THE PECA DOSSIER
‘Wild and distasteful’: Journalists assemble against Pakistan’s new cybercrime law
The Prevention of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Act
is objectionable for all — even those journalists who otherwise feel social media is being misused.
February 7, 2025
PRISM/DAWN
“I may not be able to continue hosting my show because the content I put up will most certainly land me in prison,” said senior correspondent Azaz Syed who works for a private TV channel, but who also has his own private online digital channel. He was referring to the recent amendment in the already existing cybercrime law, terming it a “wild” law which has been instituted to grapple with fake news among other online harms.
The new version — Prevention of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Act, 2025 — passed hurriedly, within a week, in both the houses without debate, and signed into a law by President Asif Ali Zardari on January 29, has triggered nationwide protests by the country’s media personnel.
“They have taken away my right to freedom of expression,” Syed remarked.
“I may not be able to continue hosting my show because the content I put up will most certainly land me in prison,” said senior correspondent Azaz Syed who works for a private TV channel, but who also has his own private online digital channel. He was referring to the recent amendment in the already existing cybercrime law, terming it a “wild” law which has been instituted to grapple with fake news among other online harms.
The new version — Prevention of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Act, 2025 — passed hurriedly, within a week, in both the houses without debate, and signed into a law by President Asif Ali Zardari on January 29, has triggered nationwide protests by the country’s media personnel.
“They have taken away my right to freedom of expression,” Syed remarked.
“I fail to understand the uproar among journalists working in electronic media. They already have Pemra, [the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority] which is responsible for facilitating and regulating private electronic media,” said Minister for Information and Broadcasting Attaullah Tarar. “This law is to regulate social media and countries across the world have some codes or standards under which social media operate; but there was none in our country.”
He said the existing authority, which is the Federal Investigation Authority, that looked into cybercrimes seemed ill-equipped to handle the expanding nature of online crimes taking place — harassment, pornography, national security threats, spreading economic uncertainty; just look at the conviction rate, which is dismal,“ he defended the amendment.
Tarar’s reference to the “uproar” stems from TV journalists, like Syed, who have gigs on online platforms and fear the restrictions on content imposed by Peca.
For the past two years, Syed has been hosting a popular show on YouTube called Talk Shock, focusing on sensitive topics like the Pakistan army, intelligence agencies, blasphemy laws, persecution of Ahmadis, and forced conversions of Hindu girls. He described it as a passion project addressing issues close to his heart, despite potential disapproval from authorities. His show has gained over eight million viewers and 174,000 followers, also providing him with extra income.
Hamid Mir, host of Capital Talk, one of the oldest and highest-rated political talk shows, launched his digital TV channel on YouTube after being banned from TV in 2021 (he had already been banned twice, in 2007 by military dictator Pervez Musharraf and in 2008 by the ruling Pakistan People’s Party) for speaking against the country’s powerful military for persecuting journalists. “I share my opinions there when I am unable to on the channel that I’m employed in. Having your own platform is liberating,” he said. He has 263,000 viewers.
Azaz Syed, who has his digital TV programme on YouTube called Talk Shock. Credit: Azaz Syed
Mir’s greater worry though is the possibility of losing his voice on X, where he connects with over eight million followers. “If I can’t speak my mind, it will have a profound impact on me,” he said.
But even those journalists who otherwise feel social media is being misused find the law distasteful.
“I have zero tolerance for fake news, and am all for regulating the beast that social media has become, but not this way, certainly,” said senior investigative journalist, Umar Cheema, terming it a “third class” law.
The law was originally passed in 2016, by the same ruling party that has brought the current amendments — the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz. It had been met with much criticism even then.
“The reason for the need for the law given back in 2016 was to counter hate speech, terrorist content and harassment of women — this time the ruse is fake news,” said Farieha Aziz’s co-founder of Bolo Bhi, an advocacy forum for digital rights. The suspicion and criticism against the law now and then is the same — the government is using this law to “stifle political dissent and rein in freedom of expression,” she said.
The amendment to the law, criminalises fake news and its dissemination with a prison term of up to three years and a fine of up to Rs2 million (about $7,200).
But, pointed out Aziz, the concern went beyond just the penalties associated with the amendment to the law — it is the “potential for misuse” in the process of determining what constitutes fake news. “People will be reluctant to share or even discuss information out of fear that it might be deemed false or harmful, leading to criminal charges,” she explained, adding the definition of fake news was vague and broad. “They have created a vagueness through the use of language taken from the anti-terrorism act, around the offence,” she pointed out.
“The government operates in grey areas and likes to keep people in a state of confusion,” agreed Cheema.
Moreover, pointed out Munazza Siddiqui, senior producer on a private TV channel: “The law is unconstitutional as it violates the fundamental right to freedom, a core principle enshrined in our Constitution.”
She uses TikTok, a platform predominantly used for putting up entertaining content, for disseminating news and opinions. “It’s popular with young people but works superbly for me as they are my audience. The millennials and Gen Z want to stay informed about the world around them, but they lack the patience to sit through long articles or watch lengthy news segments on TV. I provide them with both in just a minute or so!”
However, Siddiqui acknowledged that her vlogging might be impacted. With the sword of Damocles hanging over her, in the form of the newly revised cyber law, she said, “We already navigate a space of self-censorship, and now there’s an added layer of fear.”
The law establishes four bodies — the Social Media Protection and Regulatory Authority, the Social Media Complaints Council, the Social Media Protection Tribunal, and the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency — concentrating significant power. Aziz warned that these bodies, appointed by the federal government, could lack independence, creating potential conflicts of interest and undermining fairness and accountability.
“And the window of appeal has also been closed as I can only go to the Supreme Court of Pakistan,” said Azaz, which was an expensive route to prove your innocence.
Although the 2016 cybercrime law was already considered draconian by experts, the reason to tweak it further, explained Cheema, was that “the nature and use of social media has changed and become more sophisticated since then, adding that the media needed to share the blame for the recent shape the law has taken.
Cheema said the media did not establish a code of conduct for responsible social media use which led the government to step in, using the fake news excuse to silence dissenting voices. He emphasized that while media can express opinions, facts must be solid, and journalists should hold each other accountable. “Yet, we don’t even call out our colleagues for lying.”
