Pakistan Proposes Sweeping Changes to Cybercrime Law, Sparking Free Speech Concerns
The Pakistani government has introduced a bill proposing extensive amendments to the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA), raising concerns among journalist bodies and free speech advocates. The proposed changes significantly expand the definition of illegal online content, establish new regulatory bodies, and introduce stricter penalties for violations. Critics argue that these amendments could stifle dissent and curtail freedom of expression in the country.
The PECA Amendment Bill 2025, tabled in the National Assembly, outlines 16 categories of illegal content, encompassing a broad range of online activities. These include content deemed against Islam, national security, public order, as well as fake news, defamation, and criticism of state institutions like the judiciary and armed forces. The bill also targets content considered indecent, immoral, or blasphemous, and prohibits incitement to violence, hatred, or terrorism. The expanded scope of these categories has raised fears that the law could be used to suppress legitimate criticism and journalistic investigations.
The proposed legislation establishes three new institutions: the Digital Rights Protection Authority (DRPA), the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA), and the Social Media Protection Tribunal. The DRPA will be responsible for regulating social media content, investigating complaints, removing illegal content, and taking action against those involved in sharing prohibited material. This authority will also have the power to make recommendations to the government on digital ethics and online safety, and to encourage social media platforms to establish offices in Pakistan and register with the government. The composition of the DRPA, with a majority of government officials, has raised concerns about potential bias and lack of independence.
The NCCIA will take over the responsibilities of the Federal Investigation Agency’s Cyber Crime Cell, investigating cybercrime cases. The agency will be headed by a director-general appointed by the federal government, holding a rank equivalent to a provincial inspector general of police. The Social Media Protection Tribunal will handle cases related to the dissemination of false news, with a mandate to dispose of cases within 90 days. Decisions of the tribunal can be challenged in the Supreme Court.
The bill introduces stricter penalties for spreading false news, with a punishment of up to three years imprisonment and a fine of Rs2 million. It also criminalizes the sharing of expunged content from parliamentary sessions on social media, carrying a similar penalty. The bill redefines "social media platform" to include any software or tool used to access social media, potentially broadening the scope of the law’s application.
Journalist organizations have strongly condemned the proposed amendments, characterizing them as an attempt to suppress free speech and media freedom. The Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ) has called the bill a "deception" and vowed to launch protests if the amendments are not withdrawn. The PFUJ has criticized the government for failing to consult with stakeholders, including journalists, before introducing the bill. Similarly, the Karachi Union of Journalists (KUJ) has denounced the bill as a "black law" that limits freedom of expression, violating Article 19 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom of speech.
The bill’s critics argue that the broad definitions of illegal content, coupled with the increased powers granted to the newly established institutions, create a chilling effect on free speech. They fear that the law could be misused to silence dissenting voices, suppress critical journalism, and stifle public discourse. The lack of clear guidelines and safeguards against arbitrary enforcement further fuels these concerns.
Furthermore, concerns have been raised regarding the independence and impartiality of the newly proposed bodies. The composition of the DRPA, dominated by government officials, raises questions about its ability to act independently and resist political pressure. The lack of representation from civil society organizations and independent experts further reinforces these concerns. The bill’s critics argue that these structural flaws could undermine the effectiveness of the institutions and potentially lead to biased decision-making.
The government, however, maintains that the amendments are necessary to combat online misinformation, hate speech, and cybercrime. It argues that the new regulations will protect citizens from online harms and ensure a safer online environment. Proponents of the bill argue that the existing legal framework is inadequate to address the growing challenges posed by the rapid growth of social media and the increasing prevalence of online abuse. They contend that the proposed changes will strengthen law enforcement’s ability to investigate and prosecute cybercrimes, and deter individuals from engaging in illegal online activities.
The government’s arguments, however, have failed to allay the concerns of journalists and free speech advocates. They argue that the bill’s broad provisions and vaguely worded definitions create a climate of fear and self-censorship. They point out that similar laws in other countries have been used to suppress dissent and stifle critical journalism. They urge the government to reconsider the proposed amendments and engage in a meaningful dialogue with stakeholders to develop a more balanced and rights-respecting approach to regulating online content.
The PECA Amendment Bill 2025 is currently under consideration by the National Assembly’s Standing Committee on Interior, which will now hold deliberations on the amendments. The outcome of these deliberations will be crucial in determining the future of online freedom of expression in Pakistan. The government must address the concerns raised by journalists and civil society organizations and ensure that any new regulations are consistent with international human rights standards. A balanced approach is needed that protects citizens from online harms while safeguarding the fundamental right to freedom of expression. The international community will be watching closely to see how this unfolds.