“Assault on Civil Liberties: Rights Groups, Media, and CSOs Reject the Prevention of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Act, 2025”

Islamabad: The Forum for Digital Rights and Democracy (FDRD) is alarmed by the enactment of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Act, 2025, which has been bulldozed through Parliament without a meaningful consultative process with stakeholders and contains additions that are likely to have grim effects on fundamental rights of all citizens.

We urge the government to reconsider its decision in the light of the following concerns and provide a mechanism for inclusive, transparent consultation to address these issues.

The FDRD is an advocacy group formed in November – December 2024 during country-wide stakeholders’ consultations, organized by the Institute for Research, Advocacy and Development (IRADA), on governance of digital platforms in Pakistan.

The Forum, which includes stakeholders from across Pakistan representing various groups including but not limited to civil society, academia, journalists, private companies, development organizations, and leaders of rights groups, aims to advocate for better legislation and policy pertaining to freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and digital rights in Pakistan.

The FDRD believes that the amendment has been passed without any debate or consultative process with stakeholders, which is indicative of the undemocratic process adopted for critical legislation that impacts the lives of millions of people. This action undermines the principles of transparency, inclusivity, and accountability that are essential for democratic governance.

We recommend implementing public hearings, expert panels, or advisory committees to ensure diverse perspectives are included in such legislation. The FDRD is of the view that lack of a consultative process not only questions the legitimacy of the law but also risks unintended harm to free speech and dissent, essential components of democracy.

The Prevention of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Act, 2025 is a blatant violation of the principles of separation of powers. The doctrine demands that there must be no concentration of authority within one branch of the government. However, in the case of this amendment, an unreasonable amount of power lies with the executive branch.

The Forum considers that the Federal Government not only controls the Social Media Protection and Regulatory Authority by dictating its composition and issuing policy directives to it but also appoints members to the Social Media Complaint Council and Social Media Protection Tribunal, raising serious concerns about impartiality.

We recommend that appointments to such bodies should involve parliamentary oversight and input from civil society and other stakeholders. This unbridled power of the Federal Government to appoint members of all three bodies clearly negates democratic processes. In principle, Parliament and other stakeholders must have a meaningful role in such appointments. Moreover, appointing members of the Tribunal, an adjudicatory forum, by the Federal Government undermines the constitutional principle of separation of powers. Ideally, High Courts should serve as the appellate forum against decisions by the Social Media Protection and Regulatory Authority.

Nevertheless, if Tribunal members are required, they should be drawn from the higher judiciary. The addition of the term “aspersions,” and amendment to the definition of “complainant” to include “persons” both bear the risk of subjective interpretations due to their overbroad and vague nature and could possibly target genuine speech online.

This could open a floodgate of cases against citizens by organizations rightly criticized for their actions, enabling powerful entities to suppress narratives critical of them. We recommend clearer definitions and safeguards to prevent misuse of these provisions.

The Forum also believes that the amendment stands as a grave threat to fundamental rights, including freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and protections for marginalized groups already vulnerable online. In a functioning democracy, dissent is a necessary component of governance, not a threat.

Globally, criminal defamation is being repealed as it fosters self-censorship; countries increasingly favor civil remedies to balance accountability and free speech. The threat of imprisonment or heavy fines discourages individuals, journalists, activists, and critics from speaking out on important issues, even when their statements are truthful or made in good faith, out of fear of legal consequences.

The amendment will silence voices challenging the status quo, stifling public discourse and eroding accountability. Safeguards against such chilling effects must be introduced.

Fundamental rights are the cornerstone of any free and just society. We call on the government to repeal the Prevention of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Act, 2025, initiate a transparent process involving diverse stakeholders, and address the genuine challenges in digital governance through balanced, rights-respecting measures. We urge citizens, civil society organizations, and the international community to join us in resisting this draconian law and defending the principles of freedom of speech, democracy, and justice.