The assassination of District and Sessions Judge Abdul Hakeem Kakar in Mastung was not merely another act of terrorism. It was a calculated attack by the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) against Pakistan’s judiciary. The objective extended far beyond the killing of a judge. It was meant to intimidate the judicial system, undermine the writ of the state and send a message that anyone enforcing the law can become a target.
The attack did not take place in isolation. It came after a series of terrorist incidents across Balochistan that point to a deliberate strategy of spreading fear and instability. Five labourers were murdered in Mashkail, Washuk district. Three passengers were killed when terrorists opened fire on a bus in Khad Kocha. Earlier, a woman lost her life after gunmen attacked a civilian vehicle. Judge Abdul Hakeem Kakar and his bodyguard have now joined the long list of victims of a campaign designed to make violence appear routine and the state appear vulnerable.
The assassination of a serving judge deserves to be viewed through a wider political and security lens. On June 22, 2026, an Anti-Terrorism Court in Quetta convicted Dr Mahrang Baloch, one of the leading figures of the Baloch Yakjehti Committee (BYC). The same day, senior BYC leader Sammi Deen launched a public attack on Pakistan’s judiciary, accusing judges of abandoning justice and acting at the behest of powerful state institutions rather than according to the law.
That statement was not an ordinary expression of political disagreement. It sought to delegitimise the judiciary at a time when the courts were dealing with terrorism-related cases. In Balochistan, many viewed such rhetoric as a dangerous attempt to place judges in the crosshairs of extremist violence.
Barely a month later, Sessions Judge Abdul Hakeem Kakar was assassinated. The sequence of events is too significant to ignore. The attack fits a pattern in which the BLA uses political narratives and intimidation to advance its violent campaign. The organisation has repeatedly demonstrated that it considers judges, public officials and civilians to be legitimate targets whenever they are seen as strengthening the authority of the Pakistani state.
The BLA has long relied on armed violence, but every terrorist movement also seeks a political narrative that justifies its actions and shields it from public condemnation. That is why the distinction between the gunman and the propagandist is often narrower than it appears. One carries a weapon while the other attempts to create the moral and political environment in which violence is rationalised.
The victims of this campaign reflect the true nature of terrorism in Balochistan. Labourers searching for an honest livelihood, passengers travelling on public roads, women, government officials and now a judge have all become targets. Terrorism of this kind recognises neither ethnicity nor humanity. Its purpose is to spread fear, paralyse institutions and prevent Balochistan from moving towards peace, stability and economic development.
The assassination of Judge Abdul Hakeem Kakar must therefore be understood for what it represents. It was not simply the murder of a public servant. It was an attack on the independence of the judiciary and on the rule of law itself. A state cannot allow its judges to be hunted by terrorists without responding with absolute resolve.
Pakistan’s answer must be firm, lawful and unwavering. Those who execute terrorist attacks, those who facilitate them and those who provide ideological or political cover for terrorist violence must all be held accountable under the law. Protecting judges and strengthening the institutions of justice is no longer an administrative necessity. It has become a national security imperative.