Finding the nationwide protest hypocritical, he questioned, “The bill wasn’t a surprise — everyone knew it was being revised. Why didn’t anyone speak up then? Where were the protests and revisions when it was in the National Assembly and Senate? There was silence, and now, after it’s law, they’re out on the streets.”
“The law is in place,” Tarrar said with finality. However, he added: “The rules are still being worked out, and we’re open to media input to refine them.”
“Recalling the law may be tough,” agreed Cheema, but if the media is concerned, “They can come up with their own system; no one is stopping them; but that’s the real test for our community.”
Header image: Pakistani journalists speak out about cybercrime law from left to right Hamid Mir, Munazza Siddiqui and Umar Cheema. Credits: Jang News, and TikTok
This article was originally published in Inter Press Service and has been reproduced here with permission.
Mir’s greater worry though is the possibility of losing his voice on X, where he connects with over eight million followers. “If I can’t speak my mind, it will have a profound impact on me,” he said.
But even those journalists who otherwise feel social media is being misused find the law distasteful.
“I have zero tolerance for fake news, and am all for regulating the beast that social media has become, but not this way, certainly,” said senior investigative journalist, Umar Cheema, terming it a “third class” law.
The law was originally passed in 2016, by the same ruling party that has brought the current amendments — the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz. It had been met with much criticism even then.
“The reason for the need for the law given back in 2016 was to counter hate speech, terrorist content and harassment of women — this time the ruse is fake news,” said Farieha Aziz’s co-founder of Bolo Bhi, an advocacy forum for digital rights. The suspicion and criticism against the law now and then is the same — the government is using this law to “stifle political dissent and rein in freedom of expression,” she said.
The amendment to the law, criminalises fake news and its dissemination with a prison term of up to three years and a fine of up to Rs2 million (about $7,200).
But, pointed out Aziz, the concern went beyond just the penalties associated with the amendment to the law — it is the “potential for misuse” in the process of determining what constitutes fake news. “People will be reluctant to share or even discuss information out of fear that it might be deemed false or harmful, leading to criminal charges,” she explained, adding the definition of fake news was vague and broad. “They have created a vagueness through the use of language taken from the anti-terrorism act, around the offence,” she pointed out.
“The government operates in grey areas and likes to keep people in a state of confusion,” agreed Cheema.
Moreover, pointed out Munazza Siddiqui, senior producer on a private TV channel: “The law is unconstitutional as it violates the fundamental right to freedom, a core principle enshrined in our Constitution.”
She uses TikTok, a platform predominantly used for putting up entertaining content, for disseminating news and opinions. “It’s popular with young people but works superbly for me as they are my audience. The millennials and Gen Z want to stay informed about the world around them, but they lack the patience to sit through long articles or watch lengthy news segments on TV. I provide them with both in just a minute or so!”
However, Siddiqui acknowledged that her vlogging might be impacted. With the sword of Damocles hanging over her, in the form of the newly revised cyber law, she said, “We already navigate a space of self-censorship, and now there’s an added layer of fear.”
The law establishes four bodies — the Social Media Protection and Regulatory Authority, the Social Media Complaints Council, the Social Media Protection Tribunal, and the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency — concentrating significant power. Aziz warned that these bodies, appointed by the federal government, could lack independence, creating potential conflicts of interest and undermining fairness and accountability.
“And the window of appeal has also been closed as I can only go to the Supreme Court of Pakistan,” said Azaz, which was an expensive route to prove your innocence.
Although the 2016 cybercrime law was already considered draconian by experts, the reason to tweak it further, explained Cheema, was that “the nature and use of social media has changed and become more sophisticated since then, adding that the media needed to share the blame for the recent shape the law has taken.
Cheema said the media did not establish a code of conduct for responsible social media use which led the government to step in, using the fake news excuse to silence dissenting voices. He emphasized that while media can express opinions, facts must be solid, and journalists should hold each other accountable. “Yet, we don’t even call out our colleagues for lying.”
Finding the nationwide protest hypocritical, he questioned, “The bill wasn’t a surprise — everyone knew it was being revised. Why didn’t anyone speak up then? Where were the protests and revisions when it was in the National Assembly and Senate? There was silence, and now, after it’s law, they’re out on the streets.”
“The law is in place,” Tarrar said with finality. However, he added: “The rules are still being worked out, and we’re open to media input to refine them.”
“Recalling the law may be tough,” agreed Cheema, but if the media is concerned, “They can come up with their own system; no one is stopping them; but that’s the real test for our community.”
Header image: Pakistani journalists speak out about cybercrime law from left to right Hamid Mir, Munazza Siddiqui and Umar Cheema. Credits: Jang News, and TikTok
This article was originally published in Inter Press Service and has been reproduced here with permission.
Our algorithm-driven reality
DAWN
The writer is a former editor of Dawn.
PAKISTAN’S National Assembly ignored all objections and protestations by the opposition, digital rights activists and journalists to hurriedly push through the Prevention of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Act this week in an attempt to police social media platforms that the hybrid government has struggled to muzzle.
The question, however, is whether Pakistan is unique in its attempts to come to grips with social media. The answer is an emphatic no as is clear from examples of the US, India and China where social media has posed challenges of varying degrees and kinds.
Ever since the ouster of Imran Khan as prime minister in a vote of no-confidence in April 2022, after he fell out with the military leadership, the latter and its civilian acolytes in the PML-N and PPP have struggled to tame social media platforms dominated by their political rival.
Despite considerable effort, both legal and extrajudicial, including forced disappearances and arrests of social media activists belonging to Imran Khan’s PTI, the attempts of the regime to bring social media under control, where the latter party enjoys unrivalled superiority, have been frustrated.
Pakistan has justified its measures to put social media platforms on a leash, saying they are destabilising the gains ostensibly made by the economy under the hybrid system in place since 2022. The truth is that, more than anything else, these measures are placing roadblocks in a high-growth sector. How so?
The question is whether Pakistan is unique in its attempts to come to grips with social media.
Whether it is the firewall that slows down the internet or curbs on certain platforms or other measures, software exporters say that these are adversely affecting their business and also depriving individuals offering their services abroad of an opportunity to earn badly needed foreign exchange for the country.
