ISLAMABAD: The Senate Standing Committee on Interior approved the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (Peca) amendment bill on Monday, despite objections from journalist unions and Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F).
JUI-F Senator Kamran Murtaza criticized the rushed approval, questioning the limited time given for review and consultation. He also raised concerns about the vague definition of “fake news,” emphasizing the lack of clarity in determining its validity.
PML-N Senator Irfan Siddiqui acknowledged the journalists’ concerns but supported the bill’s essence, emphasizing the importance of combating fake news, particularly on social media.
Journalists and Opposition Outcry
Journalist unions, including the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ), strongly opposed the bill, describing it as a draconian measure that curtails freedom of expression and media independence. The PFUJ announced nationwide protests, rejecting the law and threatening legal challenges.
PTI Chairman Barrister Gohar Khan echoed concerns, criticizing the bill as a hasty attempt to penalize individuals under the guise of combating fake news.
Key Provisions of the Peca Amendment Bill
The bill, passed by the National Assembly on January 23, introduces significant changes to the existing law:
- Punishments: Individuals found disseminating fake information online could face up to three years in prison, fines of up to Rs2 million, or both.
- Regulatory Bodies: Establishment of the Social Media Protection and Regulatory Authority (SMPRA), the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA), and Social Media Protection Tribunals.
- Content Control: Social media platforms could be required to register with the authority and comply with its directives to remove or block content within 24 hours if deemed inappropriate.
- Defined Violations: Content promoting violence, hatred, obscenity, or containing false information could face immediate removal.
The bill also proposes the creation of a Social Media Complaint Council to address grievances and a tribunal system for resolving cases within 90 days, with appeals allowed to the Supreme Court.
Criticism and Concerns
Journalist bodies, opposition parties, and civil society criticized the bill for its potential to stifle freedom of expression. Critics argue that the provisions could be misused to suppress dissent and target critics of the government and state institutions.
Despite these concerns, the government defends the bill as a necessary step to modernize cybercrime legislation and address growing challenges posed by fake news and online threats.
