In a move shaped by widespread public debate over the intersection of digital regulation and fundamental rights, the national cabinet has formally approved a set of targeted amendments to the country’s Cybercrime Bill, designed to narrow the legislation’s scope and bring it into full alignment with constitutional protections for freedom of expression.
The core goal of the reforms is to strike a deliberate balance between two pressing policy priorities: retaining the government’s ability to prosecute severe, technology-facilitated harm, while preventing legitimate speech from being inadvertently criminalized. Under the revised framework, serious cyber-enabled offenses including malicious deepfake dissemination, identity impersonation, online extortion, targeted threats and repeated harassment will still remain fully criminalized. At the same time, the amendments explicitly carve out protections for legitimate free expression, political debate, independent journalism, satirical commentary and public accountability efforts, ensuring these activities do not get swept up in the same legal net as harmful criminal conduct.
A critical new procedural safeguard has also been added to the legislation. Going forward, any criminal prosecution initiated under the Cybercrime Bill will require the explicit written consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions before it can move forward, creating an additional layer of oversight to prevent arbitrary or politically motivated misuse of the law.
The push for these reforms traces directly to the high-profile collapse of the cybercrime case brought against activist Alberto August, a development that first sparked intense public scrutiny over the original legislation’s overly broad scope. That case was initiated after former Police Minister Oscar Mira filed a complaint over a Facebook post August published, igniting a national conversation about the line between legitimate online criticism of public figures and criminal cyber activity, as well as the appropriate boundaries of cybercrime legislation.
In the wake of the case’s collapse, Attorney General Anthony Sylvestre announced a full review of specific provisions of the original bill, with a mandate to ensure the law could not be weaponized to criminalize defamation, while emphasizing that cyberbullying remains a serious, harmful problem that requires targeted regulatory action.
“We are not reviewing the entire piece of legislation, only specific problematic provisions, because effective cybercrime regulation remains a critical necessity,” Sylvestre explained in comments following the review. “It is important and necessary to set clear rules for conduct on social media and all other digital spaces where harmful bullying occurs. Cyberbullying is a real problem that demands action. The valid public concern raised after the August case centered on whether certain provisions could inadvertently lead to the criminalization of defamation, which we have worked to address.”
“We do not want provisions on our statute books that open the door to criminalizing legitimate defamation that should be handled through civil, not criminal, channels,” he added. “Those specific provisions are the focus of our review, and we are optimistic that the full amendments will be approved during the next parliamentary sitting.”
Sylvestre also clarified that the Attorney General’s Ministry played no role in advising authorities on the original cybercrime charges against August, as criminal prosecution strategy falls outside the ministry’s official remit. With cabinet’s formal approval, the amendments now deliver on the commitment Sylvestre first laid out in July, marking a major step toward balancing digital safety and free expression in the country’s regulatory framework.