News – Page 208 – Pakistan Coalition on Media Safety

February 3, 2019

Why is freedom of expression important?

Freedom of expression is important not only because it is a fundamental human right and a democratic ideal but also because it leads to newer ideas — ideas that change and improve a society and bring economic prosperity

A few days ago my nine-year-old son and I had a conversation on our way back home from his swimming practice. He said that earlier in the day his teacher had asked him and his peers to write about their life goals. He wrote that one of his life goals was to become an Olympic swimmer. “But our teacher said we should only write about educational goals like getting better at math and stuff…” He added quickly. I told him his life goal will stay the same no matter what he writes in the class, to which he replied, “Okay, but then where is my freedom of expression?”

Since that evening, I have been thinking about how it is that my nine-year-old son is so sensitive about his freedom of expression and more importantly why I am not. Part of the reason could be that he is growing up in America, where freedom of expression is considered an inalienable right of an individual and is protected by the constitution.

But unlike my son, I grew up in Pakistan where one’s freedom of expression is not only unprotected by the constitution but is also limited by various social and cultural norms, religious injunctions, and political contingencies. I don’t have any memories whatsoever of my parents or teachers or senior colleagues ever telling me anything about freedom of expression.

According to the First Amendment to the constitution of the United States, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Article 19 of the constitution of Pakistan states, “Every citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression, and there shall be freedom of the press, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the glory of Islam or the integrity, security or defence of Pakistan or any part thereof, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, commission of or incitement to an offence.”

The First Amendment does not grant the freedom of expression. It assumes that the freedom of expression is an inalienable right of an individual. In other words, the First Amendment assumes that when an individual comes into this world, they come with their freedom of expression and that this freedom cannot be denied to any individual by the state. What the First Amendment does is that it prohibits the Congress to make any laws that in any way abridge or curtail one’s freedom of expression. The First Amendment ensures and protectsthe freedom of expression. It does not grant the freedom of expression.

Unlike the First Amendment, Article 19 of the constitution of Pakistan does not assume that the freedom of expression is an inalienable right of an individual. Article 19 assumes that it is the state that can grant, or deny, one’s freedom of expression. Moreover, Article 19 grants the freedom of expression only conditionally and subjects it to a host of ambiguous restrictions.

‘After coming into power, Prime Minister Imran Khan announced that the Prime Minister’s House would be converted into a world-class university. While the initiative is laudable, it is important to keep in mind that Pakistan can never have a world-class university without first ensuring freedom of expression.’

What are these “reasonable restrictions” that Article 19 mentions and who decides that a certain restriction is reasonable? More importantly, what does the word “reasonable” mean in the text of Article 19? Which reserve of reason one must consult to arrive at the reasonableness required to impose “reasonable restrictions” on someone’s freedom of speech? Put simply, what is the source of this “reason”? The constitution does not specify if this “reason” is located in social norms, cultural practices, religious beliefs, or rational thinking?

Article 19 then moves on to forbid any expression that is against “the interest of the glory of Islam.” Which Islam, one might ask, does the constitution refer to? Is it the “scriptural Islam” i.e. the Islam of the Quran and the Hadith? Or is it the “interpretative Islam” i.e. Islam the way it has been interpreted by countless theologians and jurists since the 8th century? Or is it the “lived Islam” i.e. Islam the way it is practiced by Muslims in everyday life all over the world?

The “interpretative Islam” is an immense textual archive with various — sometimes, and more importantly, conflicting — interpretations of the Quran and the Hadith. Over time these diverse interpretations led to the establishment of various Islamic sects and subsects and, unsurprisingly, led to sectarian violence. The discrepancy between “scriptural Islam” and “lived Islam” can be illustrated with the help of the long tradition of wine drinking throughout Islamic history.

Article 19 also forbids any expression that jeopardises Pakistan’s “friendly relations with foreign States.” The crucial word in this phrase is “friendly”. How does one understand what constitutes “friendly relations” with a foreign state? What makes a country a “friend” of another?

For example, China is America’s largest trading partner and in 2017 the total volume of US-China (two-way) trade was more than $635 billion. Does this mean China and America are friends?

