Fewer reported incidents should not be mistaken for greater press freedom or improved safety for media practitioners. Rather, the methods of intimidation appear to have become more sophisticated, institutionalised and difficult to challenge, with legal pressure increasingly complementing more traditional forms of coercion.
Particularly alarming is the growing resort to the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) in cases involving journalists. A law ostensibly intended to combat cybercrime must not become a convenient instrument for curbing dissent, silencing critical voices or intimidating those who question the conduct of public officials.
When journalists reporting on corruption, public expenditure and government performance find themselves facing investigations, summonses, detention and repeated court appearances, the very purpose of accountability is undermined. The distinction between legitimate enforcement of the law and its use to discourage uncomfortable questions must therefore remain clear.
The concept of “lawfare”, highlighted in the report, deserves particular attention. A journalist need not be convicted or imprisoned to be silenced. The prospect of legal proceedings, financial hardship, reputational damage, scrutiny of electronic devices and prolonged litigation can itself be sufficient to discourage investigative reporting.
Such practices create a chilling effect, encouraging self-censorship and depriving citizens of their right to information. In the process, it is not merely journalists who suffer; democratic discourse, institutional accountability and the public interest become casualties.
Equally disturbing is the report’s finding that victims or their families identified government authorities and officials as alleged instigators in nearly two-thirds of the documented cases. If those entrusted with protecting citizens are themselves implicated in intimidating media professionals, the prospects for accountability become increasingly uncertain.
The ineffectiveness of the federal journalists’ protection mechanism and the limited reach of the Sindh Commission further expose the gulf between legislation and implementation. Establishing commissions and enacting protective laws mean little unless they are adequately empowered, independent and capable of delivering tangible results.
Every attack on a journalist must be investigated promptly, with those responsible held accountable irrespective of their political or institutional standing.
Ultimately, the true measure of press freedom is not how many journalists escape physical attacks, but whether they can question those in power without fear of reprisal. Pakistan must move beyond documenting violations and declaring commitments to journalist protection. It must also ensure that laws are not allowed to acquire a punitive character through their selective or excessive application.
The state has a responsibility not only to protect journalists from violence but also to safeguard the freedom that enables them to hold power to account. Anything less would further entrench the culture of impunity the report so clearly exposes.