Listen to the article
Pakistan’s cyber crime agency has charged opposition lawmaker Shandana Gulzar with spreading false information about Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s recent diplomatic engagements in Egypt, officials announced Wednesday.
The National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) filed a case against Gulzar, a member of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party, under multiple provisions of the country’s Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act. The charges stem from social media posts in which Gulzar allegedly shared misleading content claiming Prime Minister Sharif met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a peace summit in Egypt last week.
According to the NCCIA statement, Gulzar is accused of posting “hateful and inflammatory statements against state institutions” and “spreading fake images and false information regarding the prime minister of Pakistan.” The agency alleges these actions were deliberate attempts to “incite racial and linguistic hatred” and “advance an anti-state narrative through fake news.”
Prime Minister Sharif had traveled to Egypt to participate in the Sharm el-Sheikh Peace Summit, where he attended a signing ceremony for an agreement aimed at ending the conflict in Gaza. During his visit, Sharif engaged in diplomatic meetings with several world leaders, including Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan.
The controversy began when numerous social media users, particularly PTI supporters, began sharing a low-quality, blurry image that they claimed showed Prime Minister Sharif meeting with Netanyahu. However, fact-checking organization iVerify Pakistan confirmed that Netanyahu did not attend the summit, and the image in question actually showed Sharif meeting with the Armenian premier.
In a now-deleted social media post, Gulzar had shared the image with a provocative caption: “Article 6! Treason! Pakistan does not recognize Israel let alone a genocidal murderer like Netanyahu.” After removing the post, Gulzar acknowledged that the “picture is not 100 per cent clear,” but continued to insist that a meeting between Sharif and Netanyahu had occurred, claiming she would demand logs from Pakistan’s Foreign Office regarding “secret meetings” between the two leaders.
The first information report (FIR) against Gulzar was initially filed on Sunday at the NCCIA Cyber Crime Reporting Centre by a technical assistant named Aneesur Rehman. The complaint cites violations of Sections 11, 20, and 26A of the cybercrime law, which address hate speech, offenses against dignity, and punishment for spreading false information, respectively.
The case highlights the growing tension between Pakistan’s government and opposition forces, particularly around sensitive diplomatic matters. Pakistan has historically maintained a firm stance against recognizing Israel, making allegations of high-level meetings between Pakistani and Israeli officials politically explosive.
This incident also underscores the increasing role social media plays in political discourse in Pakistan, where misinformation can spread rapidly and contribute to public distrust of government institutions. The NCCIA stated that the false claims “spread fear, anxiety, and distrust among the public towards state institutions.”
The agency indicated that investigations are continuing to identify other “individuals and accomplices behind the anti-state campaign,” suggesting the possibility of broader legal action against those involved in spreading similar content.
As Pakistan navigates complex regional politics and internal challenges, the case against Gulzar reflects the government’s growing concern about the impact of misinformation on national security and diplomatic relations, particularly regarding sensitive issues like the Middle East peace process.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
16 Comments
This case highlights the fine line between combating misinformation and infringing on free expression. I’ll be following the developments closely to see how the authorities justify these charges and whether they withstand scrutiny.
Absolutely, the balance between national security and civil liberties is always a delicate one. Transparency and due process will be crucial in determining if these charges are warranted.
The details of this case are murky, but it highlights the challenges of navigating social media and information sharing in the digital age. Fact-checking is crucial, but the motivations behind these charges raise red flags.
Agreed, this is a complex issue without easy answers. Balancing national security, free speech, and the spread of misinformation is an ongoing struggle for many governments.
Interesting case of alleged misinformation regarding the PM’s diplomatic activities. It’s important to verify claims and counter potential disinformation, but the charges also raise questions about freedom of speech. I’ll be curious to see how this plays out.
Agreed, this is a sensitive issue that requires a balanced approach. Preserving free speech while also addressing the spread of false information is a delicate balance.
Cyber crime allegations against an opposition lawmaker over social media posts criticizing the government are concerning. While misinformation should be addressed, using legal action to target political opponents sets a troubling precedent.
You make a fair point. The use of cyber crime laws to curb political dissent is a worrying trend that needs to be closely monitored.
While misinformation should be addressed, using the legal system to target political opponents sets a dangerous precedent. I hope this case is handled with transparency and due process to ensure it’s not an abuse of power.
Well said. Maintaining the integrity of democratic institutions requires vigilance against the misuse of laws and regulations for political gain.
Allegations of misinformation are serious, but using cyber crime laws to target political opponents is concerning. I hope this case is handled impartially and that the truth, whatever it may be, comes to light.
Well said. Upholding the rule of law and democratic principles should be the priority, not using the legal system for political gain.
While the allegations of misinformation are concerning, the use of cyber crime laws to target political opponents is deeply troubling. I hope this case is handled with the utmost transparency and fairness to ensure the integrity of the democratic process.
Well said. Maintaining public trust in institutions and upholding the rule of law should be the top priorities, regardless of political affiliations.
This case underscores the challenges of regulating online discourse and the fine line between addressing misinformation and stifling legitimate criticism. I’ll be following the developments closely to see how the authorities navigate this sensitive issue.
Agreed, it’s a complex and nuanced issue that requires a delicate approach. Balancing national security, free speech, and factual information is an ongoing challenge in the digital age.