PEMRA Archives - Pakistan Coalition on Media Safety

May 20, 2021

Islamabad High Court (IHC) directs NADRA to restore citizenship of JUI-F leader, Declares PEMRA order of restraining TV channels from inviting, projecting the petitioner in talk shows as illegal.

By accepting the petition of Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F)’s former senator Maulana Hafiz Hamdullah challenging National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA)’s decision to cancel his citizenship, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Wednesday directed NADRA to restore his citizenship.

A single bench of the IHC comprising Chief Justice of IHC Justice Athar Minallah announced the verdict in the petition filed by JUI-F leader against the cancellation of his citizenship while the bench also declared Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) order of restraining TV channels from “inviting and projecting the petitioner in the programmes/talk shows, news, etc” as illegal.

Justice Athar noted in his verdict that the petitions were allowed and “The Authority is directed to restore the CNICs of the petitioners forthwith. Needless to mention that the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, read with the Citizenship Rules, would not be precluded from proceeding in the prescribed manner in case it is of the opinion that, based on credible material, a prima facie case is made out to deprive a person of citizenship or that the latter was not eligible for it.”

About PEMRA’s order, he said that it was an obvious misuse of authority vested under the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002. “It was issued in derogation of the rights guaranteed under Articles 19 and 19-A of the Constitution. The said statute and the rules/regulations made thereunder do not vest absolute and unbridled powers in PEMRA to regulate the content or participants of a programme,” added the IHC Chief Justice.

He continued that there was nothing on record to justify passing of the impugned order by PEMRA. “The order, dated 26-10-2019, is declared to have been issued illegally and wholly without authority and jurisdiction,” maintained the IHC CJ.

He observed that the admitted facts were that the petitioners were duly registered by the Authority under the Ordinance of 2000 after they had applied for issuance of their respective CNICs in accordance with the prescribed procedure and fulfilling the mandatory requirements. The registration was followed by the issuance of the respective CNICs by acknowledging the crucial fact that the petitioners were citizens of Pakistan.

The IHC bench said that it was not the case of the Authority that the petitioners had acquired citizenship of another sovereign state or that the authority competent under the relevant law had revoked, withdrawn or cancelled their citizenship. It has also not been alleged that the petitioners had given false information regarding their birth in Pakistan when they had applied for the issuance of the CNICs.

“There is nothing on record to show how the Authority or the concerned intelligence agency had concluded that the petitioners were not citizens of Pakistan. As would be discussed later in more detail, the Authority nor the intelligence agencies were competent to determine the question of citizenship of a person,” added the court.

The bench further said, “Such a person loses the right of employment, access to his or her own bank accounts, the right to engage in trade, business or profession. Moreover, access to education, health, etc. is denied. The family members are also equally affected. In a nut shell, the right to life guaranteed under Article 9 is virtually taken away.”

It observed that this phenomenon of blocking or cancelling the CNICs of citizens by the Authority in a perfunctory and arbitrary manner had remained prevalent for a long time because similar grievances had been frequently agitated before this Court.

The bench said, “This Court has consistently observed that the Authority was bereft of jurisdiction to adjudicate upon a question which involves the determination of the status of a person as a citizen of Pakistan and that too, on the basis of reports received from intelligence agencies which are under the control of the government.”

Newspaper: The Nation

May 20, 2021

Islamabad High Court (IHC) directs NADRA to restore citizenship of JUI-F leader, Declares PEMRA order of restraining TV channels from inviting, projecting the petitioner in talk shows as illegal.

Newspaper: The Nation

March 30, 2021

Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority instructs television channels not to criticize the state’s anti-corruption institution.

Pakistan Press Foundation (PPF) is alarmed by the overreach of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) and its latest order regarding the coverage of Pakistan’s accountability watchdog, the National Accountability Bureau (NAB).

