suspects. A more difficult problem has been ensuring that arrests lead to credible investigations, admissible evidence and successful prosecutions while protecting judges, prosecutors and witnesses from terrorist retaliation. Weaknesses in the conventional criminal justice system have historically created a gap between apprehension and prosecution, contributing to allegations of unlawful detention and enforced disappearances.

Pakistan’s evolving counterterrorism framework seeks to address this gap by establishing a more structured legal process for dealing with terrorism suspects. The objective is to create a traceable chain from apprehension and investigation to either release or prosecution, rather than leaving the status of detained individuals unclear.

The conventional criminal justice system was primarily designed to deal with ordinary criminality. Terrorist organisations, however, operate differently. They are often transnational, organised through clandestine networks and capable of intimidating witnesses, investigators and judicial officials. The use of encrypted communications, digital networks and other modern technologies has also created evidentiary challenges for traditional prosecution procedures. Pakistan’s historically low conviction and prosecution rates in terrorism cases have highlighted these limitations.

When serious terrorism cases repeatedly fail to reach a conclusion, the consequences extend beyond individual prosecutions. Law-enforcement agencies can face pressure to adopt operational rather than judicial approaches, while terrorist organisations can exploit unresolved cases to promote narratives of missing persons or enforced disappearances. A credible legal mechanism therefore requires not only powers of arrest but also clear safeguards governing detention, investigation and judicial review.

The Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 provides Pakistan’s principal legal framework for terrorism-related offences. Amendments have sought to strengthen the state’s ability to investigate individuals suspected of involvement in terrorism while providing a defined legal basis for detention during inquiry. Section 11-EEEE, as incorporated into the relevant legal framework, provides a mechanism for preventive detention in specified circumstances. In Balochistan, the Anti-Terrorism (Balochistan Amendment) Act 2025 extended this framework at the provincial level, allowing authorities and joint investigation teams to investigate terrorism suspects and gather evidence within a defined period.

The significance of such a mechanism lies in creating a legal bridge between apprehension and prosecution. Instead of an individual disappearing into an undefined investigative process, the framework establishes procedures through which detention can be connected to an inquiry. Family notification, access to legal safeguards and judicial oversight are intended to make the process more traceable. Where allegations cannot be substantiated, the individual can be released; where sufficient evidence is collected, the case can proceed to trial.

This approach is particularly important in terrorism cases because investigation itself can be dangerous. Terrorist organisations have demonstrated their ability to threaten not only police and security personnel but also the wider criminal-justice chain. Judges, prosecutors and witnesses can become targets precisely because their participation can determine whether a terrorism case succeeds or collapses.

The assassination of former Balochistan High Court and Federal Shariat Court Chief Justice Muhammad Noor Meskanzai in Kharan in October 2022 illustrates the seriousness of this threat. Meskanzai was shot after leaving a mosque and later died from his injuries. A joint investigation team was subsequently formed to investigate the killing.

Such incidents demonstrate that protecting judicial personnel is not simply an administrative concern. If judges and prosecutors can be identified and targeted by terrorist groups, conventional courtroom procedures themselves can become vulnerable to intimidation. Witnesses may similarly refuse to cooperate if doing so exposes them or their families to retaliation.

This is the rationale behind the development of Faceless Courts and related protective mechanisms. Under the framework described for terrorism proceedings, the identities and identifying details of judges, prosecutors and witnesses can be protected through confidential documentation, secure proceedings and measures designed to prevent their physical identification. The purpose is not to remove terrorism cases from the judicial system but to allow them to remain within it despite serious security threats.

The concept is not unique to Pakistan. Other countries have adopted varying forms of witness or judicial protection in cases involving terrorism and organised crime. The United Kingdom, for example, has mechanisms allowing courts to issue witness anonymity orders where disclosure could endanger witnesses. Other European and Latin American jurisdictions have also developed protected-witness or anonymous judicial arrangements in response to organised criminal violence.

Pakistan’s challenge is therefore twofold: it must protect the rights of suspects while simultaneously protecting the people responsible for bringing terrorism cases to justice. These objectives are not necessarily contradictory. A properly regulated system can provide both accountability for law-enforcement authorities and security for those participating in prosecutions.

The reported implementation of the new framework in Balochistan illustrates this transition from preventive detention toward judicial processing. According to the figures provided, 90 detainees have been processed under the framework, with five released after allegations could not be established and 40 referred for trial through Faceless Courts. These figures, if maintained through transparent judicial procedures, indicate how detention can be linked to an identifiable investigative and prosecutorial pathway rather than remaining an indefinite process.

Ultimately, the credibility of Pakistan’s response to allegations of enforced disappearances will depend not merely on legislation but on implementation. Every detention mechanism requires safeguards, documentation, judicial oversight and meaningful avenues for challenging unlawful treatment. At the same time, terrorism prosecutions require protection for judges, prosecutors, witnesses and investigators so that violent organisations cannot defeat the justice system through intimidation.

The emerging framework attempts to address both dimensions. Its central principle is straightforward: a terrorism suspect should neither disappear outside the law nor escape prosecution because terrorists can intimidate those responsible for delivering justice. By establishing defined procedures for apprehension, investigation, evidence collection, release or prosecution—and by protecting the judicial chain through specialised mechanisms—Pakistan is attempting to bring terrorism-related detention more firmly within a traceable legal process.

The effectiveness of this approach will ultimately depend on consistent implementation, judicial scrutiny and transparency. But the broader institutional objective is clear: counterterrorism and due process must operate together. A system capable of protecting both the rights of suspects and the security of those administering justice is essential if allegations of enforced disappearance are to be addressed while ensuring that serious terrorism cases can still reach a lawful conclusion.