The problems with the bill were legion, starting with the secrecy with which it was introduced, allowing little input from those who are most likely to be affected by it. The end process was a law that left far too much open to the interpretation of the authorities and which could end up criminalizing political dissent in cyberspace.
The changes made in the electronic crimes act have been made under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Ordinance, 2022. Under the ordinance, the definition of a “person” has been broadened to include any company, association, institution, organization, authority, or any other. Furthermore, anyone found guilty of attacking a person’s “identity” will now be sentenced to five years instead of three years.
The ordinance also states the informant or the complainant shall be “aggrieved person, his authorized representative, or his guardian, where such person is a minor or a member of the public in respect of a public figure or a holder of public office”.
Cases falling under PECA will be supervised by a high court and the trial court will have to conclude the case within six months. “The court shall submit a monthly progress report of any pending trial to the high court concerned and shall give reasons for the inability of the court to expeditiously conclude the trial,” says the ordinance.
If the law secretaries find that the case was delayed due to the “presiding officer or any of its functionaries” then they may inform the high court. If the high court is of the view that the delay in the disposal of a trial is attributable to the presiding officer of the court or any other court functionary then they can initiate or “direct commencement of appropriate disciplinary proceedings”.
The ordinance also empowers the chief justice of every high court to nominate a judge along with other officers. The other ordinance signed by the president makes changes in Section 181 of the Election Act, 2017. The amendments have added a new section titled 181 (A) in the law.
The new law allows a member of “parliament, provincial assembly or elected member of local government, including member holding any other office under the constitution or any other law, will be allowed to visit or address public meetings in “any area or constituency”.
In a country where information is tightly controlled, the relative freedom on social media gives a voice to those who would otherwise not be heard. But the state seems convinced that it has the right to determine what citizens see, hear and read over social media. This sort of heavy hand of the state, which uses any and all excuses – morality, ethics, religion, ‘decency’ and now ‘defamation’ – for its efforts at censorship will only lead us down a dangerous path of complete conformity of narrative and crackdown on any kind of dissenting thought.
