Pakistan Reader# 756, 23 April 2024
Dhriti Mukherjee
PR Explainer
X has been facing a ban in Pakistan since 17 February, nearly ten days after the general elections were held on 8 February. This suspension was ordered shortly after the former Commissioner of Rawalpindi Division, Liaquat Ali Chattha, accused the chief election commissioner and chief justice of being involved in rigging, leading to widespread public outrage.
Initially, the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) did not address the outages. Later on 20 March, the PTA told the Sindh High Court (SHC) that it had blocked the platform on the direction of the federal Ministry of Interior. The ministry then explained in a report submitted to the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on 17 April that the suspension “was made in the interest of upholding national security, maintaining public order, and preserving the integrity of” Pakistan.
Why did the government ban X?
First, concerns over national security. As per the interior ministry, X was suspended after the government received “various confidential reports received from intelligence and security agencies of Pakistan.” The ministry also claimed that there were “hostile elements” who were using X with “nefarious intentions to create an environment of chaos and instability, with the ultimate goal of destabilising the country and plunging it into some form of anarchy.” Thus, the ban was a required step to “disrupt the activities of these elements and prevent them from achieving their destructive objectives.” These activities included the propagation of extremist ideologies and fake information.
Second, lack of cooperation. According to the interior ministry, the X had “not complied with the requests of Pakistani authorities.” The Federal Investigation Agency’s (FIA) cybercrime wing had sent multiple requests to X, asking it to take “significant action to block accounts involved in a defamatory campaign against” the chief justice of Pakistan. The FIA’s wing had filed multiple FIRs against hundreds of Twitter accounts, but there was a “lack of cooperation from Twitter/X authorities in addressing content” which was in violation of Pakistan’s laws. Therefore, the non-compliance was a reason which further justified the “need for regulatory measures.”
Third, failure of legal compliance. X is not a locally registered company in Pakistan, nor has it signed any agreement to abide by the local laws, according to the ministry. Its “failure to establish a legal presence or engage in meaningful cooperation with Pakistani authorities” highlighted the requirement of “regulatory measures to ensure accountability and adherence to national laws.” Thus authorities felt the suspension could “address this regulatory vacuum and compel the platform to respect the sovereignty and legal jurisdiction of Pakistan.” However, the question arises as to why the issue of non-compliance with local laws came up around the time of the general elections.
What has been the response?
First, the response from political parties and human rights groups. The PTI asserted that since the “mandate thieves” were afraid of people’s voices, they “found no other way to control that criticism.” PML-N leader Khawaja Saad Rafique tweeted that the ban on X should come to an end since it has led to an international embarrassment. The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) asserted that shutting down social media platforms could destabilize an already fragile economy. It added that the practice of suspending social media platforms “infringes on people’s right to democratic decision-making, information and expression.”
Second, the response from the media and the civil society. An opinion in The Express Tribune criticised authorities for resorting to “heavy-handed censorship” instead of “addressing legitimate grievances through dialogue and engagement,” as shutting down X is equivalent to “effectively silencing voices of dissent.” An editorial in Dawn voiced a similar sentiment, blaming the state for using “smoke and mirrors” to justify the ban without actually “providing lawful justifications.” Further, if there was actually a “present danger,” instead of “denying that a ban was even in place,” the government should have highlighted the threat for the courts and public. Additionally, an editorial in The News International questioned why top government officials continued to use X if the platform is “playing a role in destabilizing the country.” To continue using X, Pakistanis resorted to downloading VPNs, with internet privacy company Proton noting a 6,000 per cent hike in the demand for VPNs. Many users also took to X to ask Elon Musk to address the issue swiftly.
Third, the court’s response. On 17 April, the SHC ordered the interior ministry to either justify the suspension of X, or rescind its 17 February letter instructing the PTA to ban the platform. Lawyer Abdul Moiz Jaferriand advocate Jibran Nasir argued before the SHC that the interior ministry had not given any legal reasons for the shutdown of X, which violated a previous court order of 22 February, in which senior journalists contended in the SHC that restricting access to X was “unlawful, arbitrary and violation of” Article 19 and 19-A of the Constitution. During the proceedings, the SHC expressed frustration over the government’s inability to submit a decisive response, and said “in hindsight [it seems that] no justification was given to suspend X.” Aside from the SHC, the IHC also expressed dissatisfaction over the report submitted by the interior ministry, and commented that the suspension was based on “mere speculation.”
Finally, international response. On 18 April, X’s Global Government Affairs stated it would “work with Pakistani Government to understand concerns.” The US State Department spokesperson, Matthew Miller, called on Pakistan to “respect freedom of expression and restore access.” A member of the UN Secretary General’s advisory board on AI, Nighat Dad, said that such “blanket bans would only increase chaos in society and increase disinformation.” Amnesty International and 27 other civil society organizations in a joint statement expressed concerns over how the “arbitrary blocking of” X is a “sovering illustration of growing digital censorship” which enables the “spread of misinformation.” Further, the global internet observatory NetBlocks pointed out that the decision to ban X “significantly hinders the exercise of democracy and media freedom.”
References
Syeda Alizeh Ahmed, “Pakistan's X ban: Freedom of expression vs national security,” The Express Tribune, 22 April 2024;
“X post facto,” Dawn, 19 April 2024;
“X marks the ban,” The News International, 19 April 2024;
“Working with govt to 'understand concerns': X,” The Express Tribune, 19 April 2024;
“Amid ban, X says working with govt to ‘understand concerns’,” Dawn, 18 April 2024;
“Pakistan Interior Ministry says, ban on ‘X’ to ‘address concerns regarding its misuse’,” ANI, 17 April 2024;
Umer Burney, “IHC summons interior secretary on April 17 on plea against shutdown of social media platform X,” Dawn, 3 April 2024;
Jamal Khurshid, “X blocked on direction of interior ministry, PTA tells Sindh High Court,” The News International, 21 March 2024;
Ishaq Tanoli, “X banned in country since Feb 17 on spy agencies’ reports, SHC told,” Dawn, 21 March 2024;
“Pakistan: Civil Society Joint Statement Responding to Network Shutdowns and Platform Blocking,” Amnesty International, 15 March 2024;
“Dodging censorship: VPN demand surges ‘6,000% in Pakistan’,” The Express Tribune, 6 March 2024;
Ishaq Tanoli, “SHC directs PTA to fully restore social media website X across Pakistan,” Dawn, 22 February 2024
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.jpg)
Matiari-Lahoretransmissionlinei.jpg){kind=spacer}