India’s exports are largely driven by the services sector, namely IT; experts say the country’s huge foreign exchange surplus owes itself to these exports. And here we are throwing out the baby with the bathwater as we are bereft of ideas on how to ‘control’ anti-government content on social media.
However, Pakistan isn’t alone in trying to curb free data and information flows (admittedly these also include falsehoods and propaganda). Take, for example, the current tension in the US between TikTok and the authorities, where President Donald Trump has given the platform a three-month reprieve after it was banned.
While officially, the concern regarding TikTok is about a ‘Chinese-controlled’ firm harvesting US user date to develop algorithms and others digital weapons that could be used in an information or propaganda war with the US, there are other, more potent issues as well.
Israel’s Gaza genocide is one. Where US-owned (and controlled) social media platforms such as Facebook are said to have used algorithms to block content showing events in their entirety, X and even Meta’s Instagram were more cunning.
In the words of one social media user, X’s Elon Musk has repeatedly talked of his commitment to ‘free speech’, but has made no such promise to ensure ‘free reach’. The devil is in this detail. While most of us were free to post almost any information/ opinion on Gaza, critics say the platform algorithms kicked in to give greater reach to pro-Gaza genocide posts.
Ever since Musk took over Twitter and rechristened it X, many accounts, which were adding a certain number of followers every month, have stopped growing as has their reach. My own ‘followers’ count has not grown for months now, neither has my reach or views. I can only attribute it to the gulf between my worldview and the one promoted by Musk’s algorithms.
TikTok was a thorn in the side of the apartheid state’s supporters and hence the need to ban it. Now there are indications from no less than the US president himself that he’d want an American entrepreneur to purchase the app. This to dictate and direct content/ information flows in future conflicts, including in Gaza in case the peace deal collapses. With the bulk of traditional media already onside, US free speech advocates have remained largely silent over this ‘algorithm-controlled’ freedom.
China is at least not hypocritical and does not lecture the world on the virtues of freedom. It firewalls all content that it does not like. It is an authoritarian state which has decided to focus on economic development, while leaving political rights for another day.
Beijing has lifted over 800 million people out of poverty over the past 40 years. The World Bank said in a report in April 2022: “With this, China has contributed close to three-quarters of the global reduction in the number of people living in extreme poverty.”
Again, this by no means is an endorsement of China’s two-track policy whereby economic well-being comes against the backdrop of few or no political rights. Ironically, while the world has issues with this policy in China, it embraces despots in the Arab world doing exactly the same because they toe Washington’s line on global and regional politics.
India, where the space for non-Hindutva politics and thoughts may be dramatically shrinking under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, is a different story. Those in power have the bulk of the traditional media in their pocket and a handful of BJP politicians and oligarchs such as Ambani and Adani are calling the shots.
The size of the India market endows the country with enormous power. It has applied pressure on all social media platforms to sign up to tight regulations, obliging them to moderate (read: censor) content that the government finds unsavoury. The revenues the tech companies earn from India makes them weak-kneed when faced with government pressure.
In a fluid, ever-evolving situation, it is difficult to predict or even visualise the exact shape of things to come. One hopes this fascinating and challenging scenario does not lad to a world where we smugly celebrate ‘access to free information’ and forget how algorithm-tainted it may well be.
abbas.nasir@hotmail.com
Published in Dawn, January 26th, 2025
PAKISTAN’S National Assembly ignored all objections and protestations by the opposition, digital rights activists and journalists to hurriedly push through the Prevention of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Act this week in an attempt to police social media platforms that the hybrid government has struggled to muzzle.
The question, however, is whether Pakistan is unique in its attempts to come to grips with social media. The answer is an emphatic no as is clear from examples of the US, India and China where social media has posed challenges of varying degrees and kinds.
Ever since the ouster of Imran Khan as prime minister in a vote of no-confidence in April 2022, after he fell out with the military leadership, the latter and its civilian acolytes in the PML-N and PPP have struggled to tame social media platforms dominated by their political rival.
Despite considerable effort, both legal and extrajudicial, including forced disappearances and arrests of social media activists belonging to Imran Khan’s PTI, the attempts of the regime to bring social media under control, where the latter party enjoys unrivalled superiority, have been frustrated.
Pakistan has justified its measures to put social media platforms on a leash, saying they are destabilising the gains ostensibly made by the economy under the hybrid system in place since 2022. The truth is that, more than anything else, these measures are placing roadblocks in a high-growth sector. How so?
The question is whether Pakistan is unique in its attempts to come to grips with social media.
Whether it is the firewall that slows down the internet or curbs on certain platforms or other measures, software exporters say that these are adversely affecting their business and also depriving individuals offering their services abroad of an opportunity to earn badly needed foreign exchange for the country.
India’s exports are largely driven by the services sector, namely IT; experts say the country’s huge foreign exchange surplus owes itself to these exports. And here we are throwing out the baby with the bathwater as we are bereft of ideas on how to ‘control’ anti-government content on social media.
However, Pakistan isn’t alone in trying to curb free data and information flows (admittedly these also include falsehoods and propaganda). Take, for example, the current tension in the US between TikTok and the authorities, where President Donald Trump has given the platform a three-month reprieve after it was banned.
While officially, the concern regarding TikTok is about a ‘Chinese-controlled’ firm harvesting US user date to develop algorithms and others digital weapons that could be used in an information or propaganda war with the US, there are other, more potent issues as well.
Israel’s Gaza genocide is one. Where US-owned (and controlled) social media platforms such as Facebook are said to have used algorithms to block content showing events in their entirety, X and even Meta’s Instagram were more cunning.
In the words of one social media user, X’s Elon Musk has repeatedly talked of his commitment to ‘free speech’, but has made no such promise to ensure ‘free reach’. The devil is in this detail. While most of us were free to post almost any information/ opinion on Gaza, critics say the platform algorithms kicked in to give greater reach to pro-Gaza genocide posts.
Ever since Musk took over Twitter and rechristened it X, many accounts, which were adding a certain number of followers every month, have stopped growing as has their reach. My own ‘followers’ count has not grown for months now, neither has my reach or views. I can only attribute it to the gulf between my worldview and the one promoted by Musk’s algorithms.
