A recent policy analysis by the Peace & Justice Network (PJN) has expressed serious concerns regarding amendments to Pakistan’s cybercrime legislation, specifically focusing on the ambiguous provisions criminalizing the spread of “false or fake information.” The report warns that such vague language could jeopardize freedom of expression and open the door to arbitrary application of the law.
Central to the analysis is Section 26-A of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA), introduced in 2025. This section prescribes penalties including imprisonment and fines for disseminating “false or fake information,” yet it fails to provide a clear definition of these terms. This lack of precision, experts argue, risks conflating misinformation with legitimate forms of expression such as criticism, satire, or journalistic reporting.
Legal scholars and digital rights advocates cited in the report emphasize that this ambiguity could expose journalists, activists, and political commentators to unwarranted prosecution. The report underscores that the challenge is not addressing misinformation itself, but rather ensuring that criminal laws are narrowly crafted to prevent harm without stifling democratic dialogue.
In a significant development, the analysis stresses that any restrictions on speech must comply with constitutional principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality. It suggests that vague offences like those in Section 26-A may fail these tests and could be vulnerable to legal challenges. The report also references instances where speech-related provisions have been used against journalists and online commentators, highlighting the risk of inconsistent enforcement due to unclear legal wording.
The report recommends amending Section 26-A to restrict criminal liability to cases involving intentional and demonstrable harm, such as incitement to violence, fraud, or threats to public safety. It advocates for removing criminal penalties for misinformation and instead promoting non-criminal measures like fact-checking, platform accountability, and digital literacy programs.
While recognizing that combating misinformation is a legitimate policy goal, the analysis warns that overly broad criminalization could suppress public debate and erode public trust. It calls for a balanced approach that protects free expression while addressing genuine harms effectively.