In addition to Pakistan’s embassy in Washington DC, there are five Pakistani consulates in the US. Similarly, the US has consulates in Lahore, Karachi, and Peshawar, in addition to the American embassy in Islamabad. There is also a sizeable Pakistani community living and working in the US. The US Department of State has declared that the teaching and learning of Urdu is “critical to our national security and prosperity” and offers scholarships to American students who want to learn Urdu. Does this mean Pakistan has friendly relations with America?

If someone argues for promoting friendly relations with India, will their freedom of speech be protected? Are Pakistan’s relations with Afghanistan friendly? Does Pakistan want to have friendly relations with Russia, the biggest arms exporter to India? Historically, Pakistan has had friendly relations with China. Does China’s bilateral trade with India (more than $84 billion in 2017) and Israel (China is Israel’s third biggest trade partner in the world) have any bearing on the friendly relations between Pakistan and China?

Israel supported Pakistan both ideologically and materially during the Soviet-Afghan war and while there have been no conflicts between the two countries, the mere mention of the name “Israel” elicits an unconditional hatred from the Pakistani public.

Similarly, what does the constitution mean by words like “integrity,” “security,” “public order,” “decency,” and “morality?” The categories like “reasonable restrictions,” “glory of Islam,” “friendly relations with foreign states,” “integrity,” “security,” “public order,” and “morality” are nothing more than vacuous signifiers and the state can deploy them to mean whatever it wants them to.

The way Article 19 is worded does not show that the state wants to ensure the freedom of expression for the Pakistani public. Instead, it appears as if these words are strategically chosen to give the state maximum leverage to restrict freedom of expression in whatever “reasonable” way it deems fit. These arbitrary “reasonable restrictions” create a deep sense of insecurity in the public because one is never sure what the state might deem “reasonable” in any particular instance.

But why is freedom of expression important, especially in a country like Pakistan? Freedom of expression is important not only because it is a fundamental human right and a democratic ideal but also because it leads to newer ideas — ideas that change and improve a society and bring economic prosperity.

During the 1970s oil embargo imposed by the Organisation of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, the French president at the time, remarked, “They [the OPEC countries] have oil, but we have ideas.” But Pakistan does not have any oil and unfortunately the state does not seem terribly interested in promoting free exchange of ideas either.

Free exchange of ideas is essential for the production of new knowledge, which in turn leads to greater economic prosperity. It is not a coincidence that most economically prosperous and industrially advanced countries protect and guarantee freedom of expression. It is impossible to become an economically prosperous country without first ensuring freedom of expression.

The severe lack of academic freedom in Pakistan is perhaps the biggest disservice done by these constitutionally instituted “reasonable restrictions”. Over the years, state censorship has significantly contributed to a massive brain drain from the country to an extent that the most important and relevant scholarship on Pakistan is being produced in universities outside of Pakistan. Most of the scholarship that is being produced in Pakistani universities often does not meet established academic standards and thus remains completely irrelevant to ongoing debates.

A couple of years ago, a leading academic publisher in Pakistan rejected my collection of interviews with Pakistani English-language novelists just because the book contained references to the work of a ‘banned writer’. Ironically, when the book was eventually published by an Indian publishing house, well-meaning friends and colleagues asked me why I did not publish my book with a Pakistani publisher.

After coming into power, Prime Minister Imran Khan announced that the Prime Minister’s House would be converted into a world-class university. While the prime minister’s initiative is laudable, it is important to keep in mind that Pakistan can never have a world-class university without first ensuring freedom of expression. Fancy buildings are of no use if scholars and intellectuals are not allowed to engage in free exchange of ideas.

Instead of investing time and effort and money in establishing new universities, a more cost-effective route to greater knowledge production would be to ensure freedom of expression to already existing educational institutions.

A couple of years ago when I applied for a premature retirement from the navy to pursue a doctorate in comparative literature at an American university, a number of friends and colleagues suggested that I should wait for another ten years to qualify for a house that naval officers are offered at subsidised rates at the time of their retirement. They thought it was foolish of me to forgo an opportunity to obtain prime real estate. Had I stayed another ten years in the navy, I might have gotten a house at a prime location, but my son would have grown up without knowing what freedom of expression is.

The News

February 2, 2019

The Verdict Imran Khan or Ayub Khan: Is PMRA the new tool to curb freedom of press and control media?

Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s (PTI) government in the centre recently approved the formation of a new regulatory body, known as the Pakistan Media Regulatory Authority (PMRA). From now, all media, including print, electronic and social, will be simultaneously regulated by this newly established body.

Organisations such as the All Pakistan Newspapers Society (APNS), Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ), and the Council of Pakistan Newspaper Editors (CPNE) have already disapproved of the formation of the PMRA and have cautioned against it, terming it an attack on the freedom of press and expression. The PFUJ categorically rejected the PMRA and termed it equivalent to the Press and Publication Ordinance (PPO), the draconian law introduced by Ayub Khan in 1962 to curb the media.

On the other hand, the federal government suggests it wants to end the monopoly of a few influential organisations on the media and wants one body to keep a check on all media so that information (and the truth) cannot be distorted. Thus, the ratings of electronic media will also be calculated by the PMRA.

This move comes at a time when not only journalists but both print and electronic media are facing invisible curbs and financial turmoil. In light of this, the PMRA seems yet another effort to silence digital and social media the way mainstream media is being limited. After all, over the past several months, journalism in Pakistan has faced a severe crisis, with hundreds laid off and many famous journalists either being let go or facing the issue of self-censorship. Under these circumstances, the move to further regulate the media only raises more suspicions about the authoritarian nature of the PTI government.

An unconstitutional and dictatorial move

Bringing all media under one umbrella does not seem like a constitutional move, for not only does the 18^th Amendment bring press-related laws under the ambit of the provincial governments, this also reduces the effectiveness of Article 19 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of the press. Additionally, nowhere in the world do we see instances of print and digital publications being brought under the same domain that monitors electronic media. In the presence of a code of ethics and self-regulatory laws such as the Press Council Ordinance for print media and the Cybercrime Act for digital media, establishing the PMRA can only be termed an unnecessary new tool created to limit freedom of the press.

This also includes the proposition that licenses will require renewal every year, which means that publications may self-censor or not report against the status quo in fear of their licenses being cancelled. After all, constituting a body to regulate all media without taking the respective stakeholders into the loop clearly indicates we are moving towards the eras of Ziaul Haq and Ayub, when the state had complete control over the press.

A history of media suppression

Pakistan’s media has been facing curbs since the creation of Pakistan. In 1948, two months after the death of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the Public Safety Ordinance was promulgated which resulted in the closure of dozens of newspapers. Then the PPO was brought in, which allowed Ayub to ban news agencies and arrest dissenting journalists. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was no different, and his ‘democratic’ government also saw the closure of newspapers and the arrests of journalists.

However, it was Zia’s regime that can be termed the lowest period for Pakistan’s journalists, for not only did Zia enforce a more conservative and far-right mindset, he also brought the Revised Press and Publication Ordinance (RPPO), which included draconian amendments to the PPO. This was used to prosecute publishers for going with a narrative that did not fall in line with his regime. Even in the 90s, when Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif were in power, laws were used to restrict and exploit the press in order to gain vested political interests.

It was mainly during the era of General Pervez Musharraf in 2002, when the Pakistan Electronic Media Authority (PEMRA) was formed and private TV and radio channels were given licenses, that a form of dissent and press freedom was finally an option in Pakistan. Under this era, both electronic and print media flourished until the government began to work to rein it back in.

The rise of digital media also paved the way for a more pluralistic society and gave the masses another option to raise their voices, which remained unheard on mainstream media. The media in Pakistan has never been free, and it has always paid the price for whatever freedom it enjoys. During all our darkest periods of dictatorships and elected authoritarians, there were always some journalists and papers who fulfilled their obligations and presented the facts, and also suffered the consequences of doing so.

Now that we are once again witnessing state control over mass media, it is easy to see why most people are concerned, given our controversial past. After all, it is an old trick to try and control the media by hurting it financially and then gradually adding shackles in the name of regulation, national interest, ethical journalism and so on.

Questions for the PTI government

The question has to be asked: why did the PTI government not show any hate for the media while it was in the opposition? Why did it then not complain about ethical or factual journalism? Why did it not propose any legislation in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (K-P) assembly – where it was in power – to abolish the advertisement rates for print and electronic media in order to save the national exchequer money? Most importantly, why is the PTI trying to restrict the media now, when the same media is partially behind its gradual rise to power?

