Hafeez Ahmad Khan
While the government benches in the Senate hurried to push through the contentious Anti-Terrorism Act (Amendment) Bill 2025 before prorogation, an opposition legislator posed a sharp question: “Will this amendment truly make Pakistan more secure, or will it undermine the constitutional rights we pledged to defend?”
It was a rhetorical question, but it underscored the deeper conflict at the heart of this legislation. For the government, national security was the only lens; for critics, the price was the erosion of fundamental rights. The clash revealed once more how Pakistan struggles to reconcile security imperatives with constitutional democracy.
Law Minister Azam Tarar, defending the bill, declared that “the country is burning in the fire of terrorism.” His words were meant to silence dissent, but they exposed the one-dimensional framing of the debate. Security concerns are undeniable, yet the question is whether laws that dilute due process and civil liberties will actually cure the disease of terrorism. On the other side, opposition lawmakers argued the bill’s draconian scope risked tipping the balance too far against the people. They called for careful review, but their voices were brushed aside. In the end, the narrative of urgency prevailed over deliberation.
Follow Republic Policy YouTube
PML-N Senator Irfan Siddiqui insisted that the amendments would “prevent crime and also curb forced disappearances and arbitrary detentions.” The irony was hard to miss: a government seeking to address human rights violations by granting itself greater power to detain without trial. Historically, preventive detention has been one of the most abused instruments of state authority. Instead of strengthening institutions to curb abuse, the state has chosen to broaden its discretionary powers. This paradox illustrates the very governance failures that keep Pakistan trapped in a cycle of repression and insecurity.
Follow Republic Policy Twitter
The bill allows the armed forces and civil armed forces to place individuals in preventive detention for three months or more, merely on “reasonable suspicion.” Such sweeping authority risks criminalizing dissent, silencing critics, and punishing individuals without due process. What makes the move even more troubling is the government’s refusal to send the bill to a parliamentary committee for deeper scrutiny. Opposition members argued that the provisions were visibly unconstitutional and violative of existing laws, but urgency was invoked to avoid oversight. This refusal to engage reflects a troubling trend of executive overreach undermining parliamentary deliberation.
Follow Republic Policy Facebook
The statement of objects and reasons prefacing the bill made the government’s approach explicit: “the current security situation requires a robust response that goes beyond the existing legal framework.” This is where the problem lies. Rather than repairing institutional weaknesses and improving law enforcement capabilities, the government is bypassing constitutional safeguards altogether. Pakistan’s constitutional framework already provides for measures against terrorism, but the state’s institutions—from police to prosecutors—remain under-resourced, politicized, and ineffective. The answer lies in institutional reform, not in bypassing the Constitution.
There is a broader principle at stake here. Democracies facing terrorism often confront the temptation to trade liberty for security. But history shows that weakening rights rarely produces lasting security. Instead, it breeds alienation, mistrust, and further conflict between citizens and the state. Pakistan’s own past is testimony to this cycle. Laws introduced under the pretext of national security have repeatedly been weaponized against political opponents, journalists, and activists. Each new amendment risks perpetuating this legacy, eroding the democratic foundations of the state.
Follow Republic Policy Instagram
The government appears to be fighting symptoms while ignoring the disease. Terrorism thrives not only on militant networks but also on weak governance, economic marginalization, and lack of justice. By expanding detention powers instead of fixing courts, police, and intelligence coordination, the state risks undermining its own legitimacy. The real challenge is institutional disrepair: fragile justice systems, corruption in enforcement, and political manipulation of security agencies. These must be addressed if Pakistan is to achieve genuine security without sacrificing rights. Otherwise, such laws may provide temporary political cover but no real solution.
Follow Republic Policy WhatsApp Channel
In conclusion, the Anti-Terrorism Act amendments reflect a troubling trajectory in Pakistan’s governance. Instead of pursuing reforms that strengthen accountability, transparency, and institutional effectiveness, the state is doubling down on extraordinary powers. This may yield short-term control but will erode public trust and constitutional integrity in the long run. If the government truly seeks to make Pakistan safer, it must prove its capacity to govern within the law rather than above it. The real test will be whether Pakistan can build institutions strong enough to deliver security while safeguarding the rights its Constitution enshrines.
