- info@sffp.org.pk
- Empowerment Beyond Aid — Advancing Freedom and Rights
Pakistani Airports | July–August 2026
An international airport is both a gateway and a security checkpoint. Immigration authorities have a legitimate responsibility to verify documents, prevent human trafficking and stop organized human-smuggling networks from exploiting vulnerable people.
But an airport is not a place where constitutional rights disappear.
In July 2026, Pakistan’s Federal Investigation Agency publicly confirmed that it uses artificial intelligence-assisted passenger profiling and, in selected “high-risk” cases, examines mobile phones as part of its efforts to combat human smuggling.
The FIA maintained that these checks are not routine and do not apply to every passenger. According to the agency, additional scrutiny is directed toward travellers whose travel history, destination, visa category, personal circumstances or suspected connections raise concerns.
Legal and digital-rights experts have nevertheless questioned whether immigration officials can compel passengers to unlock and surrender their smartphones without a formal criminal inquiry or another clearly established legal basis.
The debate raises an important human-rights question:
How can Pakistan protect people from human smuggling without subjecting lawful travellers to arbitrary searches, discriminatory profiling or unnecessary intrusion into their private lives?
The FIA’s actions must be understood within the context of a genuine and deadly human-smuggling crisis.
In June 2023, an overcrowded migrant vessel sank off the coast of Greece. Hundreds of people were killed, including a reported 262 Pakistanis.
Many passengers had reportedly travelled through human-smuggling networks that promised access to Europe through dangerous and irregular routes. Families lost relatives, survivors experienced severe trauma, and the tragedy exposed the scale of organized networks profiting from desperation.
Following this and other incidents, Pakistan intensified its efforts against human smugglers and introduced new technology and risk-assessment practices at airports.
Preventing another such tragedy is a legitimate and necessary public objective.
Human smugglers may use fraudulent documents, deceptive employment offers, visit visas, irregular transit routes and online communications to move people across borders. Authorities therefore need effective investigative tools.
However, the seriousness of human smuggling cannot give officials unlimited authority over every traveller’s personal data.
Public safety measures must remain lawful, necessary, proportionate and subject to independent oversight.
In an interview reported by Arab News on 26 July 2026, FIA Additional Director-General for Immigration Nouman Siddiqui said the agency uses artificial intelligence-assisted profiling together with information from its Risk Analysis Unit.
According to the official, the system is intended to identify potentially high-risk passengers rather than subject everyone to the same level of scrutiny.
Factors reportedly considered may include:
The FIA official gave the example of a first-time traveller going to a destination such as Senegal or Malawi on a visit visa without an apparent employment, family or travel connection.
Such circumstances, he explained, could result in additional questioning.
Risk-based screening is not automatically a human-rights violation. Border authorities in many countries use travel patterns, intelligence and document analysis to identify potential criminal activity.
The human-rights concern arises when the criteria are unclear, discriminatory, inaccurately applied or used to justify intrusive action without appropriate legal safeguards.
The FIA rejected the suggestion that every traveller’s mobile phone is routinely searched.
According to the agency’s official quoted by Arab News, only a small number of phones are sent for forensic examination at the airport following recommendations from the Risk Analysis Unit, particularly where passengers are suspected of being connected to human smugglers.
The official said that phone checks are “not routine” and apply only to people who come under suspicion or profiling.
This distinction is important.
Claims circulating on social media that every overseas Pakistani is automatically required to surrender a phone should not be presented as established fact without evidence.
At the same time, describing a search as limited or selective does not resolve the central legal questions:
Without clear answers, even a selective practice can create fear and uncertainty.
Immigration officials are entitled to examine travel-related documents within the authority granted to them by law.
A smartphone is fundamentally different from a passport, visa, boarding pass or employment letter.
It may contain:
Access to a phone does not expose only the passenger’s information. It may also expose the private communications and identities of relatives, colleagues, clients, friends and other people who never consented to a government search.
A device search can therefore become a search of a person’s extended private life.
This is why access to a smartphone requires clearer safeguards than ordinary document inspection.
Immigration lawyer Umar Gilani told Arab News that FIA immigration-desk officials have the authority to examine travel documents and request additional documentation when reasonable concerns arise.
If officials remain unsatisfied, he explained, they may refuse immigration after recording the reasons in writing. Such a decision may then be reviewed within the FIA or challenged before a court.
