PAKISTAN has travelled this road many times before. Laws introduced in the name of order and security are quietly turned into tools of control. The Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (Peca) has followed exactly this path. Passed in 2016 to deal with cybercrime, it has instead been used to intimidate journalists, activists and ordinary citizens for what they say or share online. A decade on, the harm it has caused is plain to see. The concerns raised at the recent roundtable organised by the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan are therefore neither new nor exaggerated. Peca’s vague language allows authorities wide discretion that has repeatedly been misused. Investigations are launched without transparency, arrests are made without clear justification, and fear does the rest. The result is self-censorship. Much of the problem lies in how the law is enforced. The growing role of the Federal Investigation Agency in speech-related cases has created a system ripe for abuse. Journalists have described harassment and pressure tactics that have nothing to do with genuine cybercrime. When security agencies also enter the picture, accountability becomes even more distant. Media outlets in marginalised regions are especially exposed. In Balochistan, where newspapers rely heavily on state advertising, the mere threat of a Peca case can be enough to shape editorial decisions.

The roundtable participants were right to stress that legal challenges to Peca alone will not fix this problem. Court cases matter, but they move slowly and often help only after damage is done. As Shahid Khaqan Abbasi noted, resisting laws that restrict expression is essential if basic freedoms are to survive. That resistance must include public debate and collective action. The practical steps suggested in the meeting deserve support. Farhatullah Babar’s call for pro bono legal teams could offer immediate help to those targeted under Peca. His suggestion that abusers of the law be publicly identified is equally important. Without consequences, misuse will continue. At its core, the issue is simple. Criticism of the state is not a crime, and disagreement is not disloyalty. The state must stop using harsh, poorly defined laws to silence voices it finds inconvenient. Promising reform while enforcing Peca deepens mistrust. If the state is serious about democracy, it must restore the right to speak freely.

Published in Dawn, December 29th, 2025