KARACHI: The committee formed to review the controversial cyber crime bill has completely rejected the draft instead of suggesting pointers to fix problematic clauses.

The Cyber Crime Bill Review Committee met at Karachi Press Club on Monday afternoon to review the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Bill, 2015. The decision to reject the bill was made to make sure the government presents a new bill, instead of including recommendations from various groups, such as theirs, and passing a flawed bill.

“This bill in its current form is against fundamental human rights,” pointed out Barrister Zamir Ghumro, one of the two legal experts the committee had invited. “It is against Article 19-A of the Constitution of Pakistan and it should be stopped immediately.”

The meanings of the words used in the draft are so wide that any man can be penalised on any charge, he said, giving the example of the word ‘unauthorised’. “Unauthorised access to information is criminalised under this law,” he said. “Anything can come under ‘unauthorised’.”

The secretary general of the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists, Mazhar Abbas, appreciated that the government has taken the initiative. “But the bill in its current form is unacceptable,” he said. “We have serious apprehensions that this law will be misused by the authorities.”

Journalist Omar Quraishi, former op-ed editor at The Express Tribune, spoke about the effect of this law on the media. “You can’t do anything in investigative journalism because you wouldn’t have access to anything,” he said.

Several questions were raised by the committee on issues, such as what happens when a video of a TV channel goes online or an article from a printed newspaper is uploaded online. Will all of that be censored under this law? Will you also have to take consent before putting up a picture or video of a criminal?

“This is not a law. This is absurdity,” said Senator Taj Haider. “The government needs to make it clear which crimes it is aiming to stop through this law.”

He mentioned the problematic aspects of the law, such as how the authorities will not need a warrant to search, seize or arrest. “The most important part of any law is the last page which mentions the purpose of the law, and no purpose has been given here,” he said.

Lawyer Zahra Rose Dean, who was part of the team that made the initial draft of the law, questioned how the law will address e-blasphemy and other e-crimes. “How will they be bifurcated under this law,” she asked.

The Prevention of Electronic Crimes Bill, 2015, will ban all political commentary on digital and online forums. It also requires a prior written consent from the person one is emailing, calling, messaging via any digital medium, and before uploading or putting up a picture or video of another person. It will also remove any content that undermines the glory of Islam without defining what glory of Islam means.

If passed, the bill will also block access to or remove any content on the internet or any device that is against foreign policy or against any section of this law. Without defining the terms ‘obscenity’ and ‘immorality’, any messages or content that falls under this criteria will be criminalised.

Express Tribune

The post Cyber crime bill: Review committee rejects bill entirely appeared first on Pakistan Press Foundation (PPF).

Addressing on the fourth day of “Pro-Democracy” camp set up by the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ) in front of the National Press Club (NPC), representatives of journalists associations and civil society organisations urged the politicians to think about democracy and Pakistan and set aside their personal political agendas.

The participants of the camp strongly condemned the attack and harassment of woman reporter of leading Geo News Farhat Javed by PTI workers and manhandling of correspondent of ARY Television Babar Malik in Rawalpindi and urged the political parties to direct their workers to let the media persons work freely. PFUJ President Afzal Butt said the political parties should realise the intensity of the situation and play their role in resolving the political crisis that is dangerously threatening the democratic process in the country. “It is also not a right step to gather a few thousand people and start threatening the incumbent government because there are various options to resolve the issues in line with the law and Constitution,” he said.

Rawalpindi Islamabad Union of Journalists (RIUJ) President Ali Raza Alvi said the ‘Dharna’ politics had made Pakistan a laughing stock in the comity of nations, so the political parties should think about it and pursue constitutional means to settle their issues.

RIUJ Secretary General Bilal Dar said Pakistan was passing through a critical phase and it is highly insensible to offer threats to the democratic process at this moment because it would serve no purpose except to create more problems for the country.

JI MNA Ayesha Syed said the political crisis is increasing day by day, so there is a need to resolve it at the earliest for the sake of democracy that is currently facing serious threats. Social activist Rabia Hadi said the protest sit-ins in front of the Parliament House were setting a bad trend in politics because if the politicians would lose patience, then no government would be able to complete its constitutional term. The participants also passed a resolution stating they rejected the ‘Dharna’ and ‘container’ politicians and are ready to render sacrifices for the sake of democracy. It said small segments of the society cannot be allowed to pose threats to the democratic process because it is the will of the large majority of the people to stand firm and united and work diligently for a progressive, prosperous and peaceful Pakistan.

“No bargaining will be tolerated or compromised for the Constitution of Pakistan. The existing Constitution is the best document and must be protected by all means although, new amendments can be introduced to bring good governance in the country,” it said. It said, “Both PTI and PAT should join dialogue with the government to resolve the present crisis. We are agree for electoral reforms and combating corruption within the framework of the Constitution.” It appreciated the suggestion and role of Pakistan Army to resolve the political crisis peacefully through dialogue. Moreover, it lauded the Pakistan military forces for operation against terrorists in the NWA.

The News

In any democratic country there would have been no need for any speculation since an accurate and conclusive answer could easily be obtained by any citizen raising this issue under the ‘right to information’ law.

