Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa plans faceless anti-terror courts: Report

Faceless anti-terrorism courts are a proposed system for handling terrorism cases while shielding the identities of key participants. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa’s administration says the system is needed because people may refuse to take part when they fear retaliation. The province has sent an amendment to establish these courts.

The central mechanism is identity protection. Witnesses would be able to provide evidence without their identities being openly exposed, while prosecutors and judges would also receive protection. The article does not describe the exact courtroom procedures or technology involved. It only identifies the proposed courts as a way to protect those involved in terrorism cases.

The plan comes as the province faces terrorism threats, a police shortage and weak security infrastructure, especially in merged districts. If approved and implemented, the courts could make it easier to bring cases forward. Their effectiveness will depend on whether witnesses trust the protection and whether prosecutors and judges can work safely.

People involved in terrorism trials are considered vulnerable because militants or their facilitators may threaten them for helping the state. The article specifically reports that witnesses are reluctant to testify because they fear for their safety. It also says the proposed faceless system would protect prosecutors and judges, showing that officials view them as exposed as well.

The risk affects the entire legal process. A witness may possess important evidence but avoid appearing in court. A prosecutor may face pressure while presenting the case. A judge may also require protection when deciding cases involving armed groups. The article does not identify particular attacks or threats against named individuals, so the precise nature of the dangers is not detailed.

The concern is especially significant as Khyber Pakhtunkhwa intensifies its counter-terrorism response. The province says it lacks more than 10,000 police personnel and adequate security infrastructure in some areas. Protecting legal participants is therefore presented as part of restoring effective prosecutions.

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa plans to spend about 70 billion Pakistani rupees each year on security forces. The detailed allocation is 59.8 billion rupees for the police and 10.3 billion for the Counter-Terrorism Department. Together, those amounts equal 70.1 billion rupees, reflecting the report’s rounded headline figure of 70 billion.

The money is intended for infrastructure and equipment. Plans include strengthening police stations and checkpoints, expanding the Safe City project, and installing anti-drone systems in Dera Ismail Khan, Lakki Marwat and Bannu. The governor also said police would receive weapons, ammunition and other resources. Facilities in the merged districts are also due to improve.

The investment responds to major capability gaps. Officials cite a shortage of more than 10,000 police personnel, inadequate infrastructure and weak counter-drone capacity. They say militants are increasingly using drones. The spending is therefore designed to improve everyday policing, specialist counter-terrorism work, surveillance and protection across vulnerable areas.

Governor Faisal Karim Kundi holds executive authority in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa under the emergency and governor’s rule. The arrangement began after Pakistan’s federal government accused the provincial government, led by Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, of failing to engage in the fight against terrorism.

The chief minister and provincial cabinet ceased to hold office. Kundi assumed executive authority with help from an 11-member advisory council. The National Assembly and Senate approved the emergency on October 14. A joint sitting of Parliament endorsed the emergency and governor’s rule the following day.

This changed who directs the provincial administration during the security response. Kundi attended the briefing where officials outlined the proposed courts, funding and counter-terrorism measures. He identified restoring peace and strengthening police as priorities. He also called for greater political ownership of the fight, while saying development could follow only after security was restored.

If witnesses continue to fear testifying, terrorism cases may lose evidence that prosecutors need to present them effectively. The article directly links safety fears with witness reluctance. That creates a practical problem: authorities may arrest suspects and open cases, yet struggle to move prosecutions forward when witnesses will not appear or speak openly.

The same problem can affect prosecutors and judges. If they cannot work safely, cases may face delays, reduced participation or weaker decision-making. The article does not state that any particular prosecution has already failed for this reason. It does show why officials want a faceless court system: to protect the people needed to investigate, present and decide terrorism cases.

The proposed courts are one response alongside greater police spending and security operations. If protection is trusted, more witnesses may cooperate and courts may function with less intimidation. If protection remains inadequate, the province could have stronger operations but still struggle to convert arrests and evidence into completed terrorism prosecutions.

The administration’s response extends beyond courtroom reform. It plans to intensify intelligence-based operations, arrest terrorist facilitators and re-verify people placed on Pakistan’s Fourth Schedule. It also intends to mobilise the Rapid Response Force. These measures target the networks and support structures associated with militant activity.

Technology is another major part of the plan. Anti-drone systems are to be installed in Dera Ismail Khan, Lakki Marwat and Bannu because officials say militants are increasingly using drones. Artificial intelligence tools would monitor social media and counter terrorist narratives. Satellite communication systems would be installed where connectivity is inadequate, supporting work in difficult areas.

The wider programme also includes stronger police stations and checkpoints, an expanded Safe City project, and new weapons and equipment. Officials cite weak infrastructure, a shortage of more than 10,000 police personnel and limited counter-drone capability. Together, the measures aim to improve detection, response, communications and public messaging.

A fair criminal trial must protect threatened participants without abandoning the accused’s rights. The article says the proposed system would protect witnesses, prosecutors and judges, but it does not explain how testimony, identities or evidence would be handled. That missing detail matters because secrecy can affect transparency and the ability to challenge allegations.

Established safeguards can include confidential identity procedures, secure court facilities, restricted access to sensitive information and testimony arrangements that reduce direct exposure. The accused should still receive notice of the case, legal representation, relevant evidence where legally permitted, and a meaningful chance to question or challenge testimony. Judges should remain independent and record reasons for protective measures.

These safeguards are general criminal-trial principles, not procedures described in the article. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa has only announced that an amendment was sent to establish faceless courts. Before implementation, clear rules would be needed to balance witness security with due process and reliable judgments.