eorge Washington famously stated that “if freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we will be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”

The caretaker federal government constituted a joint investigation team through its Notification F.No. 1/1/2024-FIA/Policy, purportedly to investigate a social media campaign meant allegedly to malign the image of judges of the Supreme Court. Since then, several journalists have been sent notices to appear before the team. Some of those who have complied, like Asad Toor, have been arrested.

Unfortunately, such arrests are neither new nor isolated events. Suppression of free speech and expression, Reporters without Borders observe, has persisted in Pakistan since its founding. Journalists have been killed and abducted. There has been censorship by the state. There has been biased reporting and lack of reporting resulting from fear of being harmed.

The impunity with which journalists and other critics of the Executive have been silenced throughout our history is mortifying. Many journalists, such as Bilal Farooqi, former PEMRA chairperson Absar Alam and Ehtisham Kiyani, to name a few, have been harmed in the past.

In the case of Shahid Akbar Abbasi, the Islamabad High Court had observed that “[m]any journalists have been killed in the line of duty in the past decade and were targeted for exposing the truth,” and that the “involvement of the state and its functionaries in crimes committed against a journalist extends the infringement to the fundamental rights of the public-at-large guaranteed under Articles 19 and 19-a of the constitution.”

There appears to be a disconcerting misalignment between the actions of the JIT and the legal mandate it is supposed to uphold, in addition to the lack of implementation of the Protection of Journalists Act.

Under the law, a JIT can be constituted for the sole purpose of “investigation of an offence under this Act.” There is no provision, either expressly or otherwise, making criticism of a judge an offence. Thus, the very formation of the JIT is questionable.

The Executive might seek to justify the setting up of the JIT and its actions by pointing towards PECA provisions pertaining to “natural dignity of a natural person.” However, such provisions are not relevant for several reasons. First, according to Section 43 of the PECA, most of such offences are “non-cognizable,” meaning that no FIR can be registered to begin with. Second, as held in Masood-ur Rehman Abbasi case, where a crime report was registered with the FIA for an offence under Section 20 of the PECA at the behest of a private person on allegations that “the petitioner criticised the honourable chief justice of Pakistan using strong and undesirable language,” Justice Athar Minallah questioned the locus standi of the complainant to file a complaint on behalf of another person and held that provisions of the PECA are person-specific. In other words, only the person so aggrieved can file a complaint.

Despite the passage of the Journalist Protection Act and various judgements of superior courts in this regard the Executive has made no noticeable effort to protect any journalist.

In the same judgement, Justice Minallah further opined that “a judge is not immune from being criticised. The judiciary, because of the nature of functions assigned to it under the constitution and the lofty position it enjoys in the society, is open to criticism. The independence of a judge is not affected in any manner because of public criticism.” Third, the JIT needs to obtain an order from a competent court to investigate the PECA offences as per Rule 7 (5) of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Rules. This does not seem to be the case here.

Further, in the Muhammad Shafique Butt case, where an FIR was registered against a person for allegations against a judge, the court while granting bail noted that the “Contempt of Court Ordinance… has exclusively left it to the courts to convict/ punish an alleged contemnor for maligning, ridiculing or bringing into disrepute the court or the judge.”

If the judges of the Supreme Court are personally aggrieved, they themselves can invoke jurisdiction under the Contempt of Court Ordinance. Their reluctance to do so tends to suggest that this is not a question of the dignity of the judges. It is apparently a sham to deceive the masses, a mere manipulation of words. The action appears to be designed to curtail the freedom of the media.

The legal framework for protection of journalists needs to be revisited. The bill for protection of journalists was first tabled in the parliament after two journalists were killed in the line of duty in 2014. Seven years later, after the Islamabad High Court and the Supreme Court took cognizance of the matter, a half-hearted Journalist Protection Act came into existence. Since its promulgation, the intent of the Journalist Protection Act, namely, to put an end to persecution of journalists, has not actualised.

Despite the Journalist Protection Act and judgments of the superior courts in this regard, the Executive has made no noticeable effort to protect any journalist.

The constitution of the JIT and the subsequent notices and arrests raise serious questions about the abuse of the process by those at the helm. This is a troubling encroachment on freedom of speech and expression.

This practice of selectively using legal provisions or misconstruing legal provisions is abominable and deserves condemnation. Freedom of speech and expression must be vigilantly safeguarded to ensure that legitimate criticism is protected and part of public discourse.

The writer is a lawyer. He can be reached at Adv.ChAmadTahir@gmail.com. His X handle: @kIMkLOz_4