While the presidential assignment may be ceremonial, it is significant by its symbolic representation of an aboveboard individual whose actions are dictated solely by ethical, legal and constitutional considerations. To remove any aspersions suggested by the press, on October 28, 2013, a Pakistani citizen made a clarification request to the Presidency under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Ordinance 2002. It was expected that a clarification on who footed the Haj bills would be received within 21 days (as required by the FOI law) and the matter would stand closed.

The questions asked were: 1) names of all persons who accompanied the president during his Haj visit to Saudi Arabia; 2) amount spent on travel and stay of each individual; 3) who paid for the travel and living expenses of each individual. Were they paid by the president from his own pocket or sponsored by the government of Pakistan?

Forty days have passed since the request was sent to the Presidency. One did not expect the highest office to not follow the law of the land – clearly a violation of not just the FOI law but also that of Article 19A of the Constitution of Pakistan. This could only imply that either the information is being withheld because the president provided a free junket to his family and friends at the cost of taxpayers’ money or is simply not bothered about the FOI law or the constitution of Pakistan. Both inferences do very little to boost trust and admiration for the occupant of the largest house on Constitution Avenue. The matter now rests with the federal ombudsman – a recourse provided in the FOI law when information is not provided by a public body.

Attracted by foreign funding, “right to information” has been a popular topic for five-star conferences in Pakistan for the past several years. Scores of seminars, hundreds of speeches and thousands of plastic mineral water bottles have been consumed to dilate upon this subject. In practice the law remains dormant and rarely churns out any meaningful information.

No public sector official has ever been punished or fined for denying the right of information to Pakistani citizens. Except for the newly formulated FOI law in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, there is no provision in any other law to take the defaulters to task.

The role of ombudsmen (replaced by information commissioners in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab) thus gets limited to receiving a citizen’s appeal and passing it on to the concerned department with a note to ‘do the needful’. The delinquent department often interprets this as ‘do nothing’, ‘sleep over it’, ‘deflect it’ or simply drag the issue with standard bureaucratic recipes.

With the Presidency taking the lead in refusing to act upon the FOI law, there may be little hope for the ‘right to information’ to flourish in Pakistan. There appears to be little emphasis on actually implementing the FOI law (with all its shortcomings) and far more on its use as an article of trendy conversation. It is also a classic example of how foreign funding can make us joyfully organise seminars on cool topics like FOI in five-star hotels, but do little to enhance our capacity to think, act and improve on our own.

Surely the subject needs to be carried far beyond the papers on which it placidly resides at the moment. The Presidency could have set a ground-breaking example and taken the FOI law many miles forward had it simply sent a short and accurate response to the questions asked. May one hope that it would make up for the lost opportunity after it receives a formal ‘please do the needful’ letter from the federal ombudsman?

The writer is a management systems consultant and a freelance writer on social issues. Email: naeemsadiq@gmail.com

The News

Pakistan was the first country in South Asia to have promulgated the Freedom of Information Ordinance in 2002. The Act, however, has not yet achieved its true potential, lamented participants at the workshop, titled ‘Freedom of Information (FOI),’ organised by the non-governmental organisations, Shehri and Bolo Bhi, on Saturday.

Dr Syed Raza Ali Gardezi of Shehri, in his welcome address at the workshop, called the ‘right to information’, the mother of all rights. “You cannot know what you are entitled to if you don’t have sufficient knowledge about it,” said Gardezi. He stressed that freedom of information was important to strengthen good governance, accountability and transparency. Less than 2,000 applications had been submitted under the law since its inception, he pointed out.

On the historical background of the legislation on Freedom of Information at the federal and provincial levels, Shehri member Sameer Hamid Dodhy said that a public body, such as a ministry, division or department of the federal and provincial governments or any offices controlled by them, could be asked to share its data.

He further described the types of data, which can be accessed through the law and what type of information and records were exempt from disclosure.

Explaining the process of invoking the FOI Ordinance, Dodhy said that invoking the FOI Act does not denote registration of a complaint. “You can only ask the public body to share its data which can then be used to support a complaint that you may wish to register.” He added that that the information sought in the FOI application must be specific and that the application should be addressed to the relevant department and the designated officer of that department.

When asked a query, the relevant government department or office was bound to provide the information within 21 days, said Dodhy. In case a response was not received within 21 days, a complaint could be registered with the head of the department or the ministry. If the applicant still did not receive a response within 30 days, then the person can approach the provincial or federal ombudsman to register a complaint against the department.

In his presentation, Gardezi informed the participants about Shehri’s experience in invoking the FOI Act in terms of the applications filed and the response received from the relevant departments. Of the 261 applications filed by Shehri, they had managed to receive a response in 40 of them with the interference from the ombudsman. At least 35 applications had received no response yet while another 171 application were still in process.

In the final part of the workshop, Gardezi outlined the salient features of writing an FOI application which comprised an interactive exercise for the benefit of the participants to educate them on the way to fill out an FOI application form. He added that if information was required of a private body, an application should be sent to the government body which was responsible to regulate the private institution or utility. “The law can do much good only if more people realise its potential and use it for the benefit of our society,” Gardezi finished his presentation on this positive note.

Express Tribune