On Monday, Papua New Guineans were hit by an unexpected digital blackout as access to Facebook was abruptly blocked.
The move, described by Police Minister Peter Tsiamalili Jr. as a “test”, was allegedly conducted to assess the government’s ability to restrict social media in the event of “national security threats.”
In a statement, Mr Tsiamalili said: “The government has the responsibility to protect its citizens from harmful content and the spread of misinformation. This was a necessary step to evaluate our capabilities in maintaining public order.”
However, the lack of prior notice left many users frustrated, with businesses, students, and civil society groups scrambling to understand the reasons behind the shutdown.
Government insiders said the government was “testing a few gadgets”.
More concerning was the fact that key regulatory agencies, the National Information and Communication Technology Authority (NICTA) and the Department of Information and Communication Technology (DICT), were reportedly unaware of the “test”.
“Public confidence in our digital governance relies on transparency and consistency in how we approach online regulation. It is essential that all key stakeholders, including NICTA, law enforcement, telecommunications providers, and government agencies, collaborate closely to ensure that any actions taken are well-understood and properly executed,” NICTA CEO Kila Gulo-Vui said in a statement.
The Facebook block came in the morning when the Prime Minister was due to appear in court as a state witness in a long running offshoot of the Paul Paraka corruption case. Political critics like John Endemongo Kua says it was deliberate and blamed the Prime Minister.
“Why shut down social media?” he said. “It means you do not understand the fundamentals of a democratic society.”
The Anti-Terror Act
The timing of this shutdown is significant.
It comes just months after the passing of the National Security (Amendment) Act 2024, which grants the government sweeping powers to monitor and restrict digital communications under the guise of combating terrorism and cybercrime.
Critics argue that Monday’s Facebook ban may be less about “testing capabilities” and more about normalising internet restrictions ahead of potential crackdowns on dissent.
The Anti-Terror Act already allows authorities to surveil online activity without judicial oversight — a provision that digital rights activists warn could be abused.
A vocal critic of the government, East Sepik Governor Allan Bird, had warned of the abuse of the anti-terror legislation and last night reiterated the concerns on WhatsApp forums.
“During the debate on the anti-terrorism bill in parliament, I pointed out that the law was too broad and could be used against innocent people,” Mr Bird said.
“Yesterday, the Police Minister used the anti-terrorism act to shut down Facebook. What was just step one. There is no limit to the powers the minister can exercise.”
The broader view
Over the past five years, Papua New Guinea has witnessed a series of political and legislative changes that have systematically strengthened the government’s hold on power.
Prime Minister James Marape says it’s for stability and continuity.
The amendment to Section 145 of the Constitution, which extends the grace period for votes of no confidence, has effectively insulated the ruling coalition from internal challenges, making it harder to hold leaders accountable. Coupled with the amendments to the NEC Act — which, the Opposition says, prevents legal challenges to cabinet decisions — the government has created an environment where executive power goes largely unchecked.
President of the PNG Trade Union Congress, Anton Sekum, says that these moves, framed as measures to ensure “stability,” have instead raised concerns about the erosion of democratic safeguards.
The recent decision to regulate Facebook under the guise of national security adds another layer to this trend.
By controlling digital communication, the government has expanded its ability to suppress dissent and manage public discourse.
“Certain citizens’ rights are being sneakily stripped away under craftily designed justifications,” said Mr Sekum.
The lack of transparency in these decisions — such as the sudden Facebook ban carried out without NICTA or DICT’s knowledge — suggests an alarming shift toward authoritarian governance rather than genuine security concerns.
These developments align with a broader pattern where lawmakers prioritise self-preservation over public interest.
Mr Sekum went further to say that while they refuse to pass laws penalising misconduct in Parliament, they eagerly amend legislation to entrench their own power.
“If these trends continue unchecked, PNG risks sliding further away from the democratic principles enshrined in international agreements like the UNSDGs, which its leaders have pledged to uphold. The question now is whether the global community will act — or simply watch as Papua New Guinea’s democracy is dismantled piece by piece.”
While the government insists the ban was a routine security exercise, the lack of transparency and the exclusion of key stakeholders suggest otherwise.
In an era where social media is a vital platform for free expression and commerce, arbitrary shutdowns risk eroding public trust.
The bigger concern is how the ability to ban Facebook and the anti-terror laws can and might be applied during elections.
This article was originally published by ABC Pacific and has been republished with permission.
