Journalists across Pakistan are out on the streets protesting against The Prevention of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Act (PECA) 2025 and petitions against it are piling up in courts. The draconian law first introduced in 2016 by the Pakistan Muslim League – N (PML-N) has been made even more draconian. This time, it was done with the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) as willing collaborators.
The amendments added a new provision, Section 26(A), to PECA. This addition is aimed at penalizing those responsible for spreading “fake news” online.
When PECA was first introduced in 2015 as a bill in the National Assembly, PPP, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) and the Awami National Party (ANP), allied with civil society and the press to resist the law. But once it arrived in the Senate where the opposition enjoyed a majority, the PPP made claims of “enough debate,” “it’s the need of the hour” and “we’ve fixed it” — which they hadn’t.
PECA was used against the PML-N, PTI, and PPP when they fell out of favor with the military establishment. Yet, this has not deterred any political party from being a vessel of further oppression when in power by expanding the scope of the law.
This time around, the PPP supported the amendments in the National Assembly.
When the amendments were tabled in the Senate for passage, journalists staged a walkout. PPP Senator Sherry Rehman visited them and assured them their amendments would be supported just as the law was being passed with the party’s blessing in the Senate, receiving the assent of President Asif Zardari (the PPP’s co-chairman) soon after.
Once the law was signed, a member of the PPP reached out to us for input to prepare amendments. There was no offer for such input prior to the enactment of the law, but once it was all finalized thanks to their parliamentarians, they felt the need to hold “discussions.”
When the PPP was in opposition and its members headed National Assembly and Senate standing committees, they called upon digital rights advocates and journalists to brief them on the misuse of PECA. Yet at no point in all these years did the party or its members move a bill to roll back the damage PECA has done. Instead, for short-term gain and favor, they decided to rubber-stamp these amendments.
The PPP certainly takes the cake in the art of deception and playing both sides. But it is also incumbent upon civil society and journalists to wisen up and see through these charades.
During advocacy against PECA back in 2015, consistent reminders were served to then allies in civil society, reminding them that despite flowery speeches, come time to vote we knew which way they swung: Pakistan Protection Act and the 21st amendment were recent debacles. This time it was the 26th amendment and PECA 2.0.
The amendments are a nefariously designed systemic assault on fundamental freedoms by expanding the state’s stranglehold over speech and information. This has not been whipped out of thin air; rather, its Machiavellian design is evident in the very deliberate and considered way granular changes have been introduced, to reverse years of judicial checks applied to misuse of the law’s provisions. There is a method to this madness.
These amendments close the door on the ability to seek relief based on misuse of the law, because it’s the very abuse of process that was challenged before courts and led to judicial pronouncements that has been legalized, so to speak.
Cases were quashed by courts for not fulfilling the basic requirements of the law. For instance, journalist Shahzeb Jillani’s case was discharged recognizing that institutions or third parties on their behalf could not be complainants but that a “natural person” who was directly aggrieved had to be.
So conveniently, the amendments alter the definition of person to include legal and corporate entities paving the way for “institutions” and a complainant is now anyone who “has substantial reasons to believe that the offence has been committed.”
“PECA was used against the PML-N, PTI, and PPP when they fell out of favor with the military establishment. Yet, this has not deterred any political party from being a vessel of further oppression when in power by expanding the scope of the law.”
Not as though this was not already happening in practice. The case against journalist Bilal Farooqi, which is still pending, was on the complaint of a factory worker in Karachi who happened to stumble upon his social media posts and reported them.
The way the law works in practice is that a person is identified as the target first. What they said or did not say, and whether it fits the offence or not, is an afterthought and semantics.
Once a complaint is filed, whether by issuing summons or registering an FIR, typically raids are conducted, attempts are made to arrest the person and seize their devices. Once arrested, there is a push for physical remand. Even where there is no arrest, appearance at every hearing is required.
Whether the offence is made out or not and whether procedures were followed or not, are things raised at later stages, once the damage is already done. An example of this is Asad Ali Toor’s arrest in February 2024, when after his arrest and 20-day incarceration, the court ultimately pronounced that the offence was never made out. By this time, the process was successfully used as punishment.
On the regulatory side, to counter checks against overreach, the amendments do away with the PTA, create a new regulatory authority that functions directly under the federal government and ensure its directives are “binding” upon it.
This is because under the earlier regulatory scheme, the IHC held that the federal government’s directives were not binding upon the PTA: X was banned upon a federal government notification.
Unfortunately, the courts did not prioritize petitions against the ban on the social platform X and the JIT and summons by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) in a timely manner. This gatekeeping further enabled the government to successfully weasel its way out of what would have been an obvious defeat in court by changing the rules of the game through altering the law.
Much of the resistance against PECA by journalist bodies today is stemming from being shunned after assurances by the government they would be taken into confidence. Too much is sacrificed at the altar of getting a seat at the table and eagerness to be co-opted.
There is nothing to “discuss.” No tweaks will prevent the persecution that this law enables. Nothing short of complete repeal should be accepted. These amendments are not just about press freedom; they have to do with the rights of every citizen of Pakistan.
The writer is a co-founder of Bolo Bhi, an advocacy forum for digital rights and host of the Digi Pod on Dawn News English
