| Ordinance is a ‘sheer violation’ of SC verdicts, Constitution | Bars term it oppressive, extraconstitutional | SCBA terms it ‘classic example of authoritarian mindset’
Staff Report
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ) on Tuesday has challenged Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) Amendment Bill in Islamabad High Court (IHC).
According to details, the plaintiff said that the Constitution allows everyone to speak freely.
Media is being closed in the tenure of incumbent government of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) as unannounced restrictions were imposed on the journalists, the plea stated.
On the other hand, the PECA amendment bill was also challenged in LHC. The applicant adopted the stance that PECA bill was approved to silence the voices of media personnel.
The government wants to fulfill its nefarious aims by bringing this ordinance, the claimant stated.
The petitioner further added that issuing presidential ordinance in the presence of Parliament is illegal.
Moreover, the recently passed PECA Ordinance 2022 was challenged in the Lahore High Court (LHC) on Tuesday with the petition claiming that the ordinance is a ‘sheer violation’ of not only the judgements passed by the apex court but also the Constitution of Pakistan.
Petitioner Mohammad Ayub also claimed that the law was amended to save the government from its ‘illegal acts’ and requested the court to declare the ordinance unlawful, as it is liable to be set aside in the supreme interest of justice.
The petition made the principal staff officer of President Arif Alvi, principal secretary Prime Minister Imran Khan, secretary Ministry of Law and Parliamentary Affairs, secretary establishment, establishment division, secretary cabinet and secretary law and justice division as respondents.
Ayub also implored the court that the president promulgated PECA amendment ordinance with ‘mala fide intention and for ulterior motive’ just to ‘harass and blackmail the opposition’ as well as the public at large, the impugned ordinance was promulgated which is against the scheme of law.
“The motive behind the promulgation of the impugned ordinance is a directl attack upon the independence of the judicial system as well as judges of constitutional jurisdiction.”
According to the impugned amendment in section 2 of the said Ordinance the word person of age less than 10 years or less than 14 years is replaced and according to impugned interpretation “person’ includes any company, association or body of persons whether incorporated or not, institution, organization, authority or any other body established by the government under any law or otherwise”.
The petitioner cited the case proceedings of Mohsin Baig claiming Islamabad High Court discouraged the power abuse by the public officers as well as FIA, furthermore the court discouraged the promulgation of harsh laws just to escape the public pressure.
According to the impugned amendment, the definition of aggrieved person is changed to achieve ulterior motives, any person either informant or complainant can file a complaint under the impugned amendment, it is not out of context to narrate here that due to said amendment the proxy litigation will increase and ultimately that will result in overburden the courts as well as prosecution, added the petition.
Shedding light on how the judicial system will be pressurised through this ordinance, the petitioner contended that judges are bound to submit their monthly reports to a higher forum, the high courts also have to submit their reports to secretary law and subsequently, secretary law would recommend the high court to take action against the judges. “It is very much regretted to state here that said amendment is an attack upon the freedom of the judicial system and same is liable to be declared illegal and unlawful.”
“Article 19 of the Constitution talks about the freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of the press. Every citizen of Pakistan has the right to hold an opinion, the right to express them, and the right to speech. Hence this impugned ordinance is a sheer violation of Article 19 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.”
The petitioner also prayed to the court that the ordinance is set aside and till the final decision on the writ petition and the execution of the ordinance be suspended.
On the other hand, the superior bar associations of the country have unanimously rejected the recent amendments in the Pakistan Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) 2016 in separate statements, calling the recent legislation by the federal government an attempt to stifle dissent and freedom of expression.
In a statement, the Supreme Court Bar Association said, “Under the guise of PECA Ordinance, the ruling elite has once again launched a vicious agenda to cut-throat its political opponents and to silence all those who believe in freedom of speech, opinion and expression so as to hide its failure.”
The ordinance is a “classic example of the authoritarian mindset and a reflection of extremism”, said the SCBA, adding, “The country has not seen such oppressive restriction even in the worst dictatorships.”
It said the fake news remained a challenge but “any such remedy, which is contrary to the Constitution and against personal liberty, must not be allowed”.
It also said the amendments in Section 181 of the Election (Amendment) Bill 2017 are akin to pre-poll rigging and would adversely affect the electoral process.
The SCBA said these ordinances were “strictly ultra-vires to the Constitution” and the bar association will soon challenge the ordinances.
Meanwhile, the Sindh High Court Bar Association (SHCBA) termed the amendments to PECA Act a “colourful exercise of power by the president and federal law minister”. It said the “delinquent law ministry is pandering to the self-serving egos of those that wish to rule in an autocratic manner – oppressing any reasonable criticism as ‘fake news’,” it added.
The ordinance tramples the fundamental rights of free speech, it said further, adding that the legislation is reflective of “fascist and dictatorial regimes”.
Separately, the Lahore High Court Bar Association (LHCBA) urged the high court to declare the law extraconstitutional as it endorsed a plea filed in the court against the new law.
The LHCBA said the ordinance violated the constitution and should be declared void. It said the legislation was an attempt to repress the independence of media and judiciary.