However, Gilani argued that immigration officers cannot compel passengers to unlock or surrender their smartphones merely because a profiling system has flagged them.
According to his analysis, compelled access would amount to search and seizure and would require a formal criminal inquiry into human trafficking, human smuggling or another offence.
He further argued that forced access could violate the constitutional protection of privacy and dignity.
This represents a legal expert’s interpretation rather than a final judicial ruling specifically determining every airport phone examination.
The disagreement itself demonstrates why the government should publish a precise legal framework rather than leaving passengers and individual officers to interpret their authority at the immigration counter.
Authorities may describe a phone examination as voluntary.
But consent is meaningful only when it is genuinely informed and freely given.
A traveller standing at an immigration counter may fear missing a flight, losing the cost of a ticket, being detained, being placed on a watchlist or being prevented from travelling in the future.
If an official asks the passenger to unlock a phone without explaining that refusal is permitted, the passenger may believe there is no real choice.
This creates an important distinction:
A person may comply because they freely consent—or because they believe refusal will lead to punishment.
For consent to be meaningful, passengers should be clearly informed:
Consent obtained through uncertainty, intimidation or fear of immediate offloading cannot automatically be treated as free consent.
Digital Rights Monitor reported concerns regarding the profiling of women passengers.
On 10 August 2026, a woman was reportedly offloaded at Karachi’s Jinnah International Airport in a suspected human-trafficking matter. According to the FIA’s account, a voluntary examination of her phone revealed communications that authorities considered relevant to the purpose of her journey.
The allegations and the woman’s reported explanation would require appropriate investigation. SFFP cannot independently determine the complete circumstances of that case.
Digital Rights Monitor also reported the experience of another woman travelling from Lahore for work. She said an immigration officer initially referred her documents to a senior official, who questioned her about her travel history before permitting her to board.
She expressed concern that women travelling alone appeared to receive particular scrutiny.
Human traffickers can specifically target and exploit women. Responsible screening may therefore protect women from coercion and trafficking.
However, being a woman travelling alone cannot itself be treated as evidence of wrongdoing.
Women have the right to travel for employment, education, business, family, tourism and other lawful purposes without being presumed dishonest or immoral.
Screening must be based on objective and reviewable evidence—not gender stereotypes.
Access to a smartphone may expose highly sensitive photographs, videos and conversations.
SFFP has heard public concerns that intimate material accessed during device examinations could be viewed unnecessarily, copied, threatened with disclosure or otherwise misused.
At the time of writing, Samaritan’s Fellowship Foundation Pakistan has not located sufficient credible public evidence to establish that airport officials are systematically using private videos to blackmail passengers.
We therefore do not present that allegation as a proven practice.
However, the possibility of abuse is precisely why safeguards must exist before harm occurs.
No official should be permitted to:
Any allegation of blackmail, sexual intimidation, unauthorized copying or disclosure by an official must be independently investigated.
The absence of transparent procedures can harm both passengers and honest officers. Proper audit records can identify wrongdoing while protecting personnel from false accusations.
Article 14 of Pakistan’s Constitution protects the dignity of the person and recognizes privacy as a fundamental constitutional concern.
Although the constitutional text specifically refers to the privacy of the home, Pakistani legal analysis has treated dignity and privacy as principles extending to personal communications and data.
Other constitutional protections may also be relevant, including:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights similarly protects people against arbitrary interference with privacy, family, home and correspondence.
Privacy is not the right to hide criminal conduct from a lawful investigation.
It is the right to expect that state intrusion will have:
Artificial intelligence can help authorities identify complex travel patterns. But AI systems can also reproduce inaccuracies, hidden assumptions and discriminatory outcomes.
A passenger may be incorrectly flagged because of:
An AI-generated risk score should not be treated as proof of criminal involvement.
Human officers must remain responsible for decisions. They should be able to explain the basis of additional questioning and correct inaccurate information.
Passengers should also have a meaningful opportunity to provide documents and explanations before being offloaded or subjected to intrusive examination.
Technology can support professional judgment. It should not replace evidence, accountability or human rights.
Preventing a person from boarding a flight may result in substantial harm.
The passenger may lose:
An offloading decision should therefore not be informal, undocumented or impossible to challenge.
Where immigration is refused, the passenger should receive written reasons identifying:
Written reasons encourage consistency and make meaningful review possible.
The FIA official stated that passengers who believe they were wrongly offloaded may use QR-code complaint systems at airports, approach senior FIA officials or seek relief through the courts.