Perhaps the government and other institutions need to understand the simple fact that it is not possible to restrict information in today’s age, and doing so only leads to more dissent, as witnessed during the Arab Spring.

Had the PTI wanted to regulate the media for the sake of better journalism, then it would have consulted the respective stakeholders first. Since it has not done so, this move to fully control the media through the PMRA will not serve its intended purpose and will only be remembered as yet another unsuccessful move to snatch the freedom of expression guaranteed to us by our Constitution.

The PTI government, which is currently hiding behind the shield of national interest, saving money and highlighting the negativity of the press, needs to be reminded of the saying by Robert Ebert:

“When, in a free society, the press is criticised for negativity, that almost always simply means it has dared to question the policies of the party in power.”

The Express Tribune

A grave threat to freedoms

BY approving the proposal for a law to stifle the print, electronic and digital media, the federal cabinet has put parliament on trial. Will it allow the executive absolute control over the media, or will it defend the most fundamental freedoms of the media and the people — which are also essential prerequisites to the establishment of a democratic order?

In 2017, the establishment conceived a plan to tighten its control over the media, but a storm of protest compelled the government to shelve the idea. This plan resurfaced last year. Democratic-minded sections were amazed at the new government’s keenness to adopt the proposal, contrary to its policy of ignoring the legislative initiatives of its predecessors. The government failed to receive support from any quarter.

After the cabinet’s signal to go ahead, the plan has again been rejected by newspaper owners, editors and journalists. All of them have called for consultations with the stakeholders. No responsible authority can ignore such a united stand by the media community.

The rights under threat, however, are not negotiable. The scope of any government-media consultation will, therefore, have a limited agenda. Before we discuss the plan, the question of jurisdiction ought to be resolved.

No valid reason has been advanced to justify the unification of the media laws.

The press is a provincial subject. Punjab and KP have replaced the central press law with provincial enactments. The federal government obviously hopes to use the support of these governments to frame a federal law on a provincial subject. Once this law is made, it will override all provincial laws. But this will amount to an unwelcome encroachment on provincial rights and make the 18th Amendment redundant without formally rolling it back. This is bound to strain the federal bonds. Sound federations avoid this course, and Pakistan must do likewise.

As regards the merits of the proposed law, no valid reason has been advanced to justify the unification of the media laws. The plea that the new law will protect anyone against defamation is untenable because the present press law or the Press Council Act does not override the defamation law, and for the digital media a tough law against cybercrime is in force. The existing laws do not affect security interests either. No new law is needed to punish the media for any crime; the Penal Code is there as well as special laws, such as the Anti-Terrorism Act. The argument that under the new law media establishments won’t have to run from pillar to post is irrelevant as there is no record of such complaint.

Against the absence of an acceptable rationale for the proposed law, the adverse consequences of its enforcement are numerous and grave.

The very idea of lumping the print media with electronic and social media under a common law is an affront to reason because the two media forms pose different problems and have different histories. The present press law, with all its flaws, offers an enabling framework, while the laws made for the electronic media and for regulating cyberspace create a restrictive and punitive framework. The two sets of laws are products of two different mindsets. The attempt to abolish the enabling environment for the press will reduce Article 19 of the Constitution to a dead letter and invite universal censure for the violation of international human rights covenants.

The Press Council represents a small step towards developing intra-media mechanisms for settling complaints against publications. In several countries, media-managed press councils have been assigned the task of registration of publications, maintenance of their records, and audit of circulation. We were hoping that the Press Council of Pakistan too will develop in accordance with the worldwide trend of media autonomy. Instead, this council is going to be replaced with a body of government nominees, a regression pregnant with unimaginable hazards for media freedom.

The worst deal is reserved for the print media. During the two-century-old history of the press in the India-Pakistan subcontinent, the right to publish has never been denied. Journalists have been jailed, securities have been demanded and forfeited, and printing presses have been sealed — but the right to publish after identifying the publisher, editor and the printer through declarations, has never been extinguished. Pakistan’s dictatorial regimes did delay authentication of declarations, but such tactics were ended by the judiciary. Now a huge derogation of this right is being planned by replacing a voluntary declaration with a licence that will need renewal every year under terms determined by a government official. This is the essence of the proposed law. The objective all too obviously is the promotion of a guided media.

