PECA Attacks Continue: Another Journalist Punished for Exposing Corruption and Bad Governance

The imprisonment of Karachi-based journalist Muhammad Aslam Shah has sparked sharp criticism of both the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) 2025 and the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA), with media bodies warning that Pakistan’s cybercrime framework is increasingly being used to punish journalism rather than protect citizens.

Shah was sent to prison on judicial remand after a judicial magistrate (South) rejected NCCIA’s request for 14 days of physical custody. The journalist had been arrested a day earlier under Peca 2025 following a complaint by Tabish Raza Husnain, reportedly an official of the Karachi Water and Sewerage Board (KWSB), the very department Shah had recently reported on for alleged mismanagement and corruption.

The case has raised a fundamental question: how can a journalist who exposes poor performance in a public utility be accused of criminal defamation, and why is the state enabling such cases?

The Reporting That Triggered the Case

According to journalists familiar with the matter, Shah’s social media posts and reporting focused on alleged corruption, administrative failures, and service delivery issues within the Karachi Water and Sewerage Board. These are matters of clear public interest in a city that has long struggled with water shortages, infrastructure decay, and governance failures.

Instead of addressing the substance of these allegations, a complaint was filed against Shah under PECA, accusing him of damaging the reputation of a KWSB official and a senior officer. Critics argue that this reflects a growing trend where institutions respond to scrutiny not with accountability, but with criminal complaints.

How PECA Enables Retaliatory Complaints

The FIR against Shah invokes Section 20 of PECA (offences against the dignity of a natural person) and Section 24 (cyberstalking). While these provisions were introduced to protect individuals from harassment and abuse, their broad and ambiguous wording has made them vulnerable to misuse.

Legal experts note that allegations of defamation, particularly when linked to reporting on governance, have traditionally fallen under civil law, not criminal prosecution. By allowing such disputes to be framed as cybercrime, PECA lowers the bar for arrest and empowers complainants with state machinery at their disposal.

In Shah’s case, NCCIA justified the arrest by claiming he failed to appear for inquiry. However, observers question why custodial action was necessary at all, especially when the alleged offence involved digital content that could have been examined without detention.

Court’s Decision Raises Red Flags About the Arrest

The judicial magistrate’s refusal to grant physical remand is telling. It indicates that the court was not convinced that NCCIA required custody to investigate the case. Yet despite this, Shah was still sent to prison on judicial remand, effectively punishing him through incarceration before any determination of guilt.

This outcome has reinforced fears that arrest itself has become the punishment, particularly in cases involving journalists and online speech.

The Unanswered Question: Who Is Held Accountable for False Accusations?

A critical gap exposed by PECA cases is the absence of meaningful consequences for those who file malicious or retaliatory complaints under PECA. If a court later determines that Shah’s reporting does not amount to defamation, harassment, or cyberstalking, there is little clarity on what action, if any, will be taken against the complainant.

There are currently no strong deterrents to prevent officials or institutions from using PECA as a pressure tactic. Legal experts argue that Pakistan urgently needs penalties for false, vexatious, or bad-faith cybercrime complaints, particularly when they target journalists, whistleblowers, or rights defenders.

Without such safeguards, Peca risks becoming a tool for intimidation rather than justice.

A Chilling Effect on Journalism

Media organisations warn that cases like Shah’s are not isolated but part of a widening pattern under PECA 2025.

Journalist Sohrab Barkat remains in jail over reporting-related allegations, with press freedom groups pointing out that prolonged detention itself has become a form of punishment. In another recent incident, a reporter was picked up for questioning over online content and later released without charges, a practice critics describe as intimidation rather than investigation.

The law’s reach has also extended beyond newsrooms. In Lahore, a singer was booked under PECA for performing a song that referenced the phrase “Qaidi 804”, triggering outrage over the criminalisation of artistic and political expression. Separately, renowned journalists have reportedly been sentenced to more than 15 years in prison under the same cybercrime framework, intensifying fears that PECA is being used to impose extreme penalties for speech-related offences.

Taken together, these cases point to a troubling trajectory: the routine deployment of cybercrime laws against journalists, artists, and critics whose work challenges authority.

As one senior journalist noted, “If we cannot question the performance of government departments, then who will? Accountability cannot exist without criticism.”

Unless safeguards are introduced to protect good-faith reporting and consequences imposed for the misuse of cybercrime laws, Pakistan risks normalising a system where exposing corruption is treated as a criminal act.

It is not just the freedom of one journalist that is at stake, but the public’s right to know how their institutions are run.

ALSO READ: Senate Committee Orders Withdrawal of 378 Illegal PECA Cases, Warns Against Misuse for Censorship