These options are useful, but their effectiveness depends on accessibility and independence.
A passenger may hesitate to complain to the same institution responsible for the disputed action. Court proceedings may also be expensive, slow and difficult for ordinary travellers.
Legal experts have proposed an independent immigration tribunal or specialized review body capable of examining the fairness of immigration decisions.
At minimum, an effective complaint system should:
A complaint mechanism exists to correct mistakes and identify misconduct—not merely to receive messages.
Samaritan’s Fellowship Foundation Pakistan respectfully calls upon the Federal Government and Federal Investigation Agency to publish a clear policy addressing:
Clear rules would help passengers understand their rights and help FIA personnel perform their duties consistently.
The choice is not between stopping human smuggling and protecting privacy.
Pakistan can do both.
A rights-respecting system could include:
These protections would not prevent legitimate investigations. They would make the evidence more reliable and the process more credible.
At Samaritan’s Fellowship Foundation Pakistan, our concern is not to weaken border security or obstruct legitimate investigations.
Human smuggling exploits poverty, unemployment, misinformation and desperation. Smugglers place people in dangerous vehicles, boats and routes while families lose savings, security and sometimes the lives of their loved ones.
The government has a responsibility to investigate these networks, prosecute those who profit from exploitation and protect potential victims.
Our position is that this work must be carried out in accordance with law and human dignity.
A passenger should not be treated as a criminal merely because they are poor, travelling for the first time, visiting an unusual destination or travelling alone as a woman.
Effective enforcement should target evidence of organized criminal activity—not turn vulnerability into automatic suspicion.
Through our Human Rights & Empowerment work, Samaritan’s Fellowship promotes dignity, constitutional understanding, peaceful civic participation and accountable institutions.
Depending on verified circumstances, consent, safeguarding requirements and available partnerships, our approach may include:
SFFP does not replace immigration authorities, police investigators, lawyers or courts. We help communities understand lawful systems and advocate for those systems to operate transparently and fairly.
Our wider How We Work model connects immediate protection and rights awareness with education, healthcare, sustainable livelihoods and community leadership.
People who have safe livelihood opportunities and understand their rights are less vulnerable to exploitation by human smugglers.
Every lawful traveller should be able to expect:
Likewise, travellers should provide truthful information, use genuine documentation and cooperate with lawful immigration requirements.
Rights and responsibilities belong together.
The controversy surrounding airport phone checks leaves several lessons:
A passport allows the state to verify a person’s identity and travel status. It does not automatically give every official unrestricted access to that person’s private life.
Airports require security. Immigration systems require scrutiny. Human-smuggling networks require firm investigation and prosecution.
But security without safeguards can become arbitrary authority.
Samaritan’s Fellowship Foundation Pakistan supports a system in which human smugglers are brought to justice, vulnerable travellers are protected, legitimate passengers are treated with dignity and every search remains subject to law.
Privacy does not mean freedom from lawful investigation.
It means freedom from arbitrary intrusion.
Samaritan’s Fellowship Foundation Pakistan documents human-rights concerns, educates communities and advocates for institutions that protect people fairly.
Your support helps us:
If you believe Pakistan can protect its borders without abandoning human dignity:
Together, we can help create a society where security, privacy and justice strengthen one another.
Empowerment Beyond Aid — Advancing Freedom and Rights.
Samaritan’s Fellowship Foundation Pakistan documents publicly reported human-rights concerns for historical record, education, public awareness and evidence-based advocacy.
This article does not allege that every FIA officer examines mobile phones, that every examination is unlawful or that airport personnel are systematically blackmailing passengers.
The FIA has stated that phone examinations are selective, linked to high-risk cases and intended to combat human smuggling. Legal experts and digital-rights advocates have questioned the legal authority, consent standards and privacy safeguards governing such examinations.
SFFP has not independently verified allegations concerning the misuse of intimate material. We call for confidential, independent investigation of any individual complaint and for safeguards capable of preventing such abuse.
The featured image is illustrative. It does not depict an actual passenger, FIA officer or Pakistani airport.
Support our mission to rescue families trapped in bonded labour. Create your own fundraiser and help change lives.
Support our mission to rescue families trapped in bonded labour. Create your own fundraiser and help change lives.
Support our mission to rescue families trapped in bonded labour. Create your own fundraiser and help change lives.
Support our mission to rescue families trapped in bonded labour. Create your own fundraiser and help change lives.
