In what some activists and lawyers are calling a “major abuse” of the 2016 Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA), a special court last week ordered the registration of a first information report (FIR) against singer Meesha Shafi and eight others for allegedly “running a defamatory social media campaign against singer Ali Zafar”. The suspects include five witnesses from Shafi’s side in her sexual harassment case against Zafar which is still pending. Some legal experts are describing the PECA provisions as a tool “to victimise and pressure” witnesses and complainants.

Zafar had approached the FIA claiming that Shafi and “her aides” had started “a campaign on social media” to “defame” him by levelling “false allegations” of “sexual harassment”. The complaint was filed with the FIA’s cybercrime wing in November 2018. It alleged that many social media accounts were posting “threats and defamatory material” against him. Shafi had earlier accused Zafar of sexual harassment in April 2018. Zafar claimed that most of these “fake accounts” critical of Zafar were connected to Shafi.

There have been reports that the FIA provided “more than three opportunities” to each one of the suspects to defend themselves; but they had “failed to do so” and therefore, were “liable for action”. A case has now been registered against these persons, including Meesha Shafi under Section 20(1) of Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016 read with Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code. It’s a non-cognizable offence. The FIR says that Shafi has “failed to produce any witness in support of her allegation (of sexual harassment) against Zafar”.

A defamation suit filed by Zafar against Shafi is also pending before a district court.

Several legal experts and human rights watch dogs have said they see the complaint under the PECA law as an “extremely worrying” instance of abuse of Section 20.

Section 20 reads: “Whoever intentionally and publicly exhibits or displays or transmits any information through any information system, which he knows to be false, and intimidates or harms the reputation or privacy of a natural person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine which may extend to one million rupees or with both.”

“Entertaining a claim of defamation when no final verdict has been achieved in the allegations made amounts to silencing the victims of harassment in this case”, says Angbeen Mirza, a Lahore-based lawyer and researcher.

“In more civilised nations, there are laws that protect against such claims, made with the sole purpose of scaring victims into silence,” she says.

“I see the Ali Zafar and PECA situation as a gross misuse of the law. Unfortunately, the current culture of the online world, especially in our country, is supremely misogynistic. Laws are being turned on their head, provisions that were ostensibly enacted to ‘protect women’ are not only failing them, they are being used against them,” she says.

“To entertain a claim of defamation when no final verdict has been achieved in the allegations made amounts to silencing the victims of harassment in this case”, says Angbeen Mirza, a Lahore-based lawyer and researcher.

Since 2016, the PECA has been criticised for violating the fundamental right of freedom of speech guaranteed in the constitution. The law criminalises a broad range of activities from sending text messages “without the receiver’s consent” to criticising the government, religion, the country, its courts, and the armed forces. In the recent past, cases have been registered under this law against journalists, bloggers and social media influencers, especially those using Twitter.

“Section 20 of the PECA has effectively gagged all sectors of society,” says Noor Ejaz Chaudhry, a lawyer.

“The law does not provide an adequate protection mechanism for people who choose to come out with their stories. So, they take recourse to social media,” she continues.

“Section 20 has also taken away that avenue from them,” she notes.

“Even when no cause of action has actually accrued, or when statements made on social media are based on truth, people continue to file criminal/civil defamation suits to harass the complainants into redacting their narratives. This form of harassment also acts as a deterrent for all others who have no other avenue apart from social media to speak up. These tactics silence all victims,” she says.

Such a law harms digital rights and freedom, she says.

Several feminist groups and collectives such as Women’s Action Forum (WAF) and Women’s Democratic Front (WDF) have condemned the actions of the FIA and reiterated their support for those who “speak out against patriarchal violence”.

A joint statement by the groups reads: “Feminist groups across the country are appalled at the blatant weaponisation of the criminal defamation laws in Pakistan to silence victims and survivors of sexual assault and harassment. In a country with insurmountable barriers to reporting on cases of harassment and gender-based violence, our law enforcement agencies, instead of engaging in radical structural reform, have filed cases against nine people who spoke out in the most high-profile, but not only, #MeToo case in the country simply for speaking out online. This while the matter is still sub judice before courts ranging from the Supreme Court of Pakistan to the additional district and sessions judge, Lahore.”

“A criminal defamation [law] works against human rights in general and many democracies are getting rid of criminal defamation laws”, says lawyer Nighat Dad, who supported Shafi in the harassment case.

“Pakistan already has defamation laws under PPC. We feel that its addition in the PECA is problematic. There have been reservations on this law, particularly, the defamation section in the PECA since day one,” she says.

She says such laws are used to silence protesting voices and go against international laws, conventions and treaties signed by Pakistan. In this case pressure is being brought on five witnesses, she says.

She says several rights defenders had urged the government at the time of legislation to consider its potential misuse.

Critics say this is not the first time criminal defamation under Section 20 of the PECA has alleged to “silence, harass and intimidate victims and their supporters who have been brave enough to come out against perpetrators of sexual violence”.

“In case of journalists, this will lead to self-censorship by female journalists, who are already a victimised community,” says Mirza who urges setting a strong precedent of victim/ survivor-friendly justice. At the same time, she says, activists must work to lobby for clear legislation to prevent the silencing of victims/survivors.

The author is a staff reporter. He can be reached at vaqargillani@gmail.com