What the licensing system means is that each year, the 70-year-old newspapers will need fresh permission to be printed and circulated, possibly only in the area specified by the licensing authority. The renewal of the annual licence will be subject to conditions laid down by the authority. That is, what can be published and what should be withheld.

The area of regimentation will expand and the space for freedom shrink. The more towards uniformity the press will be pushed, the closer to extinction it will arrive. The climate of fear will make speaking the truth impossible. The beauty of pluralism could wither away.

Pakistan is facing a many-sided challenge that cannot be met by the limited wisdom of a one-party government because every government in the world possesses a smaller part of its national pool of talent, while a larger part of the people’s collective wisdom lies outside the gilded halls of power.

The way to progress and recovery — to survival, even — lies through greater democracy, more openness, freer discourse, and maximum tolerance of dissent, and not through authoritarianism, closed governance, regimentation of thought and the witch-hunt against dissenters.

Dawn

January 30, 2019

Call for implementing right to information act

KARACHI: Speakers at a consultative workshop held on Tuesday at a local hotel expressed concern over delay in proper implementation of the Sindh Transparency and Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2016, and said that it was necessary to ensure transparency in good governance.

The workshop titled ‘Improving public service delivery through RTI’ was organised by Shehri-Citizens for a Better Environment.

The event began with a welcome address by Amra Javed, member Shehri, who informed the participants about the workshop’s aims and objectives.

She highlighted the active role her organisation had played in trying to facilitate good governance by advocating transparency in government functioning, and an informed and proactive role of the citizenry in seeking protection of their fundamental rights as enshrined in the Constitution and legislations of all state institutions.

Amber Alibhai, general secretary, Shehri, said that improvement in public service delivery and development of citizen-centric government models had been one of the top priorities of various countries across the globe.

“Globalisation, localisation, and the information revolution are empowering citizens to become good informed citizens. The right to information is one such effective tool, now accepted all over the world,” she noted.

The right to information laws, in her opinion, not only required governments to provide information upon request, they also imposed a duty on public bodies to actively disclose, disseminate and publish, as widely as possible, information of general public interest even before it had been requested, ie proactive disclosure of information.

Departments could lessen their load if they proactively disclose information about their activities, budgets, programmes, etc, she added.

Sameer Hamid Dodhy, member Shehri-CBE, gave a detailed presentation on The Sindh Transparency and Right to Information Act, 2016. He explained the applicability of the act, in terms of which type of information could be asked to be shared and what type of information and record was exempted from disclosure.

“As per Article 8(3) of The Sindh Transparency and Right to Information Act, 2016”, the designated official has to respond within 15 working days. One of the best features of this act is the provision for “proactive disclosure”, which calls upon departments to disclose information on their websites and through other mediums, he said.

He, however, regretted that despite the passage of almost 21 months, hardly a few public bodies/departments had nominated a “designated officer” to provide information, requested under the act. He said that the Sindh Information Commission was established in May 2018, but to date citizens could not send their RTI appeal.

An interactive question-answer session with the participants on RTI filing requests on subjects of their interest was conducted at the end and the participants realised that enforcement of Article 19-A was essential to bring transparency in governance system.

Salika Enver presented the vote of thanks and expressed confidence that the seminar participants would now start using their rights as sovereign citizens of Pakistan granted under this legislation.

Dawn

January 29, 2019

Attack on media freedom

The Federal cabinet gave its go-ahead on Thursday to the government plan to form a new Pakistan Media Regulatory Authority (PMRA) bringing under it the existing media regulatory bodies. This, said Information Minister Fawad Chaudhry, is to be done by merging all the rules related to Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA), Press Council of Pakistan, and Pakistan Telecommunication Authority. Notably, PEMRA’s role is only to issue licenses for the broadcast media -television channels as well as FM radio- allot them frequencies, and regulate cable operators’ affairs. Its function is not to tell the media houses what they can or cannot put on the air. The real stakeholders are the Pakistan Broadcasters Association (PBA), Council of Pakistan News Papers Editors (CPNE), and All Pakistan Newspapers Society (APNS).

