Senate passes Anti-Terrorism Bill amid opposition walkout
On the last day of the 353rd session, State Minister for Interior Talal Chaudhry presented the bill in the House that met strong opposition.
Last week, the bill was passed by the National Assembly where it faced strong opposition too.
In the Senate meeting, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Parliamentary Leader Ali Zafar criticised the powers given to the law enforcement agencies to detain any suspect without presenting them in a court of law for three months.
'The country is burning in the fire of terrorism,' responded Law Minister Azam Tarar, defending the bill, saying it aimed at countering terrorism.
Kamran Murtaza from Jamiat Uelma-e-Islam Fazal (JUI-F) criticised the treasury side for presenting the bill for passage without having it referred to the relevant committee first.
'Heavens would not have fallen had this bill been referred to the committee,' he said.
The bill was finally passed by the House by majority vote following which the PTI staged a walkout from the House in protest.
The Section 3(a)(1) of the Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Bill 2025 provides that the government or— the armed forces or civil armed forces - for a period not exceeding three months - issue an order for the preventative detention of any person who has been concerned in 'any offence under this Act relating to the security or defence of Pakistan or any part thereof, or public order relating to target killing, kidnapping for ransom, and extortion, bhatta, or the maintenance of supplies or services, or against whom a reasonable complaint has been made or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists of his having been so concerned, for purpose of inquiry: Provided that the detention of such person, including detention for a further period after three months, shall be subject to the provision of Article l0 of the Constitution.'
The Section 3(b) of the bill says, 'Provided that where the detention order has been issued by the armed forces or civil armed forces under Sub-section (1), the inquiry shall be conducted by a joint investigation team (JIT) comprising of a police officer not below the rank of superintendent of police, intelligence agencies, civil armed forces, armed forces, and other law enforcing agencies.'
The Section 3(c) of this bill says that Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Bill, 2025 shall remain in force for a period of three years from its commencement.
Apart from Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Act, 2025, the other two bills passed by the House were Petroleum (Amendment) Bill, 2025 and Pakistan Land Port Authority Bill, 2025.
The Petroleum (Amendment) Bill, 2025 aims at introducing 'IT-based tracking of petroleum products, to curb the smuggling of petroleum products.'
The Pakistan Land Port Authority Bill, 2025 aims to 'establish a land port authority to provide and administer an integrated system of facilities for cross-border movement of goods and passengers at land ports in Pakistan and to make provision for its operation, management, development of land port and matters connected therewith and ancillary matter.'
Through resolutions, the Senate extended the Capital Development Authority Amendment Ordinance 2025 and the National Agri-Trade and Food Safety Authority Ordinance, 2025 for 120 days.
Meanwhile, the Interior Ministry, in a written reply shared in the Senate Question House, said that the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) dismissed its 51 employees in the last three years for 'suspected collusion with human smugglers.'
The Senate is prorogued.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
8 hours ago
- Business Recorder
JI chief terms ATA another attack on democracy
LAHORE: Chief of Jamaat-e-Islami Hafiz Naeem ur Rehman has categorically rejected the newly passed Anti-Terrorism Act, calling it another assault on democracy. Addressing participants at a training session in Mansoorah on Wednesday, he said that after the 26th Constitutional Amendment, the judicial system in Pakistan has already been rendered dysfunctional, and ordinary citizens are left helpless in their pursuit of justice. 'Those who already have unbridled powers to abduct anyone at will have now been handed blind and unchecked authority through this law,' Rehman remarked. He said the system is being controlled by brute force, adding that all political parties that supported the passage of the 26th Amendment are collectively guilty before the nation. Hafiz Naeem ur Rehman stressed that while the Constitution forbids any legislation against Islam, the country's judicial and administrative structures remain far from the principles of Islamic justice. Citing the recent devastation caused by heavy rains in Karachi, he said: 'When rulers are imposed against the will of the people, they do not work for the public interest but for the satisfaction of their benefactors.' The JI Emir criticized the role of the establishment in Karachi, pointing out that despite failing to win a single seat, the MQM and Sindh's ruling party, PPP, were handed over all constituencies and even the mayorship. 