TikTok was a thorn in the side of the apartheid state’s supporters and hence the need to ban it. Now there are indications from no less than the US president himself that he’d want an American entrepreneur to purchase the app. This to dictate and direct content/ information flows in future conflicts, including in Gaza in case the peace deal collapses. With the bulk of traditional media already onside, US free speech advocates have remained largely silent over this ‘algorithm-controlled’ freedom.
China is at least not hypocritical and does not lecture the world on the virtues of freedom. It firewalls all content that it does not like. It is an authoritarian state which has decided to focus on economic development, while leaving political rights for another day.
Beijing has lifted over 800 million people out of poverty over the past 40 years. The World Bank said in a report in April 2022: “With this, China has contributed close to three-quarters of the global reduction in the number of people living in extreme poverty.”
Again, this by no means is an endorsement of China’s two-track policy whereby economic well-being comes against the backdrop of few or no political rights. Ironically, while the world has issues with this policy in China, it embraces despots in the Arab world doing exactly the same because they toe Washington’s line on global and regional politics.
India, where the space for non-Hindutva politics and thoughts may be dramatically shrinking under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, is a different story. Those in power have the bulk of the traditional media in their pocket and a handful of BJP politicians and oligarchs such as Ambani and Adani are calling the shots.
The size of the India market endows the country with enormous power. It has applied pressure on all social media platforms to sign up to tight regulations, obliging them to moderate (read: censor) content that the government finds unsavoury. The revenues the tech companies earn from India makes them weak-kneed when faced with government pressure.
In a fluid, ever-evolving situation, it is difficult to predict or even visualise the exact shape of things to come. One hopes this fascinating and challenging scenario does not lad to a world where we smugly celebrate ‘access to free information’ and forget how algorithm-tainted it may well be.
abbas.nasir@hotmail.com
Published in Dawn, January 26th, 2025
Throttling free speech
Usama Khilji
Why the latest proposal to amend Peca is an attempt to further strangle free speech
Pakistan’s digital rights remain hostage to the same political charades that allowed Peca to flourish in the first place.
Farieha Aziz
Empty resistance
While several legislators within the party deserve credit for keeping Peca under scrutiny, resisting it in the assembly, and proposing amendments, the momentum faltered when it truly mattered — in the Senate, where the opposition enjoyed a majority. When push came to shove, the resolve wavered.
The bill could have been stalled further, but when it reached the Senate’s standing committee, there was a rush to conclude discussions, with claims that “enough time” had been spent debating and that the bill “needed” to be passed. Despite substantial input and alternative legal formulations provided over the preceding year and a half, claims were made that civil society had failed to contribute anything meaningful or in a timely manner.
PPP legislators patted themselves on the back for a job well done — for proposing over 50 amendments to Peca in the Senate — all of which ultimately amounted to nothing more than cosmetic tweaks of full stops and commas. None of the substantive changes proposed by civil society were ever incorporated.
From the PML-N government, such disregard was expected. However, as the bill approached the finishing line, the PPP and its allies played their optics game, projecting an image of resistance while enabling the ushering in of a law they could have done far more to water down — if not stop altogether.
Now, the very same PPP and its members are delivering fiery speeches in Parliament about the state of the internet, and floating ideas for a digital rights bill. But what good can any bill or affirmative legislation do when the Constitution itself has been reduced to a redundant piece of paper? When protections enshrined in the Constitution hold no weight during investigations, prosecutions and trials, how can a special statute negate the draconian impact of the way a criminal law plays out on the ground — in an FIA office or at the trial court? Especially when the procedural safeguards that exist in the law itself are flouted with impunity.
Illusion of digital rights
Lawmakers often think that passing a law marks the end of their responsibility. They love presenting legislation as a feather in their cap. But proof of the pudding lies in its implementation which they do not care to monitor. This is despite the ample provisions under the legislative scheme, which include standing and special committees, to extend oversight and conduct law reform based on substantive analysis, not knee-jerk reactions and imagined problems.
What amendments since the time Peca was enacted in 2016 have been fielded to roll back its draconian nature? Other than the few times standing committees have taken up one-off issues raised about its implementation, what oversight, scrutiny or accountability has been conducted?
Even now, there are plenty of speeches about slow internet speeds, and standing committees have been addressing related matters such as the Web Management System (WMS) or firewalls. But what has this scrutiny yielded substantively? Has the government or PTA fessed up to the technology that has been deployed? Its capability? Procurement and operation details? Has any legislator so much as inquired about the specifics and followed up?
Parliament’s failure is compounded by that of courts where numerous petitions are pending, challenging the actions of the government and PTA for transgressing their bounds and seeking the protection of fundamental rights, but to no avail.
In this environment, what value, then, does a ‘digital rights’ bill have? The very executive trampling on all things digital has been empowered by this same legislature, including the PPP, through the 26th amendment, which has further weakened the courts. How, then, with a straight face, can the claim of a digital rights bill be made?
Another impending doom
Now, the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Amendment Bill 2025 is staring us in the face.
It creates more offences, limits more categories of speech, enables regulatory capture through a new authority, and adds more red tape with onerous procedures via the creation of tribunals. The bill empowers the hand of the very authorities that continue to hold the internet, services, platforms and citizens hostage.
Only time will tell if these speeches will translate into tangible and substantive resistance — or if they will be opposed and stopped meaningfully, instead of being rubber-stamped as has become the norm in parliament.
As they say, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
There’s no ‘but’ anything this time around. These amendments are not needed and are certainly not being introduced to protect citizens. That fig leaf is long gone. They serve only to maintain the status quo, tightening the stranglehold over speech and information while further subjugating citizens.
Header image generated by DALL-E 3.
Usama Khilji
DAWN
The writer is director of Bolo Bhi, an advocacy forum for digital rights.
AT a time when there should be an introspective stocktaking of the internet governance regime in Pakistan, the government has instead recommended drastic changes to the cybercrime law by proposing four new bodies as well as adding vague and broad definitions of online harms that criminalise speech further and carry a penalty of three years in jail for sharing “false or fake information”.
