EDITORIAL: The widespread frustration and anger among the country’s media bodies, rights activists and the public over the contentious Prevention of Electronic Crimes (Peca) (Amendment) Bill 2025, passed by the Senate on January 28 and assented to by the president is unsurprising given the Pakistani authorities’ track record of stifling dissent and independent voices. Assurances from Senator Irfan Siddiqui and Minister for Industries Rana Tanveer that the law is not meant to target regulated, licenced media, and will only work to rein in an out-of-control social media landscape that is rife with fake news and disinformation ring hollow considering the rushed passage of the legislation with little meaningful consultation with media stakeholders and rights groups. That the government move has raised fears that its true purpose is to muzzle criticism of the authorities and press freedom is a fact.
If the government spokespersons’ claims that the law only targets the excesses of digital media and not traditional media are true, one wonders why this was not made more explicit in the legislation. A clear overriding clause spelling out that print and electronic media outlets registered under relevant laws will be exempt from Peca’s provisions might have allayed some concerns. Its absence, however, raises doubts regarding the law’s true intent. Even with such a rider, critics would have remained wary owing to the vague, broad definitions of key terms used in the law, with unlawful content now including “fake or false information” and “aspersion” against constitutional institutions and their officers. This targets the censoring of opinions in the press and on social media by members of the public, while also creating a larger chilling effect on media reporting and investigative journalism, discouraging scrutiny of those in power and undermining the public’s right to information. Compounding matters are the harsh punishments prescribed, with offenders facing up to three years in prison and a fine of up to Rs2 million.
Equally concerning is the creation of bodies empowered to regulate content on social media and even block social media platforms, which could be forced to suppress any opinion critical of state institutions and officials.
Combating fake news, disinformation and harmful propaganda is undoubtedly one of the most crucial challenges of our time, which requires carefully crafted legislation developed through meaningful consultations with stakeholders. Such a process should also take inspiration from countries that have enacted relatively effective laws to mitigate the harmful impacts of social media while preserving fundamental freedoms. The process followed in Pakistan, however, bore no resemblance to such an approach, solidifying the perception that the goal was never solely to combat fake news, but rather to suppress critical commentary of those in power.
Ever since the first iteration of the Peca law was passed in 2016 by the previous PML-N administration, there have been numerous instances of it being weaponised against journalists, the political class, and human rights activists, while fake news and disinformation have continued to spread during this period. And although the PTI has been vociferous against its criticism of this latest version of Peca, it has conveniently forgotten its own role in strengthening an already draconian law when in power. Similarly, one wonders how the PPP reconciles its chairman’s recent calls for a bill of rights for the digital age, while at the same time voting for a legislation that can easily encroach upon fundamental freedoms. The role of the country’s three largest political parties in protecting essential rights, therefore, is clearly driven by political agendas rather than genuine commitment to upholding civil liberties.
If the government truly aspires to protect basic freedoms, it must hold transparent consultations with relevant bodies, incorporate essential protections into the law to prevent its misuse, and ensure effective judicial oversight over agencies empowered to implement it. Without this, the law would be seen as a tool of repression, not reform.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025