Amended cybercrime law poses new threats to press freedom

The IPI global network is deeply concerned by measures introduced in Pakistan’s newly amended cybercrime law, including provisions related to hate speech and misinformation, that can be used to target journalists and curtail press freedom.  We urge the government to revise the legislation in line with international human rights standards,  in consultation with the media community and civil society stakeholders.

The most recent amendments to the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) come as journalists in Pakistan face a range of challenges, including legal and physical attacks, as well as censorship. The 2016 PECA law has been a powerful weapon to crack down on journalists – in December 2024 alone, 150 journalists were charged under PECA for glorification of terrorism, cyber terrorism, hate speech and cyberstalking. These charges were often linked with critical reporting about state institutions and security agencies that the government condemned as false narratives. 

In 2022, the government attempted to expand section 20 of PECA on criminal defamation to prohibit defamation of public figures or officers and make the offence non-bailable. The High Court blocked this effort as an infringement on freedom of expression by declaring the PECA Ordinance unconstitutional and striking it down. 

The amended Prevention of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Act, 2025 was passed quickly without input from key stakeholders and media organisations, sparking widespread protests by journalists and civil society. The law came into effect on 29 January following presidential assent. 

Journalists have expressed concern that the new law deals yet another blow to media freedom. While the stated aim of the cybercrime legislation is to ‘clearly’ define and address hate speech, misinformation and content inciting violence or harm, the provisions are vague and overbroad, opening the door to further overreach and abuse. The measures introduced also reach far beyond regulating core cybercrimes. While the stated aim of the cybercrime legislation is to ‘clearly’ define and address hate speech, misinformation and content inciting violence or harm, the provisions are vague and overbroad, opening the door to further overreach and abuse. The measures introduced also reach far beyond regulating core cybercrimes. Several petitions challenging the constitutionality of the law have been filed, and are set to be heard in the High Courts and the Supreme Court.

Of particular concern is Section 26A, which punishes the “intentional dissemination, exhibition or transmission of information through any information system, that the sender knows or believes to be false or fake and likely to cause or create a sense of public fear, panic, disorder or unrest.”  The vague phrasing of this provision leaves it susceptible to wide and arbitrary interpretation by authorities, as the terms ‘false’ and ‘fake’ are not defined. In addition, the threshold of what may elicit ‘public fear, panic, disorder or unrest’ is widely subjective. A person convicted under section 26A may face an imprisonment term of up to three years or a fine of up to two million rupees (approximately USD 7,000) or both. Imprisonment is a disproportionate penalty for offences related to expression and violates freedom of opinion and expression under international law.   

“The lack of clarity and consensus raises questions about the intent of introducing the amendments,” the Pakistan Press Foundation told IPI. “Unfortunately, due to the previous misuse of regulatory bodies for the media and PECA itself, this amendment raised alarm bells for the media.’ The organisation has called for the immediate suspension of the implementation of the new law until meaningful consultations are held. 

New regulatory bodies for online media 

The law also tightens the government’s regulatory control over online media by establishing four enforcement bodies – the Social Media Protection and Regulatory Authority, Social Media Complaint Council, Social Media Protection Tribunals, and National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency – whose members are appointed by the federal government without independent oversight. 

The Social Media Protection and Regulatory Authority is also bound to comply with the policy directives issued by the government. Further concerning are the powers conferred on these bodies and the human rights implications. 

The Authority, for instance, is responsible for regulating unlawful or offensive content on social media platforms, including content that is against the ideology of Pakistan; is fake or false; casts aspersions against any person including members of the judiciary, Armed Forces, Parliament or Provincial Assembly; or promotes and encourages terrorism and other forms of violence against the State or its institutions. 

The lack of exemptions for journalistic work gravely threatens critical reporting and open debate online on matters of public interest. The Authority also has broad censorship powers to remove and block content and restrict access to social media platforms. Based on the Act’s definition of social media platforms, these powers may also extend to banning Virtual Private Networks (VPNs).

These bodies operate in the absence of judicial oversight. The intervention of the Supreme Court is included as a measure of last resort for decisions made by the Authority and appealed to the Tribunal. This route bypasses the High Court as an avenue for appeal and is potentially harrowing, time-consuming and costly for aggrieved persons. The media may choose to self-censor to avoid legal harassment.

IPI therefore calls on the government of Pakistan to:

• Conduct a full review of the legislation for compatibility with domestic and international freedom of expression commitments and obligations, in consultation with stakeholders from the media and civil society communities.
• Ensure all provisions affecting freedom of expression strictly adhere to the limitations test of legality, legitimate aim, and necessity and proportionality. In particular, the government should ensure that provisions are precisely drafted to guide conduct and refrain from vague phrases that are open to subjective interpretation and misuse. The law should not impose disproportionate sanctions such as imprisonment terms and exorbitant fines for offences related to expression.
• Establish safeguards, including independent judicial oversight to ensure enforcement agencies cannot unduly limit the exercise of free expression.
• Adopt more rights-respecting approaches to addressing disinformation such as ensuring access to credible information, promoting media and information literacy and multistake holder fact-checking initiatives, and creating a conducive environment for the operation of independent media.
• Source: IPI