By this point, there is no surprise that the Peca amendment was passed without any multi-stakeholder consultation. Law and policymaking are supposed to be inclusive processes with input from across the board, including stakeholders who are directly affected, experts that work in the field, media that will be at risk, and young people who form the majority of internet users.
The amendment essentially legalises most of the illegal internet-related actions that the state has been taking since Peca, the cybercrime law, was promulgated in 2016 by the PML-N.
First, it expands the definition of complainant from aggrieved party to “an individual, including victim, having substantial reason to believe that the offence has been committed” and expands the definition of person to “a natural person or a body politic or corporate”, which means that now organisations and government bodies can also use this law to prosecute people.
The disproportionate criminalisation of speech is bound to have a chilling effect.
Second, it criminalises “false and fake information”, stipulating that “whoever intentionally disseminates, publicly exhibits, or transmits any information through any information system, that he knows or has reason to believe to be false or fake and likely to cause or create a sense of fear, panic or disorder or unrest in general public or society shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend up to three years or with fine which may extend to two million rupees or with both”.
This disproportionate criminalisation of speech is bound to have a chilling effect, especially when such a vague and broad definition leaves plenty of room for abuse. The state has now taken the responsibility to determine the truth and jail those it deems to be digressing from it. This violates Pakistan’s commitments under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 19 of which stipulates a three-part test which includes legality, necessity, and proportionality.
Third, the government is all-powerful — judge, jury and executioner — when it comes to content on social media, with little accountability or oversight that is essential in a constitutional democracy. The amendment forms four different bodies. A Social Media Protection and Regulatory Authority presumably replaces the Pakistan
AT a time when there should be an introspective stocktaking of the internet governance regime in Pakistan, the government has instead recommended drastic changes to the cybercrime law by proposing four new bodies as well as adding vague and broad definitions of online harms that criminalise speech further and carry a penalty of three years in jail for sharing “false or fake information”.
By this point, there is no surprise that the Peca amendment was passed without any multi-stakeholder consultation. Law and policymaking are supposed to be inclusive processes with input from across the board, including stakeholders who are directly affected, experts that work in the field, media that will be at risk, and young people who form the majority of internet users.
The amendment essentially legalises most of the illegal internet-related actions that the state has been taking since Peca, the cybercrime law, was promulgated in 2016 by the PML-N.
First, it expands the definition of complainant from aggrieved party to “an individual, including victim, having substantial reason to believe that the offence has been committed” and expands the definition of person to “a natural person or a body politic or corporate”, which means that now organisations and government bodies can also use this law to prosecute people.
The disproportionate criminalisation of speech is bound to have a chilling effect.
Second, it criminalises “false and fake information”, stipulating that “whoever intentionally disseminates, publicly exhibits, or transmits any information through any information system, that he knows or has reason to believe to be false or fake and likely to cause or create a sense of fear, panic or disorder or unrest in general public or society shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend up to three years or with fine which may extend to two million rupees or with both”.
This disproportionate criminalisation of speech is bound to have a chilling effect, especially when such a vague and broad definition leaves plenty of room for abuse. The state has now taken the responsibility to determine the truth and jail those it deems to be digressing from it. This violates Pakistan’s commitments under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 19 of which stipulates a three-part test which includes legality, necessity, and proportionality.
Third, the government is all-powerful — judge, jury and executioner — when it comes to content on social media, with little accountability or oversight that is essential in a constitutional democracy. The amendment forms four different bodies. A Social Media Protection and Regulatory Authority presumably replaces the Pakistan
Telecommunications Authority in internet content regulatory function and makes the directives of the government to the authority final.
So far, the PTA, which was supposed to be independent, could choose to follow directives of the government, but the new authority will be an extension of the government’s will. The PTA has been arguing in courts that it was ordered to block X by the interior ministry, when the law says that it is the PTA’s discretion to do so. The chairperson of the authority will be appointed only by the federal government.
A Social Media Complaint Council is being set up which will solicit complaints from the public regarding violation of sections of Peca. Additionally, a Social Media Protection Tribunal will hear appeals against content-related decisions of the authority. The appeals to its decisions can only be taken up in the Supreme Court, bypassing the appeals stage in the high courts, which violates fair trial and due process rights under Article 10 of the Constitution. The tribunal will have one retired judge of the high courts, one software engineer, and one journalist. Sophisticated legal interpretation cannot be left to such a council, and high court appeal must be granted.
Further, the amendment sets up a National Cyber Crime Investigation Authority to replace the Federal Investigation Agency’s Cyber Crime Wing. This is happening nine years since Peca was passed in 2016, during which time a lot was left to be desired by the existing bodies. To introduce new bodies at this point will set the process of the system’s efficiency under the law far back.
Fourth, the amendment further empowers the authority to determine what constitutes unlawful content, and nine categories have been added to it, expanding what Section 37 of Peca stipulated.
This includes content that “cast aspersions against any person including members of judiciary, armed forces, Majlis-i-Shoora (parliament) or a provincial assembly”, which will lead to huge influx of reporting from the authority to social media platforms against speech expressed on social media by citizens simply holding public officials accountable, by virtue of citizens being taxpayers and voters. The amendment also stipulates enlistment of social media platforms with the authority, which is another term for registering them locally, and empowers the authority to block the platform in case of non-compliance with censorship requests.
The Peca amendment and the further restrictions on speech it brings will have disastrous consequences for Pakistan.
First, it violates fundamental rights the same way as the Peca Ordinance passed by the PTI in 2021, which was struck down by the Islamabad High Court in April 2022, did. The right to freedom of speech and press freedom cannot be restricted to an extent where journalists risk three years in jail if the government decides their reporting or a citizen’s post is “false”. It also violates due process and fair trial rights by restricting appeals of decisions by the tribunal to the Supreme Court.
Second, the further shrinking of rights can have disastrous international consequences by violating the ICCPR, and risking Pakistan’s GSP-Plus status by the EU for trade concessions based on human rights performance.
Third, this further restricts the internet environment, risking economic losses as Pakistan already suffers from acute brain drain accelerated by internet issues caused by censorship, surveillance, and internet slowdown due to the firewall.