'For 40 years, MQM and PPP have looted Karachi. The establishment once promised to dismantle this corrupt system, yet it was instead safeguarded and installed in Islamabad under the pretext of so-called 'national interest', which is in no way the people's interest.' He said the recent rains once again exposed Karachi's broken civic infrastructure: 'When drains are cleaned only on paper and millions are embezzled, when roads are left broken, how can disaster be averted?' Turning to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Rehman questioned PTI's performance during the floods: 'Why did federal and provincial governments fail to use modern climate technology to warn citizens in advance? Why has Pakistan, one of the worst victims of global climate change, been unable to effectively present its case before world powers?' The JI Emir, who recently toured flood-affected areas of Buner, Bajaur, and beyond, said Jamaat-e-Islami and Alkhidmat volunteers are engaged in relief efforts there. 'JI is not seeking any political mileage out of this tragedy. We invite workers of all parties to join us in serving and rehabilitating the people.' Hafiz Naeem ur Rehman reaffirmed that Jamaat-e-Islami strives to bring politics, economy, and society under the guidance of Islam. 'We reject sectarianism and respect all schools of thought. Our politics is above ethnicity, because ethnic nationalism is poison for Pakistan. Ethnic leaders, in the past, stood with global powers instead of their own people when Afghanistan was invaded by Russia and later by America.' He announced that Jamaat-e-Islami is forming people's committees across the country as part of its ongoing membership drive. 'Before our November Ijtema-e-Aam (grand gathering), we will establish at least 30,000 committees. Afterward, a nationwide public movement will begin in full strength. JI is a movement for the establishment of Islam's just system.' He spoke about Gaza, noting that Hamas has shown readiness for a ceasefire, sending a clear message of peace. 'Now the ball is in Israel's court—and that of its biggest ally, the United States,' he said. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
8 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Achakzai is Imran's new pick for NA opp leader
In a move that might have come as a rude shock to many PTI leaders, Imran Khan, the jailed founder of the embattled party, has nominated the maverick chief of PkMAP, Mahmood Khan Achakzai, for opposition leader in the National Assembly. Achakzai's nomination has provided grist to the rumour mill, churning out reports that Imran is increasingly unhappy with the PTI leaders over their failure to mount a formidable challenge against the coalition government which he accuses of stealing his party's mandate. The development comes days after the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) disqualified Omar Ayub Khan and Shibli Faraz earlier this month following their convictions in the May 9 cases. Both were formally de-notified as opposition leaders respectively in the National Assembly and the Senate on August 8, along with several other opposition members in the National Assembly and provincial legislatures. PTI Secretary General Salman Akram Raja told reporters outside the Supreme Court on Wednesday that Imran had also nominated Senator Azam Swati as Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. He added that the PTI founder had sought five names from the party for nomination to the post of Leader of the Opposition in the Punjab Assembly. Raja further said that Imran had tasked the party's political committee with finalising its strategy for the upcoming by-elections on seats that fell vacant after the disqualification of lawmakers in the May 9 cases. The committee was scheduled to meet later in the day to make decisions, he added. He confirmed that Achakzai, who currently heads the Tehreek-e-Tahaffuz Ayeen-e-Pakistan (TTAP), would replace Omar Ayub in the National Assembly. In a separate address in Lahore, Raja urged political forces to unite against what he termed oppression and arbitrary arrests. "It does not matter where you come from or which party you belong to - if you have empathy, we are together," he said. "For the permanence of humanity and dignity, this struggle has to be fought." He warned that "anyone can be detained for any reason" under the prevailing circumstances, adding that "the only law in this country is fear." Raja assured party supporters that the PTI leadership would take their struggle to "every available forum." He said the wider movement was not just about the party's politics but about protecting fundamental rights. "What does the supremacy of law and the Constitution mean? It means having the right to protest under Article 17. Article 15 allows free movement. Article 19 gives us the right to raise and spread our voice together," he noted. He also spoke about the plight of farmers and the poor across the country, saying: "I listened to people in Sindh, it brought tears to my eyes. But this suffering is not limited to Sindh - it is everywhere." Calling for a united front, the PTI leader said, "We all have rights and we are all human. If we fail to act, those rights will erode further." Referring to the devastation caused by floods, Raja said they were not purely natural disasters but were aggravated by "human greed and mismanagement." "We need to eradicate this greed in the same way our forests are being cut down. If we do not stand up now, we may lose the ability to raise our voice altogether," he warned.