The proposed authority is a blatant attempt to control media content rather than regulate anything. In fact, while briefing the Senate Standing Committee on Information, the minister revealed the real intent behind the move when he said the PTI-led government would ‘regulate’ all media and no one will be able to defame anyone. He should know that already there are defamation laws in this country to deal with the publication or broadcast, without proof, of defamatory matter. Besides, the media persons are subject to all laws of the land like any private citizen. Violators can be held to account under the present laws. Freedom of expression is a core democratic value which should be as important for an elected government to uphold as it is for the purveyors of news and views. Nonetheless, in a functioning democracy government and media have an adversarial relationship. As society’s watchdog, the latter have a responsibility to point out the rulers acts of omission and commission. The proposed regulatory authority, therefore, can only be seen as an effort to rein in those in the print and electronic media who refuse to fall in line. It is an attack on their hard won freedom, which must be resisted by all stakeholders.

The bad faith is obvious also from the fact that although the government says the new authority is to be constituted in consultation with journalists, it is not paying heed to what the Press Council has had to say on the issue at its last month’s a general council meeting, which was attended by various representative bodies of the media as well as civil society groups. The meeting passed a unanimous resolution rejecting the proposed regulatory authority and advising the government to ensure freedom of the press. The ruling party seems to be relying on the divisions among the media bodies to bring them under control. It is about time they saw the threat for what it is and joined hands to protect and promote their common interest.

Business Recorder

January 28, 2019

PPF concerned over harassment and detention of journalist in Honduras

Pakistan Press Foundation (PPF) in a letter to Juan Orlando Hernández, President of Honduras has expressed deep concern over the harassment and detention of journalist Jairo López on January 27, 2019.

PPF Secretary General Owais Aslam Ali in his letter, has condemned the harassment of the journalist and called on the authorities to investigate the matter. PPF also urged the law enforcement agencies to respect journalists working in the line of duty.

According to Comité por la Libre Expresión – C-Libre, Lopez was arrested while covering protests against the government of Juan Orlando Hernandez near El Marillal, a place in Choluteca city. Social organizations and opposition parties arranged the protests in different parts of the country.

The police officers detained journalist while he was covering the incident for broadcasting on his Facebook account under the title of “The Informant”. López was taken to PN-577 station without being informed about the reasons for his arrest. According to the journalist, the sub-commissioner blamed him for organizing the protests.

In another incident on November 10, 2018 Lopez was arrested while he was on his way to home in the city of Choluteca, he was allegedly accused of damages against the Energy Company Honduras (EEH) which led to the closure of the television program.

January 28, 2019

Media bodies rejects cabinet decision on PMRA

The federal cabinet approved the formation of new regulatory body called Pakistan Media Regulatory Authority (PMRA) with the merger of all media regulating bodies including print, electronic and digital media. The meeting was held on January 24, headed by Prime Minister Imran Khan and attended by the journalists’ associations.

The Federal Information Minister Fawad Chaudhry said “This would be done by merging all existing rules and acts related to Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA), Press Council of Pakistan and Pakistan Telecommunication Authority.”

The All Pakistan Newspapers Society (APNS), Council of Pakistan Newspaper Editors (CPNE) and Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ) opposed the decision of federal cabinet.

In its press release issued on January 25, APNS President Hameed Haroon and Secretary General Sarmad Ali termed the decision of cabinet as the most regressive step against the media. APNS further stated that the current media laws including Press Council Ordinance, Press Newspapers, News Agencies and Books Registration Ordinance and PEMRA are being annulled which were enacted after consultation by the government with the media bodies.

The APNS has urged to all democratic forces to raise voice against the undemocratic and anti-public step of government to safeguard the democratic norms in the country.

CPNE President Arif Nizami, Senior Vice President Imtinan Shahid and Secretary General Dr. Jabbar Khattak also opposed the decision and termed it a move to curb the freedom of print media and added there was no need for special laws for the print media.

The PFUJ President Afzal Butt and Secretary General Ayub Jan Sirhandi termed the establishment of PMRA a step worse than the draconian Press and Publications Ordinance that the Pakistani media struggled for decades that led to its repeal. According to PFUJ the hidden motive of the proposal was subjecting the print media to draconian black laws and PFUJ will never accept this.

Talking to Pakistan Press Foundation (PPF), G.M. Jamali President of another faction of PFUJ said the decision was taken without any consent of journalists.

Earlier in December 2018, Press Council of Pakistan (PCP) rejected government’s proposed creation of PMRA and urged the government to ensure the freedom of press.