Any independent court would strike down such a draconian law in the interest of democratic constitutional rights and interests of the young people that need a free and open internet to progress and compete internationally.
X: @UsamaKhilji
Published in Dawn, January 25th, 2025
So far, the PTA, which was supposed to be independent, could choose to follow directives of the government, but the new authority will be an extension of the government’s will. The PTA has been arguing in courts that it was ordered to block X by the interior ministry, when the law says that it is the PTA’s discretion to do so. The chairperson of the authority will be appointed only by the federal government.
A Social Media Complaint Council is being set up which will solicit complaints from the public regarding violation of sections of Peca. Additionally, a Social Media Protection Tribunal will hear appeals against content-related decisions of the authority. The appeals to its decisions can only be taken up in the Supreme Court, bypassing the appeals stage in the high courts, which violates fair trial and due process rights under Article 10 of the Constitution. The tribunal will have one retired judge of the high courts, one software engineer, and one journalist. Sophisticated legal interpretation cannot be left to such a council, and high court appeal must be granted.
Further, the amendment sets up a National Cyber Crime Investigation Authority to replace the Federal Investigation Agency’s Cyber Crime Wing. This is happening nine years since Peca was passed in 2016, during which time a lot was left to be desired by the existing bodies. To introduce new bodies at this point will set the process of the system’s efficiency under the law far back.
Fourth, the amendment further empowers the authority to determine what constitutes unlawful content, and nine categories have been added to it, expanding what Section 37 of Peca stipulated.
This includes content that “cast aspersions against any person including members of judiciary, armed forces, Majlis-i-Shoora (parliament) or a provincial assembly”, which will lead to huge influx of reporting from the authority to social media platforms against speech expressed on social media by citizens simply holding public officials accountable, by virtue of citizens being taxpayers and voters. The amendment also stipulates enlistment of social media platforms with the authority, which is another term for registering them locally, and empowers the authority to block the platform in case of non-compliance with censorship requests.
The Peca amendment and the further restrictions on speech it brings will have disastrous consequences for Pakistan.
First, it violates fundamental rights the same way as the Peca Ordinance passed by the PTI in 2021, which was struck down by the Islamabad High Court in April 2022, did. The right to freedom of speech and press freedom cannot be restricted to an extent where journalists risk three years in jail if the government decides their reporting or a citizen’s post is “false”. It also violates due process and fair trial rights by restricting appeals of decisions by the tribunal to the Supreme Court.
Second, the further shrinking of rights can have disastrous international consequences by violating the ICCPR, and risking Pakistan’s GSP-Plus status by the EU for trade concessions based on human rights performance.
Third, this further restricts the internet environment, risking economic losses as Pakistan already suffers from acute brain drain accelerated by internet issues caused by censorship, surveillance, and internet slowdown due to the firewall.
Any independent court would strike down such a draconian law in the interest of democratic constitutional rights and interests of the young people that need a free and open internet to progress and compete internationally.
X: @UsamaKhilji
Published in Dawn, January 25th, 2025
Changes to cybercrime law unveiled amid protest
• Standing Committee on Interior to take up Peca (Amendment) bill today
• Changes proposed include creation of new authority with powers to block both content and social media platforms
• NCCIA to replace FIA Cybercrime Wing; 3-year terms suggested for disinformation
• Package to overhaul criminal justice system also laid before parliament
ISLAMABAD: A bill seeking amendments to the country’s cybercrime laws was introduced in the National Assembly on Wednesday, proposing three-year prison terms for spreading disinformation, dissolving the FIA’s Cybercrime Wing and setting up of a new investigation agency, and establishing a new authority with vast powers, which include partial or full blocking of social media platforms.
“Whoever intentionally disseminates, publicly exhibits or transmits any information through any information system, that he knows or has reason to believe to be false or fake and likely to cause or create a sense of fear, panic or disorder or unrest in general public or society shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend up to three years or with fine which may extend to Rs2m or with both,” reads the latest draft, titled the Prevention of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Bill, 2025.
The proposed amendment to Peca was presented as a supplementary agenda item by Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar on behalf of the interior minister.
The introduction coincided with a noisy protest by PTI-led opposition lawmakers, who criticised the speaker for refusing to grant the floor to Leader of the Opposition Omar Ayub Khan before the question hour.
The National Assembly’s Standing Committee on Interior is set to convene today (Thursday) to discuss the Peca (Amendment) Bill.
According to the bill, the Social Media Protection and Regulatory Authority will be based in Islamabad, with the provision to establish offices in other provinces as needed.
The authority will oversee the enlisting of social media platforms and set operational standards and ensure the protection of users’ rights while facilitating social media platforms.
The authority will be authorised to take disciplinary action against social media platforms violating the Peca Act. It can also direct relevant institutions to remove unlawful content from social media. Individuals affected by illegal online activities must report to the authority within 24 hours.
The authority will comprise nine members, including the interior secretary, the PTA chairman and the Pemra chairman serving as ex-officio members. The chairman and five other members will be appointed for a five-year term. The chairman must hold at least a bachelor’s degree or have 15 years of relevant experience.
The chairman will have the power to order the immediate blocking of any unlawful content on social media.
Under the new amendments, all social media platforms must register with the authority. Platforms failing to comply with the law may face temporary or permanent bans.
The authority will have the power to block content that contradicts the ideology of Pakistan or incites citizens to break the law.
It will also be authorised to block unlawful content targeting members of the judiciary, armed forces, parliament or provincial assemblies. Content deleted during parliamentary proceedings cannot be reuploaded on social media.
According to the amendment bill, statements from banned organisations or individuals cannot be uploaded on social media.
NCCIA, council and tribunal
The amendment also proposes the establishment of a Social Media Complaint Council. In cases where social media platforms fail to comply with directives, the authority will have the power to approach the tribunal for enforcement.
To investigate illegal activities on social media, the federal government will establish the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA), as per the amendment bill. The agency will be headed by a director general, appointed for a three-year term.
Officers and personnel of the authority will have powers equivalent to police officers of corresponding ranks. Upon the establishment of the new investigative agency, the FIA’s Cybercrime Wing will be dissolved.
The federal government will also establish a Social Media Protection Tribunal to enforce the provisions of the amended act. The tribunal will be chaired by a former high court judge and will include a journalist and a software engineer as members.
