Speaker Expresses Surprise Over Bill
LAHORE – Punjab Assembly Speaker Malik Muhammad Ahmad Khan on Sunday distanced himself from the proposed Punjab Control of Habitual Offenders Bill, 2026, expressing surprise that he had not been properly briefed about the legislation when it was introduced in the House. He warned that he would take “strict action” over the lapse.
The Speaker’s remarks came after opposition lawmakers criticised the proposed legislation, arguing that several of its provisions were inconsistent with fundamental human rights and could be misused.
Lack of Briefing and Colonial Roots
“I was never informed about the Punjab Control of Habitual Offenders Bill, 2026, when it was presented before the House,” Malik Muhammad Ahmad Khan said. “I will take strict action over the fact that I was not made aware of the contents of this bill.”
The Speaker further observed that laws rooted in the colonial era were no longer compatible with present-day constitutional and democratic norms. “A law based on the British colonial system cannot be acceptable today,” he remarked.
Provisions of the Bill
Under the proposed legislation, the government, on the recommendation of a committee headed by a deputy commissioner of the concerned district, can confiscate properties of the accused besides closing his/her bank accounts and putting him on digital surveillance.
The issue surfaced during the debate on the supplementary budget when opposition MPA Rana Aftab Ahmad Khan referred to the proposed legislation and urged the government to reconsider it.
Opposition Concerns Over Human Rights
“I have gone through the Habitual Offenders Bill, and it violates human rights laws,” Rana Aftab said, adding that the proposed legislation was not in conformity with internationally recognised human rights principles. He cautioned that the law could have far-reaching consequences, arguing that governments change while laws remain in force.
“The coming generations will be affected by this law. No government remains in power forever, and one day the same law could be applied against those sitting on the treasury benches today,” he warned.
Speaker’s Emphasis on Judicial Oversight
Responding to the concerns, the Speaker maintained that punitive action could only be taken through due process and that the courts, not the executive, had the final authority to determine whether legal restrictions should be imposed on an individual. “It is the court that ultimately decides whether any restrictions are to be imposed on a person,” he said.
Drawing a comparison with existing anti-gang legislation, the Speaker explained that intelligence agencies may identify individuals allegedly involved in criminal or gang-related activities, but it is the judiciary that determines whether they fall within the scope of the law and whether any punishment can be awarded.
Social Media and Proposed Powers
He also remarked that social media had increasingly become a platform where content remained largely beyond effective regulation. Referring to the proposed legislation, Malik Ahmad Khan noted that it envisaged granting powers to deputy commissioners (DCs) and district police officers (DPOs) to initiate proceedings against individuals suspected of habitual offending, though he reiterated that judicial scrutiny would remain essential before any punitive action could be enforced.
