Pakistan’s legal framework has long been plagued by laws that remain dormant due to political sensitivities or are routinely misapplied because of their broad and often ambiguous language. This persistent disconnect between legislative development and law enforcement capabilities is not a mere oversight but a structural flaw that undermines the integrity of the rule of law. When legal systems lose their credibility, society tends to operate based on coercion rather than consensus, eroding the fundamental trust that citizens place in their laws and institutions.
The recent amendments to the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA), purportedly aimed at strengthening the country’s cybercrime framework, raise significant concerns about their potential for genuine reform. The question is not merely whether the amendments will be enforced, but whether enforcement will align with the legislative intent. Expanding the scope of existing laws without addressing the capacity and capability of law enforcement agencies risks turning these legal tools into instruments of control, rather than serving their intended purpose of justice. This is a pattern observed globally - laws that are designed to safeguard rights and security often become vehicles for repression when not implemented with foresight and a balanced approach.
In 2024 alone, over 160,000 cybercrime complaints were registered in Pakistan. Yet, a significant number of cases remain unreported due to a lack of public awareness, unclear complaint mechanisms, and delays in enforcement. With a bloated backlog of cases, victims of digital crimes often find themselves without recourse. A staggering 60 percent of cases remain unresolved beyond their statutory deadlines. In this environment, the prospect of effectively regulating the digital sphere seems more an aspiration than a practical reality. Thus, we must ask ourselves: can the amendments to PECA genuinely address the structural flaws of the system, or will they only serve to deepen the dysfunction?
When PECA was first enacted in 2016, it was introduced without ensuring that law enforcement agencies had the necessary expertise or resources to implement it effectively. Eight years later, this gap remains glaring: only 350 investigators are tasked with handling the over 160,000 cases filed in 2024. The lack of proper training and the limited jurisdiction of local police forces have only exacerbated the bottleneck, resulting in a system that is overwhelmed and inefficient. Rather than addressing these systemic issues, the 2025 amendments have further expanded the scope of PECA, introducing vague and ill-defined restrictions on online speech, ‘fake news,’ and criticism of state institutions, without offering a clear strategy for enforcement.
A New York Times study suggests that fake news spreads six times faster than factual reporting - efforts to regulate content must not infringe upon fundamental freedoms
This trajectory mirrors trends observed in other nations, where laws ostensibly designed to regulate digital content and combat cybercrime have instead been used as tools for silencing dissent. The experience of countries such as Egypt, Turkey, and Bangladesh is particularly instructive. In Egypt, the Anti-Cybercrime Law of 2021 led to the arrest of over 500 journalists and activists under the guise of combating “false information.”
Similarly, Bangladesh’s Digital Security Act of 2018 saw over 2,000 cases filed against online critics, including students and minors. In both cases, the laws were leveraged to stifle political dissent rather than protect public security. Even in the United States, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) of 1986, originally enacted to combat hacking and unauthorised access, has been expanded to cover espionage and fraud. However, selective enforcement has resulted in the disproportionate targeting of whistleblowers and activists. India’s Information Technology Act of 2000, intended to safeguard e-commerce and tackle cybercrime, has similarly been misused to target political opposition due to a lack of enforcement capacity.
While the spread of misinformation is undeniably a global concern, a New York Times study suggests that fake news spreads six times faster than factual reporting - efforts to regulate content must not infringe upon fundamental freedoms. The regulation of cyber harassment, libel, and incitement to violence must be pursued within the framework of a robust legal process that safeguards civil liberties. Pakistan must focus on empowering law enforcement through proper training, enhancing forensic capabilities, and ensuring transparency and fairness in legal processes, rather than rushing through amendments that offer little in the way of practical enforcement.
For any legal framework to function effectively, it must be pragmatic, enforceable, and inclusive. Law enforcement agencies must be professional, well-trained, and independent to uphold the rule of law and separation of powers with integrity. Law enforcement achieves its greatest success when it adapts to the social context in which it operates, rather than attempting to impose rigid and draconian controls. Laws should serve as guiding principles, fostering a framework for ethical conduct and mutual respect, rather than being wielded as instruments of control over society’s freedoms. The over-reliance on legal intervention often signals deeper dysfunctions within a society - be it a loss of civic trust, an erosion of ethical values, or the collapse of communal responsibility. In a well-functioning society, social norms and ethical values should guide behavior, with legal measures being applied as a last resort.
Germany’s NetzDG law, enacted in 2017, established stringent regulations aimed at curbing online hate speech. However, it coupled these rigorous enforcement measures with initiatives designed to foster media literacy, promote ethical conduct, and ensure independent oversight. This balanced approach sought to address the issue comprehensively, combining punitive action with educational and regulatory safeguards.
The over-legislation of a society inevitably undermines the very trust it seeks to protect. Pakistan stands at a critical juncture: it must decide whether to foster a society where law and morality coexist, or whether to embrace a model where the law dictates morality, at the cost of fundamental freedoms. This decision will shape not only the future of the country’s legal framework but also the very fabric of its democratic and digital governance.