According to the proposed amendment, decisions made by the tribunal can be challenged in the Supreme Court within 60 days.
CrPC amendments
Earlier, the law minister also introduced a bill proposing 108 amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The amendments aim to simplify the filing of FIRs, prevent false complaints and curb police excesses during arrests and detentions.
Mr Tarar highlighted provisions requiring lower courts to grant bail when police investigations favour acquittal. He also proposed a one-year timeline for completing trials in criminal cases, with high courts mandated to act if deadlines are exceeded. Pending appeals in high courts would also need to be resolved within a specified timeframe, with consequences for non-compliance.
The bill also includes provisions for using modern devices as evidence and invited input from lawmakers during committee reviews.
The National Assembly also passed the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (Implementation) Bill, introduced by Dr Shezra Mansab Ali Khan Kharal.
Meanwhile, Parliamentary Secretary for Energy Aamir Talal Khan responded to a calling-attention notice, stating that 70 per cent of K-Electric’s 2,100 feeders are now loadshedding free. He added that 282 out of 295 feeders serving mixed-use consumers face no loadshedding, while only 30pc of feeders in high-loss areas experience power outages.
At the start of the session, Leader of the Opposition Omar Ayub Khan attempted to raise a point of order but was denied by Speaker Sardar Ayaz Sadiq, who remarked, “No point of order will be allowed before the question hour is over. I do not make U-turns.”
This sparked a protest by PTI lawmakers, who chanted slogans in support of their imprisoned founder Imran Khan. They also tore copies of the agenda, which were seen flying all around.
Published in Dawn, January 23rd, 2025
DAWN
• Standing Committee on Interior to take up Peca (Amendment) bill today
• Changes proposed include creation of new authority with powers to block both content and social media platforms
• NCCIA to replace FIA Cybercrime Wing; 3-year terms suggested for disinformation
• Package to overhaul criminal justice system also laid before parliament
ISLAMABAD: A bill seeking amendments to the country’s cybercrime laws was introduced in the National Assembly on Wednesday, proposing three-year prison terms for spreading disinformation, dissolving the FIA’s Cybercrime Wing and setting up of a new investigation agency, and establishing a new authority with vast powers, which include partial or full blocking of social media platforms.
“Whoever intentionally disseminates, publicly exhibits or transmits any information through any information system, that he knows or has reason to believe to be false or fake and likely to cause or create a sense of fear, panic or disorder or unrest in general public or society shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend up to three years or with fine which may extend to Rs2m or with both,” reads the latest draft, titled the Prevention of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Bill, 2025.
The proposed amendment to Peca was presented as a supplementary agenda item by Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar on behalf of the interior minister.
The introduction coincided with a noisy protest by PTI-led opposition lawmakers, who criticised the speaker for refusing to grant the floor to Leader of the Opposition Omar Ayub Khan before the question hour.
The National Assembly’s Standing Committee on Interior is set to convene today (Thursday) to discuss the Peca (Amendment) Bill.
According to the bill, the Social Media Protection and Regulatory Authority will be based in Islamabad, with the provision to establish offices in other provinces as needed.
The authority will oversee the enlisting of social media platforms and set operational standards and ensure the protection of users’ rights while facilitating social media platforms.
The authority will be authorised to take disciplinary action against social media platforms violating the Peca Act. It can also direct relevant institutions to remove unlawful content from social media. Individuals affected by illegal online activities must report to the authority within 24 hours.
The authority will comprise nine members, including the interior secretary, the PTA chairman and the Pemra chairman serving as ex-officio members. The chairman and five other members will be appointed for a five-year term. The chairman must hold at least a bachelor’s degree or have 15 years of relevant experience.
The chairman will have the power to order the immediate blocking of any unlawful content on social media.
Under the new amendments, all social media platforms must register with the authority. Platforms failing to comply with the law may face temporary or permanent bans.
The authority will have the power to block content that contradicts the ideology of Pakistan or incites citizens to break the law.
It will also be authorised to block unlawful content targeting members of the judiciary, armed forces, parliament or provincial assemblies. Content deleted during parliamentary proceedings cannot be reuploaded on social media.
According to the amendment bill, statements from banned organisations or individuals cannot be uploaded on social media.
NCCIA, council and tribunal
The amendment also proposes the establishment of a Social Media Complaint Council. In cases where social media platforms fail to comply with directives, the authority will have the power to approach the tribunal for enforcement.
To investigate illegal activities on social media, the federal government will establish the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA), as per the amendment bill. The agency will be headed by a director general, appointed for a three-year term.
Officers and personnel of the authority will have powers equivalent to police officers of corresponding ranks. Upon the establishment of the new investigative agency, the FIA’s Cybercrime Wing will be dissolved.
The federal government will also establish a Social Media Protection Tribunal to enforce the provisions of the amended act. The tribunal will be chaired by a former high court judge and will include a journalist and a software engineer as members.
According to the proposed amendment, decisions made by the tribunal can be challenged in the Supreme Court within 60 days.
CrPC amendments
Earlier, the law minister also introduced a bill proposing 108 amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The amendments aim to simplify the filing of FIRs, prevent false complaints and curb police excesses during arrests and detentions.
Mr Tarar highlighted provisions requiring lower courts to grant bail when police investigations favour acquittal. He also proposed a one-year timeline for completing trials in criminal cases, with high courts mandated to act if deadlines are exceeded. Pending appeals in high courts would also need to be resolved within a specified timeframe, with consequences for non-compliance.
The bill also includes provisions for using modern devices as evidence and invited input from lawmakers during committee reviews.
The National Assembly also passed the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (Implementation) Bill, introduced by Dr Shezra Mansab Ali Khan Kharal.
Meanwhile, Parliamentary Secretary for Energy Aamir Talal Khan responded to a calling-attention notice, stating that 70 per cent of K-Electric’s 2,100 feeders are now loadshedding free. He added that 282 out of 295 feeders serving mixed-use consumers face no loadshedding, while only 30pc of feeders in high-loss areas experience power outages.
