HomeAsiaAfghanistanCritics Slam Pakistan’s Draconian Cybercrime Legislation

Critics Slam Pakistan’s Draconian Cybercrime Legislation

The amendment significantly expands the law's scope and penalties, reigniting debates about balancing security with digital-age freedoms.

Image courtesy: The Express Tribune

 The National Assembly of Pakistan recently passed the Prevention of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Bill, marking a significant development in the country’s legal framework governing online activity. While the government claims the amendment is necessary to curb misuse of digital platforms and ensure online accountability, critics argue it is a veiled attempt to stifle dissent, muzzle free speech, and suppress political opponents. The passage of this legislation has ignited fierce debates over its implications for democracy, freedom of expression, and press independence.

The amendment seeks to strengthen the existing Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) of 2016 by expanding the scope of penalties for online defamation, hate speech, and the dissemination of false information. Under the new provisions, individuals found guilty of spreading “fake news” or defamatory content online could face up to three years in jail and fine of Rs 2 million rupees. Additionally, the amendment empowers authorities to initiate legal action against individuals without requiring a formal complaint from the affected party, thereby granting the state significant discretion in deciding what constitutes a violation.

Senior Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) leader Raza Rabbani has emerged as one of the most vocal critics of the amendment. In a scathing rebuke, Rabbani warned that the legislation poses a serious threat to freedom of expression and democratic norms in Pakistan. He expressed dismay over his own party’s support for the bill, calling it a contradiction of the PPP’s longstanding commitment to democratic values. Rabbani argued that the vague language of the amendment leaves it open to misuse by authorities to target political opponents, journalists, and dissenting voices. “This bill is a draconian measure that will silence critics and curtail fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution,” he asserted during a parliamentary session.

Critics from other political parties, including the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and smaller opposition factions, echoed Rabbani’s concerns. They argued that the amendment could be weaponized by the government to suppress opposition voices ahead of the next general election. Several lawmakers pointed out that Pakistan already has sufficient laws to address issues like defamation and hate speech, making the new provisions redundant and excessive. They further highlighted the lack of transparency in drafting the bill, accusing the government of bypassing public consultation and rushing the legislation through parliament.

In defense of the controversial legislation, Federal Information Minister Attaullah Tarar addressed the National Assembly’s press gallery, emphasizing that the new law would not adversely affect traditional media. Tarar clarified that a clear distinction exists between “working journalists” registered with press clubs and social media users, asserting that mainstream outlets would continue to operate under existing mechanisms overseen by Pemra’s council. “This law is aimed at curbing disinformation and safeguarding citizens against malicious campaigns, not at silencing responsible journalism,” he insisted.

Provincial Minister for Information, Marriyum Aurangzeb, stated that the amendment is designed to create a safer digital environment and protect citizens from the damaging effects of fake news. She dismissed concerns about misuse, assuring that the legislation includes safeguards to prevent arbitrary action.

However, journalists and media watchdogs have raised alarms about the amendment’s potential impact on press freedom. The expanded powers granted to authorities under the bill could be used to intimidate and silence investigative journalists, who often rely on exposing government corruption and malpractice. The Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ) condemned the amendment, calling it an attempt to “legislate fear into newsrooms.” Several media organizations have vowed to challenge the bill in court, arguing that it violates constitutional protections for free speech and the right to information.

The bill has also drawn criticism from international human rights organizations, which view it as part of a broader trend of authoritarianism in Pakistan. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have called on the government to reconsider the legislation, warning that it could erode democratic values and harm Pakistan’s reputation on the global stage. The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) highlighted the increasing pressure faced by Pakistani journalists, many of whom have been subjected to threats, harassment, and legal action for their reporting.

The Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act has been a controversial piece of legislation since its inception in 2016. Initially introduced under the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) government, the law was criticized for its overly broad provisions and lack of safeguards against abuse. Over the years, successive governments have attempted to amend the law, often drawing backlash from civil society and opposition parties. The current amendment marks the most significant expansion of the law’s scope and penalties, reigniting longstanding debates about the balance between security and freedom in the digital age.

The passage of the bill in the National Assembly further underscored the polarization within Pakistan’s political landscape. The PPP and PML-N, which initially expressed reservations about the bill, ultimately voted in favor, drawing criticism from their own ranks and civil society. The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and other opposition groups vehemently opposed the bill, staging a walkout in protest. Lawmakers from the opposition Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam Fazl also opposed the bill.

The potential impact of the amendment extends beyond individual freedoms to Pakistan’s democratic fabric. By granting authorities sweeping powers to regulate online content, the bill risks creating a culture of fear and self-censorship. Journalists, activists, and ordinary citizens may feel compelled to avoid discussing politically sensitive topics or criticizing those in power, weakening public accountability and democratic discourse. The legislation also sets a concerning precedent for other countries in the region, where governments have increasingly sought to control digital spaces.

Key provisions of the amended legislation include:

  • Establishment of the Digital Rights Protection Authority (DRPA): This new body is empowered to oversee and regulate social media platforms, ensuring compliance with national standards.
  • Expanded Definition of Illegal Content: The amendments broaden the scope of prohibited online material to include content that promotes violence, hatred, defamation, and material harmful to national security.
  • Mandatory Registration for Social Media Platforms: All social media platforms are now required to register with the DRPA, establish local offices, and appoint representatives within Pakistan.

 

  • Penalties for Disseminating False Information: Individuals found guilty of spreading disinformation can face up to three years in prison and fines up to 2 million Pakistani rupees (approximately $7,200).
  • Creation of a Social Media Protection Tribunal: This tribunal is tasked with expediting cases related to online crimes, aiming to resolve issues within 90 days.

The debate surrounding the Prevention of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Bill underscores the challenges of balancing security concerns with the protection of fundamental rights in an evolving digital landscape. While the government’s stated goal of combating cybercrime and misinformation is legitimate, the legislation’s vague provisions and lack of accountability mechanisms make it a dangerous tool in the hands of those who seek to suppress dissent. As Pakistan grapples with the implications of this new law, the need for an open, inclusive dialogue on digital governance has never been more urgent.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Coverpage’s editorial stance.

YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN
- Advertisment -

Other News