Dialogue Fiji has renewed calls for urgent reform of the Online Safety Act 2018, warning that its controversial “causing harm by electronic communication” provision is being increasingly used to investigate and prosecute individuals in ways that threaten free expression.
Executive director of Dialogue Fiji Nilesh Lal said the recent spate of cases under Section 24 of the Act highlighted long-standing fears about its potential misuse.
“In just the past few weeks we have seen several individuals investigated or charged under Section 24 in quick succession,” he told The Sunday Times.
“This sudden surge highlights exactly what civil society, legal experts, and opposition MPs warned about when the Act was passed in 2018.”
Controversial law
The Online Safety Act was introduced to protect victims of cyber bullying, harassment and online exploitation.
However, its Section 24 provision criminalises causing “serious emotional distress” through electronic communication – a definition critics say is dangerously vague.
“When this Act was enacted in May 2018, only FijiFirst MPs voted for it, while every opposition member voted against it,” Mr Lal said.
“The opposition was united in declaring that this provision undermined democracy and threatened human rights.”
At the time, rights groups described the law as a “Trojan horse” for censorship, while youth organisations and legal experts warned it could be weaponised to silence dissent.
From opposition to government
Ironically, many of those who criticised the law most strongly are now in government, yet the Act remains unchanged.
“That is one of the ironies of this situation,” Mr Lal said.
“In 2018, opposition MPs – many of whom now hold positions in government – strongly opposed this provision. They argued, rightly, that it could undermine democracy and freedom of speech. Yet since coming to power, they have not acted to reform it.”
Risks to democracy
Dialogue Fiji argues that the risks the law poses today are the same as those raised seven years ago.
“The offence is vague, subjective, and overly broad,” Lal explained.
“It risks criminalising legitimate political criticism, satire, or commentary.
This creates a chilling effect where people begin to self-censor out of fear that their posts or jokes might be deemed to have caused ‘serious emotional distress.’”
He stressed that in a democracy, citizens must be free to challenge policies, question leaders and debate robustly without facing the threat of prosecution.
What reforms are needed?
Dialogue Fiji insists it is not opposed to online safety laws but wants reforms to ensure that legislation protects victims of abuse without undermining democratic freedoms.
The organisation is calling for:
-A clearer and narrower definition of “harm,” focusing on demonstrable psychological harm, threats, harassment, and privacy violations;
-A requirement that the offence involve intent or reckless disregard, not mere negligence;
-Explicit exemptions for political speech, satire, commentary, and reporting in the public interest;
-A graduated approach, where the Online Safety Commission prioritises mediation and takedowns before resorting to prosecution; and
-Proportionate penalties, with lower fines and shorter custodial terms for first offences, escalating only for repeat or aggravated cases.
“Fiji needs online safety laws that genuinely protect people from abuse, harassment, and exploitation, without chilling free speech,” Lal said.
“What was true in 2018 about this controversial provision continues to hold true today.”