At the start of the session, Leader of the Opposition Omar Ayub Khan attempted to raise a point of order but was denied by Speaker Sardar Ayaz Sadiq, who remarked, “No point of order will be allowed before the question hour is over. I do not make U-turns.”
This sparked a protest by PTI lawmakers, who chanted slogans in support of their imprisoned founder Imran Khan. They also tore copies of the agenda, which were seen flying all around.
Published in Dawn, January 23rd, 2025
Why the latest proposal to amend Peca is an attempt to further strangle free speech
Pakistan’s digital rights remain hostage to the same political charades that allowed Peca to flourish in the first place.
Farieha Aziz
Published January 23, 2025
PRISM/DAWN
Ten years ago, in 2015, the first draft of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (Peca) 2016, surfaced. But not because the government — then too the PML-N — felt the need to be transparent, share and consult. It was a leaked draft that was analysed and shared.
The draft sparked immediate alarm among digital rights activists, prompting a press conference in Islamabad to warn of the bill’s troubling implications. Yet, the mood in the room was sceptical. Reporters questioned the organisers: “How do you know this is the bill? Shouldn’t social media be regulated?”
Incidentally, the very next day, the National Assembly’s standing committee on IT approved a version of the bill similar to the one that had been circulated and spoken about at the press conference.
Over the next year and a half, the bill was vociferously debated both inside and outside the assemblies — not because the government encouraged such discourse, but because an alliance of civil society and industry, supported by allies in the opposition and media, ensured it happened. Despite the resistance, Peca eventually saw the light of day. The Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) stood as a vocal opponent of the bill, making sure their stance was heard loud and clear. However, the bottom line is that this issue goes beyond mere posturing.
Ten years ago, in 2015, the first draft of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (Peca) 2016, surfaced. But not because the government — then too the PML-N — felt the need to be transparent, share and consult. It was a leaked draft that was analysed and shared.
The draft sparked immediate alarm among digital rights activists, prompting a press conference in Islamabad to warn of the bill’s troubling implications. Yet, the mood in the room was sceptical. Reporters questioned the organisers: “How do you know this is the bill? Shouldn’t social media be regulated?”
Incidentally, the very next day, the National Assembly’s standing committee on IT approved a version of the bill similar to the one that had been circulated and spoken about at the press conference.
Over the next year and a half, the bill was vociferously debated both inside and outside the assemblies — not because the government encouraged such discourse, but because an alliance of civil society and industry, supported by allies in the opposition and media, ensured it happened. Despite the resistance, Peca eventually saw the light of day. The Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) stood as a vocal opponent of the bill, making sure their stance was heard loud and clear. However, the bottom line is that this issue goes beyond mere posturing.
Empty resistance
While several legislators within the party deserve credit for keeping Peca under scrutiny, resisting it in the assembly, and proposing amendments, the momentum faltered when it truly mattered — in the Senate, where the opposition enjoyed a majority. When push came to shove, the resolve wavered.
The bill could have been stalled further, but when it reached the Senate’s standing committee, there was a rush to conclude discussions, with claims that “enough time” had been spent debating and that the bill “needed” to be passed. Despite substantial input and alternative legal formulations provided over the preceding year and a half, claims were made that civil society had failed to contribute anything meaningful or in a timely manner.
PPP legislators patted themselves on the back for a job well done — for proposing over 50 amendments to Peca in the Senate — all of which ultimately amounted to nothing more than cosmetic tweaks of full stops and commas. None of the substantive changes proposed by civil society were ever incorporated.
From the PML-N government, such disregard was expected. However, as the bill approached the finishing line, the PPP and its allies played their optics game, projecting an image of resistance while enabling the ushering in of a law they could have done far more to water down — if not stop altogether.
Now, the very same PPP and its members are delivering fiery speeches in Parliament about the state of the internet, and floating ideas for a digital rights bill. But what good can any bill or affirmative legislation do when the Constitution itself has been reduced to a redundant piece of paper? When protections enshrined in the Constitution hold no weight during investigations, prosecutions and trials, how can a special statute negate the draconian impact of the way a criminal law plays out on the ground — in an FIA office or at the trial court? Especially when the procedural safeguards that exist in the law itself are flouted with impunity.
Illusion of digital rights
Lawmakers often think that passing a law marks the end of their responsibility. They love presenting legislation as a feather in their cap. But proof of the pudding lies in its implementation which they do not care to monitor. This is despite the ample provisions under the legislative scheme, which include standing and special committees, to extend oversight and conduct law reform based on substantive analysis, not knee-jerk reactions and imagined problems.
What amendments since the time Peca was enacted in 2016 have been fielded to roll back its draconian nature? Other than the few times standing committees have taken up one-off issues raised about its implementation, what oversight, scrutiny or accountability has been conducted?
Even now, there are plenty of speeches about slow internet speeds, and standing committees have been addressing related matters such as the Web Management System (WMS) or firewalls. But what has this scrutiny yielded substantively? Has the government or PTA fessed up to the technology that has been deployed? Its capability? Procurement and operation details? Has any legislator so much as inquired about the specifics and followed up?
Parliament’s failure is compounded by that of courts where numerous petitions are pending, challenging the actions of the government and PTA for transgressing their bounds and seeking the protection of fundamental rights, but to no avail.
In this environment, what value, then, does a ‘digital rights’ bill have? The very executive trampling on all things digital has been empowered by this same legislature, including the PPP, through the 26th amendment, which has further weakened the courts. How, then, with a straight face, can the claim of a digital rights bill be made?
Another impending doom
Now, the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Amendment Bill 2025 is staring us in the face.
It creates more offences, limits more categories of speech, enables regulatory capture through a new authority, and adds more red tape with onerous procedures via the creation of tribunals. The bill empowers the hand of the very authorities that continue to hold the internet, services, platforms and citizens hostage.
Only time will tell if these speeches will translate into tangible and substantive resistance — or if they will be opposed and stopped meaningfully, instead of being rubber-stamped as has become the norm in parliament.
As they say, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
There’s no ‘but’ anything this time around. These amendments are not needed and are certainly not being introduced to protect citizens. That fig leaf is long gone. They serve only to maintain the status quo, tightening the stranglehold over speech and information while further subjugating citizens.
Header image generated by DALL-E 3.
No comments:
Post a Comment