At a time when there should be an introspective stocktaking of the Internet governance regime in Pakistan, the government has recommended drastic changes to the cybercrime law by proposing four new bodies and adding vague and broad definitions of online harms that criminalize speech even more and carries a three-year prison sentence for sharing “false or falsified information.”
At this point, it is not surprising that the Peca amendment was passed without any consultation with multiple stakeholders. Laws and policymaking are supposed to be inclusive processes with input from all walks of life, including the stakeholders who are directly affected, the experts working in the field, the media who will be at risk, and the youth who constitute the most Internet users.
Basically, the amendment legalizes most of the illegal internet-related actions that the state has been taking since the PML-N enacted Peca, the cybercrime law, in 2016.
First, it expands the definition of complainant from an aggrieved party to “an individual, including the victim, who has reasonable grounds to believe that the crime has been committed” and expands the definition of person to “a natural person or a political or corporate”. which means that now government organizations and agencies can also use this law to prosecute people.
The disproportionate criminalization of speech will surely have a chilling effect.
Secondly, it criminalizes “false and false information”, stipulating that “whoever intentionally disseminates, publicly displays or transmits any information through any information system, which he knows or has reason to believe is false or false and who may cause or create a sense of fear, panic or disorder or unrest in the general public or society shall be punishable with imprisonment up to three years or with a fine up to two million rupees, or with both.”
This disproportionate criminalization of speech is sure to have a chilling effect, especially when such a vague and broad definition leaves so much room for abuse. The State has now assumed the responsibility of determining the truth and imprisoning those it considers to be deviating from it. This violates Pakistan’s commitments under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), whose Article 19 stipulates a three-part test including legality, necessity and proportionality.
Third, the government is all-powerful (judge, jury and executioner) when it comes to social media content, with little accountability or oversight, essential in a constitutional democracy. The amendment forms four different bodies. A Social Media Protection and Regulatory Authority presumably replaces the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority in the Internet content regulatory role and makes government directives to the authority final.
Until now, the PTA, which was supposed to be independent, could choose to follow the government’s directives, but the new authority will be an extension of the government’s will. The PTA has been arguing in court that the Home Office ordered it to block X, when the law says it is the PTA’s discretion to do so. The president of the authority will be appointed solely by the federal government.
A Social Media Complaints Council is being created that will solicit complaints from the public about the violation of sections of Peca. In addition, a Social Network Protection Court will hear appeals against authority decisions related to content. Appeals to its decisions can only be filed in the Supreme Court, avoiding the appeal stage in higher courts, which violates the rights to a fair trial and due process established in article 10 of the Constitution. The court will consist of a retired high court judge, a software engineer and a journalist. Sophisticated legal interpretation cannot be left to such counsel, and an appeal to the higher court must be granted.
Additionally, the amendment establishes a National Cyber Crime Investigation Authority to replace the Cyber Crime Wing of the Federal Investigation Agency. This happens nine years after Peca was approved in 2016, during which time existing bodies left much to be desired. The introduction of new bodies at this time will greatly delay the process of making the system efficient in accordance with the law.
Fourthly, the amendment further empowers the authority to determine what constitutes illicit content, and nine categories have been added, expanding what was stipulated in article 37 of Peca.
This includes content that “slanders any person, including members of the judiciary, the armed forces, the Majlis-i-Shoora (parliament) or a provincial assembly”, which will lead to a huge influx of reports from the authority to the social media platforms against expressed speech. on social networks by citizens simply holding public officials responsible, by virtue of the fact that citizens are taxpayers and voters. The amendment also stipulates the 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 increased restrictions on freedom of expression that it entails will have disastrous consequences for Pakistan.
Firstly, it violates fundamental rights in the same way as did the Peca Ordinance passed by the PTI in 2021, which was struck down by the Islamabad High Court in April 2022. The right to freedom of expression and press does not can be restricted to the point that journalists risk three years in prison if the government decides that their information or a citizen’s publication is “false.” It also violates the right to due process and a fair trial by restricting appeals of court decisions to the Supreme Court.
Second, further reduction in rights may have disastrous international consequences by violating the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and jeopardizing Pakistan’s GSP-Plus status by the EU for performance-based trade concessions. of human rights.
Third, this further restricts the Internet environment, risking economic losses as Pakistan already suffers from an acute brain drain accelerated by Internet problems caused by censorship, surveillance and the slowdown of Internet due to firewall.
Any independent court would strike down such a draconian law in the interest of democratic constitutional rights and the interests of young people who need a free and open Internet to progress and compete internationally.
The writer is director of Bolo Bhi, a forum for the defense of digital rights.
UNKNOWN: @UsamaKhilji
Published in Dawn, January 25, 2025