The PECA Ordinance 2022 was Tuesday challenged in the Lahore High Court (LHC) with the petition claiming that the ordinance was a ‘sheer violation’ of not only the judgments passed by the apex court but also the constitution.
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 was liable to be set aside in the supreme interest of justice.
The petition made the principal staff officer of President Arif Alvi, principal secretary to the prime minister, 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 motive behind the promulgation of the impugned ordinance is a direct 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 that Islamabad High Court had 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 pressurized through this ordinance, the petitioner contended that judges were 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.
Meanwhile, the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ) Tuesday filed a petition with the Islamabad High Court (IHC) challenging the Prevention of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Act Ordinance 2022.
The petition states that the respondents tried to “sneak amendments to existing laws at the eleventh hour” despite the fact that the upper house of Parliament was in session a day before the ordinance was promulgated.
“It appears that the respondents had already prepared the draft of the ordinance and were waiting for the ongoing session to expire in order to avoid the due process of legislation,” the petition reads.
The journalists’ union said that the ordinance was promulgated without passing the “necessary tests imposed under the Constitution of Pakistan for legislation through the mode and manner of ordinances”, adding that the promulgation was based on “malice”.
It noted that the Senate was in session till Feb 17, while the National Assembly session scheduled for Feb 18 was called off at the eleventh hour.
The petition said that there was no “emergency situation” that called for issuing an ordinance of this nature, adding that it could have waited till the NA session was called.
Commenting on the changes made to the law, the petition said that the word “natural” had been omitted from Section 20 in an “illegal and unlawful manner”, while by adding institutions, associations and corporate persons to the law, the respondents tried to “criminalize the civil wrong already defined and available under the law”.
“The weaponisation of the section against print, electronic and social media is against the constitutional rights of freedom of expression as provided under Article 19 of the Constitution.”
The petitioner also stated that the insertion of Section 44-A went against the constitutional freedom of the judiciary. It added that the court could not be dictated by the legislature and by doing so, the independence of the judiciary was being undermined.
“Killing free speech in the country is tantamount to [sabotaging] democracy in the country. It is ironic that the government is moving towards criminalization of free speech at a time when the entire world is moving towards de-criminalizing defamation,” the petition said, adding that it was a crude attempt by the government to “browbeat its opponents”.
