A court in Karachi handed journalist Farhan Mallick into the Federal Investigation Agency’s (FIA) custody for four days on Friday for allegedly airing “anti-state” content on his outlet’s YouTube channel.
Mallick is the founder of media agency Raftar which describes itself as a “dynamic platform dedicated to driving social change through the power of storytelling”. He is also the former news director of Samaa TV.
The YouTuber was arrested a day ago in Karachi, with Raftar claiming that FIA officials visited their offices on Wednesday evening without prior notice, where they “harassed our team” and summoned Mallick to their office.
Mallick was presented before Judicial Magistrate-I (East) Yusra Ashfaq today, where the FIA sought his 14-day physical custody but was granted the remand for four days till March 25 (Tuesday), according to documents shared online.
They showed he was booked by the FIA under sections 16 (unauthorised use of identity information), 20 (offences against dignity of a natural person) and 26-A of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (Peca) 2016, as well as sections 500 (punishment for defamation) and 109 (abetment) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC).
Notably, Section 26A is among the provisions recently added to the Peca laws, wherein fake news is defined as any information about which a person “knows or has reason to believe to be false or fake and likely to cause or create a sense of fear, panic or disorder or unrest”.
Any person found guilty of spreading such information could be sentenced to up to three years in prison or fined up to Rs2 million, or both.
The criminalisation of online disinformation has spread fear in Pakistan, with journalists among those worried about the potentially wide reach of the law.
“Amendments are being brought in specifically to quell dissent, to abduct, arrest, and detain journalists, and to silence journalism, silence dissent, and silence all criticism of the state,” human rights lawyer Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir told AFP.
According to the first information report (FIR) dated March 20, the FIA had received a report about Raftar TV’s YouTube channel, which was “involved in running a campaign for the posting of anti-state videos targeting the dignitaries mentioned in violation”.
It added that the YouTube channel’s initial technical analysis revealed that Mallick was “involved in generating and disseminating posts and videos related to anti-state consist of fake news and public incitement agenda”.
“He has continuously [been] disseminating and uploading posts and videos related to anti-state fake news and public incitement agenda, thereby causing harm to the reputation of public institutes on an international level […]” the FIR claimed.
In its remand request submitted to the court, the FIA had said Mallick was “required to be interrogated and efforts are also required to be taken [to] find out his accomplices involved and any other device or equipment that contain the incriminating material suspected to be in the custody of other accused”.
Stating the investigation of the case had not yet been completed, the journalist was “required to be interrogated on the point of modus operandi”.
Lawyer Muhammad Jibran Nasir said that the FIR, inquiry notice and remand report do not cite a specific piece of content that the FIA alleged to be defamatory or anti-state.
“The big issue is that no URLs or links were presented in any of these documents,” Nasir told the media`. “Tomorrow, they (authorities) can present anything and claim that was what he said.”
Nasir continued: “No date was given either. Incidents need a date, a time and an audience. None of these details are mentioned. Are they investigating him for one video or four?
“There is just vagueness,” he said when asked about the case.
Nasir also highlighted that the magistrate should not have issued remand in today’s hearing, as Section 26A was not passed into law at the time of the initial inquiry.
“The FIA’s initial inquiry was launched in November 2024, but Peca was not amended until January 2025. The magistrate should have asked ‘How can he (Mallick) be charged for something that was not an offence?'” he said.
“What is more important is … the failure and the omission on the part of the magistrate to make a note of … why 26A was added when the inquiry was already initiated and how the law can be applied retroactively,” Nasir emphasised.