In an advice dated March 24, the media regulatory body said that satellite television licensees “indulged in airing highly unsubstantiated, judgmental and unipolar remarks regarding National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and its functioning without getting official point of view of the Bureau with an alleged intent to malign the state institution”.

The notice added that this was in “absolute disregard” to earlier instructions by the Supreme Court and PEMRA’s rules etc.

“All the above referred provisions of PEMRA laws and ruling of the Hon’ble SCP clearly stipulates that all the licensees and anchorpersons as well as the guests shall refrain from voicing personal biases/opinion in any news report or talk show and moderate the programmes in fair, balanced, objective and impartial manner”.

While PEMRA is responsible for setting rules and guidelines for the broadcast media, it cannot dictate the content covered by the media. For the regulatory body to accuse TV channels of acting with an “alleged intent to malign the state institution” is a grave allegation being placed upon the media. It undermines the integrity of the media and accuses them of acting to undermine NAB. The media is not responsible for presenting a positive picture of any state body; instead, it is responsible to cover all developments in a fair and accurate manner.

As the media regulatory authority, PEMRA should not be playing the role of a spokesperson for state bodies and becoming excessively restrictive towards the media.

The latest order by PEMRA has been condemned by members of the media fraternity. The Council of Pakistan Newspaper Editors (CPNE) expressed concern over the directive and said that it was a “violation of the canons of press freedom and free speech”. CPNE criticized the regulator for barring television channels from airing analyses and comments regarding NAB’s activities in their current affairs programmes and news bulletins.

Meanwhile, the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ) also condemned the directive. PFUJ President Shahzada Zulfiqar and Secretary General Nasir Zaidi “urged for immediate withdrawal of the letter and demanded stern action against PEMRA chairman and officials, who are bent upon damaging the image of the country by issuing such piece of advice and notices to TV channels on petty issues to suppress media and press freedom in the country”.

March 21, 2021

Journalist Absar Alam challenges FIA summon

ISLAMABAD: Senior journalist and former chairman Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) Absar Alam has challenged a summon issued to him by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) over his recent tweets and social media posts.

Mr Alam in some of his recent tweets criticised the establishment for interfering in politics.

The FIA summoned him on a complaint filed by a lawyer who accused him of anti-state rhetoric.

He, however, challenged the summon in the Islamabad High Court (IHC). In a petition, he contended that the FIA summoned him without providing details of the complaint.

He said the summon was issued even after the date on which he was supposed to appear before the investigation officer.

He termed the summon mala fide and requested the court to scrap it.

Newspaper: Dawn , Business Recorder

November 23, 2018

Govt to establish new watchdog to regulate TV, print, social media

ISLAMABAD: Federal Minister for Information and Broadcasting Fawad Chaudhry has said the government while disbanding Pemra has decided to establish Pakistan Media Regulatory Authority, which will simultaneously regulate electronic and print media as well as social media.

“In Pakistan, media enjoys freedom and is effective too as it can be compared with that of any developed country,” said the information minister while addressing a conference on ‘National Security, Nation-building and Mass Media’ organised by the Pakistan Institute of Conflict and Security Studies on Thursday.

“Under the current media regulatory regime, there is a lot of pressure on the Pakistani media and it is possible that in the coming years the media might have to face even bigger challenges,” said Fawad. “With the arrival of globalisation and artificial intelligence, along with various industries the media industry will also be affected.“As a result the media industry could further shrink.”He warned that the structure of print media could change and thousands more could be rendered jobless.

“We have to make policies keeping in mind the global trend and have to move towards international regulations,” said the federal minister. “This is a world of competition … we have to improve our culture, films and dramas otherwise they will be finished.”

He said it was the first time that the government was going to build Pakistan Media University. “It is our effort that our media policy be in line with the current era where even professionals will be mesmerised by the fields of innovation and technology at the media university,” said Fawad. “The prime minister [Imran Khan] is optimistic regarding the latest technology.”

Later addressing the media, the information minister said, “We welcome the decision of the Indian cabinet to open the Kartarpur border.

