Search
Politics

Who Banned X (former Twitter) in Pakistan? We finally have an answer

News Desk

Mar 21

Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) disclosed to the Sindh High Court (SHC) that the nationwide ban on the social media platform X, implemented on February 17, was executed upon directives from the Ministry of Interior, citing intelligence agency reports.

Since February 17, the X website and application have remained predominantly offline, with sporadic service restorations, primarily occurring following statements made by former Rawalpindi commissioner Liaquat Ali Chatta alleging election irregularities.

PTA Chairman Hafeezur Rehman announced his intention to address the disruption of X with the interior ministry during a telephonic conversation with Dawn.com.

Rehman emphasized the need for clarity or accountability regarding the platform’s closure, highlighting that such actions are typically directed by the Interior Ministry.

During a hearing, a two-member SHC bench, comprising Chief Justice Aqeel Ahmad Abbasi and Justice Abdul Mubeen Lakho, consolidated four petitions filed by lawyer Jibran Nasir, journalist Zarrar Khurho, and others concerning internet disruptions at various instances.

In court, the PTA presented a copy of a letter dated February 17 from the Ministry of Interior instructing the telecommunication authority to block social media platform X.

The letter sent by Muhammad Hashim Shah, section officer FIA, to The Chairman PTA stated, “It is, therefore, social media platform i.e. X (formerly Twitter) may be blocked immediately till further orders.”

The PTA further revealed that these orders stemmed from intelligence agency reports.

Expressing dissatisfaction over the interior ministry’s failure to provide a written response, Chief Justice Aqeel Ahmad Abbasi urged Deputy Attorney General Khaleeq Ahmed to submit a “serious response,” prompting the latter to later present a written reply on behalf of the interior ministry. The response stated that services were disrupted on May 9, following orders from all provincial governments, citing concerns for state and citizen security. However, it refrained from commenting on other aspects of the case.

Following the inclusion of the ministry’s response in the case record, the bench adjourned the hearing until April 17, awaiting further proceedings.

Related


Read more