MANY local and global Twitter users have, in recent months, reported receiving notices from the micro-blogging website stating that it had received `official correspondence` alleging their tweets were in `violation of Pakistani law` ie, the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016. One recent recipient is lawyer Reema Omer, who on Monday stated that she was handed such a notice, citing posts in which she questioned the constitutionality of military courts and their judgements.

Information Minister Fawad Chaudhry responded incredulously, denying his government had reported the tweets he described as purely `academic`. But the ludicrous application of Peca in the context of Ms Omer and many others` online expression requires more than mere denial, it demands answers. Who, exactly, is `officially`widening the censorship dragnet to include entirely legitimate and constitutionally protected speech? According to Peca, at least, the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority is solely vested with the power to block content, or request websites to remove or `withhold` content within local jurisdictions.

Regarding surveillance, however, one PTA official recently told this paper that multiple public and state bodies also have access to its monitoring portal. So is PTA failing to exercise discretionary oversight in processing requests from these external sources, or is it being bypassed altogether (and potentially at cross purposes)? For it seems that a concern repeatedly raised by rights activists is being made increasingly manifest: the mala fide use of Peca, with its broad parameters and nebulous terminology, to roll back fundamental rights and to harass and intimidate the public into silence. Given recent trends in the suppression of political speech, dissent and even satire in both mainstream media and online spaces, the rulers ought to be reminded of the fact that they too are made `of the people`, and to them they shall inevitably return. A true expression of their commitment to being the people`s (including those they are in disagreement with) representatives, therefore, would be to urgently seek to reform Peca and divest it of its lack of transparency and democratic safeguards.