The suggestion to open the border was given by the chief of army staff to former cricketer and Indian parliament member Navjot Singh Sidhu during his visit to Pakistan.He said the Sikh community would benefit the most from opening of the Kartarpur crossing.

“The 550th birth anniversary of Baba Guru Nanak is being celebrated and Kartarpur is his birth place,” said Fawad. “Pakistan talks about peace in the region. Pakistan wants peace with both India and Afghanistan due to which it gave the suggestion.”

The Express Tribune

Dawn: Govt intends to regulate social media, say ministers

Business Recorder: Government wants to regulate social media: minister

The Nation: Government for regulating social media: Fawad

November 18, 2018

Sub judice or not

When journalists in this country portray certain politicians as the embodiment of corruption, they are not expecting to be hauled up by the Supreme Court. Yet that is exactly what happened in the aftermath of a political talk show hosted by Arshad Sharif, aired on ARY News on August 28, 2018.

In the show, Sharif, while discussing proceedings pending before the Supreme Court hinted that former president and Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) Co-Chairman Asif Ali Zardari had not been entirely honest when furnishing details regarding his ownership of property. He then went on to discuss two, allegedly contradictory, affidavits filed by Zardari at different points in time. Not content with pointing out the ostensible factual inconsistency, he sought — and furnished — opinions on which of the two affidavits represented the truth. This led to suo motu case No 28 of 2018, in which a three-member bench of the Supreme Court laid out, and affirmed, standards to be followed when commenting upon sub judice matters.

In simple terms, ‘sub judice’ refers to a matter being under judicial consideration. At the heart of this latest Supreme Court case is the rather difficult exercise of striking a balance between freedom of expression and ensuring that reputations and actors involved in cases covered by the media are not prejudiced.

So how do you know if you are going too far in commenting upon sub judice matters? For starters, broadcasters have to abide by Electronic Media (Programmes and Advertisements) Code of Conduct, 2015. The next thing to be mindful of, as per the Supreme Court, is the balance to be struck between your right to express your opinion versus another person’s right to a fair trial as well as their right to be dealt with in accordance with law. Comments upon sub judice matters have not been banned but they will, as per the law laid down by the top court, have to be ‘objective’ — and not ‘subjective’. PEMRA’s licensees (i.e. television and radio channels) are now bound to ensure that no material capable of prejudicing judicial determinations, trials or ongoing investigation is aired.

To the optimist, the ruling is an important step in reminding the media of its responsibilities in a time of deep political division. There is no shortage of those who have suffered harm to reputation and dignity because of unforgiving attention from the media. To the cynic, there is unmistakable irony in an activist court chiding media houses for shaping perceptions through sound bites instead of focusing only on facts. Nuance requires borrowing from both perspectives.

At the risk of stating the obvious, media channels can make or break reputations if they decide to be with or against you. Sure, you can take them to court for defamation to clear your name but a lot of damage has usually occurred by then. There is great merit in ensuring that there are pre-agreed rules of the game that the media does not violate — especially in matters as emotive and divisive as high-profile court cases.

It is deeply frustrating to watch people who are not lawyers pretending to be legal experts and opining on pending cases, however, some of this is a necessary evil.

But who should lay down the rules? Should it be the state or would self-regulation by the media be a better model? In this instance, the top court has built on top of what the state had already prescribed through a Code of Conduct. For those who believe in restraint, the top court could have left the matter at calling for the implementation of the Code of Conduct. But it went further, much further. Should this be celebrated?

The answer depends on whether you trust the state — in each relevant context — to prescribe rules that would be fair and narrowly tailored without trying to suppress free expression or legitimate criticism. For now, you and I do not have much of a choice — there is a statutory Code of Conduct, additional directions from the top court and a Supreme Court ruling to support the implementation of this framework.