Express Tribune
8 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Judges letter challenges CJP on bench formation
A letter from Supreme Court judges Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar surfaced on Wednesday, reigniting debate over the judiciary's handling of the 26th Constitutional Amendment and whether it should be taken up by a constitutional bench or the full court. In the detailed letter, the two senior judges questioned Chief Justice Yahya Afridi's decision to disregard the procedure committee's majority view in favour of constituting a full court. Justice Shah and Justice Akhtar recalled that as members of the committee formed under the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, they had on October 31, 2024, decided to constitute a full court to hear petitions challenging the 26th Constitutional Amendment. "We had decided to constitute a full court," the letter stated. However, the case was never scheduled. When the decision was not implemented, the judges followed up with a letter on November 4, but even that failed to bring compliance, it added. They emphasised that the notes later penned by the chief justice — dated October 31 and November 5 — were not shared with them. "We are forced to write now because the minutes of meetings have been uploaded after nearly ten months, and the two notes of the Chief Justice were not issued or provided to the undersigned," the judges wrote. Instead, one of those notes was read out during a meeting of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP), a forum which, they argued, had no jurisdiction in the matter. "The Judicial Commission was not the forum for such a matter, nor could the Committee's decision of 31.10.2024 be forwarded to any constitutional bench or committee thereof, for the simple reason that they did not exist on that date," they stressed. The two judges took issue with the sudden disclosure of proceedings, questioning why minutes that were previously restricted had now been placed in the public domain. They recalled that in November 2024, the committee had by majority decided that minutes would have "restricted circulation" and not be uploaded online. "The obvious question that arises is as to why have the minutes now been publicly disclosed despite the interdict placed by the Committee itself? This may well become clear once the judicial year begins in September and the Constitutional Benches start functioning again," the letter said. The letter sheds light on events of October 31, when both judges met the Chief Justice in his chambers. They pressed for a full court to hear the petitions, citing a crisis of confidence. "We underlined that the very legitimacy of the Supreme Court, as well as the office of the Chief Justice, was under question, and that only a transparent and collective adjudication — by the Full Court could restore public confidence," the letter notes. The chief justice, however, resisted, maintaining that such cases could only be heard by newly-created constitutional benches under the 26th Amendment itself. The judges objected that referring the challenge to a bench constituted under the very amendment being contested would gravely undermine the court's credibility. Although the Chief Justice sought an hour to reflect, he later informed the judges in Justice Akhtar's chambers that he had instead sought views individually from other judges. The two judges objected sharply. "The Chief Justice's act of seeking opinions individually was contrary to law and judicial practice, and opinions obtained in this manner had no legal standing," they stated. According to them, consensus could only be achieved through a proper committee or full court meeting. Later the same day, a formal committee meeting was convened, the letter said. After discussion, the judges voted in favour of constituting a full court, while the chief justice dissented. The majority decision, recorded in the minutes, was that petitions against the 26th Amendment would be fixed for hearing on November 4 before the full court. But the decision was never carried out. "The decision was not implemented. The petitions were not fixed before the Full Court on 4.11.2024," the letter recorded. When the judges wrote again to the chief justice pointing out non-compliance, no response was received, it said. Instead, the chief justice issued a note and moved the matter to the Judicial Commission, which "approved" the constitution of a seven-member bench. The judges criticised this step as an attempt to circumvent the committee's binding majority decision. "Once again, a binding decision of the Committee was not given effect. The notes of the Chief Justice do not provide any reason or justification for non-compliance," they wrote. According to the judges, this failure left the court without a collective institutional response. "At a time when no question was more important for the Court, it was necessary to immediately create consensus by calling a Full Court meeting That response could only come from the Judges themselves, by convening in open Court or meeting in full conclave. The dire consequences of that not happening continue to reverberate in the Court, the judiciary, and the entire constitutional framework," the letter stated. They further asserted that "the challenges to the 26th Amendment continue to remain pending and a golden opportunity to decide them at the earliest instance before the Full Court — has been lost, perhaps irretrievably." Now that the minutes and related records have been uploaded, the judges have demanded that their explanatory letter also be placed alongside on the Supreme Court website. "If at all it is now for History to judge then, at least, let the record be complete," they concluded. The judges were categorical: "It was mandatory to constitute a full court on the 26th Amendment, and no one could override it. The Chief Justice's notes undermined the majority decision." The refusal to constitute a full court has invited speculations and misgivings as to why the beneficiary of the 26th constitutional amendment are reluctant to examine as if the amendment is undermining independence of the judiciary. Former Sindh High Court Bar Association president Salahuddin Ahmed believes that CJP Afridi's refusal to abide by the Practice & Procedure Committee's decision to list the petitions challenging the 26th Amendment was unlawful. "He may have been of the genuine view that such petitions should be heard by the Constitutional Bench (whenever it was formed) rather than the Full Court. But the majority of the Committee felt otherwise. So the lawful thing to do would be to place the matter before the Full Court & if the majority felt that his view was correct & the petitions should not be heard till the CB was formed; they would have passed a formal order saying so. Equally, if the majority of the Full Court felt the view of Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah & Justice Munib Akhtar was correct, they would have explained the reasons why in their order." Salahuddin Ahmed says that CJP Afridi's apprehension that this step would undermine judicial collegiality, with respect, does not appear logical. Firstly, collegiality cannot be prioritised over judicial responsibilities. Secondly, the now 1-year long refusal to let challenges to the 26th Amendment be heard — has clearly undermined (not enhanced) comity within the judiciary & its reputation for independence" Finally, ex-SHCBA president states that this failure has led to needless speculation and misgivings that perhaps the reluctance to list the challenges to the 26th Amendments was the fear that some of the 9 judges who reportedly agreed the petitions should not be listed might perhaps change their mind after arguments in open court or in a formal meeting, he adds. Advocate Rida Hosain says that CJP Yahya Afridi's reluctance to place the petitions challenging the 26th Amendment before a full court is inexplicable. "The CJP's assertion that he went around informally asking judges their view is frankly absurd. Questions which should have been determined in an open courtroom are being decided behind closed doors. As it remains, the CJP has violated a binding decision of the Committee and eroded public confidence in the judiciary. The CJP holds office by virtue of the 26th Amendment. As long as he delays the challenge, his appointment remains the subject of dispute", she adds. Rida Hosain further states that Justices Mansoor Ali Shah and Munib Akhtar have said that if it is for history to judge then let the record be complete. The 26th Amendment has enabled the court martial of civilians, the capture of the Islamabad High Court, and the reserved seats reversal. While these disastrous decisions were taken, the constitutional validity of the 26th Amendment remained disputed. If the 26th Amendment is ultimately struck down, the decisions taken by the Constitutional Bench will come under question. This is not a question for history to judge. The only way forward is for the petitions to be put before the Full Court (as it existed prior to the passage of the 26th Amendment)", she further states. Mirza Moiz Baig advocate said that the letter engenders serious concerns about the Chief Justice's role. While CJ Afridi has enjoyed an unimpeachable reputation, his recalcitrance to hear the petitions challenging the 26th Amendment erode the public's confidence in the Supreme Court and in the office of the Chief Justice. Moreover, with the Government subsequently amending the Practice and Procedure Act to deliver a majority to the CJ, concerns about the Apex Court's impartiality only aggravate, he adds. Atira Ikram advocate lamented that it is unfortunate that such critical constitutional issues, such as the 26th amendment have also become victim to the division and discourse that has been prevalent in our judiciary. "It would have been far more beneficial in restoring the public's confidence, if judges relegated difference of opinion to their judgments, and not play out their personal vendettas on public stages, normally reserved for politicians", she adds.