No one would argue that the media should be free to cause or fan prejudice in sub judicematters. A trial by media can be deeply traumatic and scarring — for individuals involved as well as the system. But the hard fact is that each instance of prejudice stems from a unique context, with its own facts. Arshad Sharif’s case is just one example; should the apex court have used this one case to impose a judicially crafted set of rules telling media houses what they can and cannot say? The cause of striking a balance between fair trial and free speech is not well served when general — instead of specific fact-based — balancing exercises are carried out.

The criteria defined by the court when it is talking in general terms, instead of in specific cases, will always be overbroad. This is just the nature of the exercise. Laying down a broad set of general rules always results in vague standards that have to be concretised in individual cases. Normally legislatures or the executive (through secondary legislation) lay down general rules; the courts stick to deciding specific cases. In matters relating to free speech, I am not keen to celebrate the judicial writing of general rules to control speech.

Of course, as a lawyer and citizen, it is deeply frustrating for me to watch people who are not lawyers pretending to be legal experts and opining on pending cases. Some of this, we should remind ourselves, is a necessary evil. Democracy, to quote Amartya Sen, is ‘government by discussion’. Not every opinion we disagree with is prejudicial to a case or an individual — and we must be cognisant of the dangers of using a straw-man to craft prohibitions broader than absolutely necessary. The line that we are trying to draw is thin so being circumspect and sceptical makes sense. Judges and lawyers are not easily prejudiced by the media; they often approach cases with their own, more silent, pre-conceptions or convictions. Of course, juries in trials and the public, in general, should not be hostage to the media — but those are calls to be made in individual cases.

Consider some of the problems that may arise as a result of the court’s broadly worded directions. What does it mean that a media channel cannot air ‘subjective’ comments on pending cases? Is it within or outside the bounds of the law to televise a debate between two constitutional law scholars arguing over what arguments are likely to weigh with judges in a sub judice and landmark case? Is discussing how individual judges read the Constitution an ‘objective’ (allowed) or ‘subjective’ (prohibited) comment? Is calling a judge a conservative or liberal an exercise in fact or opinion? There will likely be increasing uncertainty about this in the coming days. A possible downside is that people and media outlets will engage in self-censorship; this would be tragic.

There is a strong case to be made that Arshad Sharif crossed a line; he wanted to cast doubt upon the veracity of two documents that were to be judicially examined, and ruled upon, in a pending case. He apologised and undertook not to repeat his conduct. The matter could have ended there, but it did not. Has the apex court clarified the law and struck the appropriate balance? Or will this lead to more questions and uncertainty in the coming days?

The News

October 19, 2018

Govt plans new body to regulate media: Fawad

ISLAMABAD: Federal Information Minister Fawad Chaudhry on Thursday announced a broad outline of the newly proposed Pakistan Media Regulatory Authority (PMRA) to oversee print, electronic and social media.

The announcement set alarm bells ringing among stakeholders including journalists who complained that they had not been consulted on the issue and expressed scepticism over the government move that they said could contain media freedom in the country.

While briefing the Senate standing committee on information and broadcasting, Mr Chaudhry said the PTI government would regulate all media and “no one will be able to defame anyone under the new law”.

Amid uneasy gestures by senators, he told the committee that the government was working on a proposal to bring all media regulatory bodies under the proposed PMRA. This would be done by merging all existing rules and acts related to Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra), Press Council of Pakistan (PCP) and Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA), he said, adding that it would introduce one-window operation to address complaints and other regulatory aspects of the media.

Referring to the proposed law, Information Secretary Shafqat Jalil told the committee that in future electronic media would be allowed to air advertisements only after the approval of the information ministry.

The information minister said the draft had been forwarded to Pemra, PCP and other media bodies including Council of Pakistan Newspapers Editors, All Pakistan Newspapers Society and the Pakistan Broadcasting Association.

Dawn

The News: Pemra to be replaced by new authority: Fawad

The Nation: Pemra to be replaced by new authority: Fawad