Understanding the Facebook Shutdown in PNG: Rights, Responsibilities, and National Security

The temporary shutdown of Facebook today in PNG has triggered widespread speculation and criticism. Many citizens are interpreting this decision as a political maneuver to suppress freedom of speech. However, such interpretations overlook the constitutional foundations of this action and risk creating unnecessary confusion. It is important to approach this matter by understanding the difference between qualified rights and absolute rights in the PNG Constitution, and how national security considerations can justify certain temporary restrictions.

Screenshot of Police Minister's Statement on successful testing of ICT Control systems.

In PNG, rights are not absolute across the board. The Constitution explicitly differentiates between absolute rights, which cannot be restricted under any circumstances, and qualified rights, which may be limited under specific conditions such as national security, public order, or public health. A clear example of an absolute right is the right to life under Section 35 of the Constitution. It is for this reason that PNG does not enforce the death penalty, despite having it in legislation. The right to life is inviolable. In contrast, rights such as freedom of expression (Section 46) and freedom of movement and assembly (Sections 52 and 47) are qualified rights—meaning they can be lawfully restricted when deemed necessary for the greater good.

A relevant precedent is the COVID-19 pandemic, when the government restricted freedom of movement and assembly to protect public health and national security. During that period, citizens were unable to attend religious gatherings, public events, or even move freely between provinces. These measures were not politically motivated; they were grounded in a legal and moral obligation to protect the lives of citizens during an unprecedented health crisis. Today’s Facebook shutdown must be understood in the same spirit—a precautionary step, not a political silencing.

Another important case study is the tragic events of “Black Wednesday” in January 2024, when protests in Port Moresby escalated into riots, looting, and loss of life. Much of the mobilisation was coordinated through social media platforms, particularly Facebook. What began as political and economic frustration rapidly transformed into chaos, partly fueled by misinformation and emotional posts online. In the aftermath, there was widespread public outcry not just against the government, but also against the abuse of social media for inciting violence. That dark day remains a stark reminder of the power—and danger—of unregulated digital communication.

It is within this context that today's Facebook shutdown must be understood. It is not about silencing political opponents or limiting legitimate dissent. It is about preventing another Black Wednesday. When social media becomes a platform for spreading misinformation, inciting unrest, or coordinating illegal activity, the government has a duty—legally and ethically—to intervene. This does not amount to censorship; it is a temporary and targeted action to prevent disorder and protect lives.

Citizens must remember that with rights come responsibilities. The freedom of expression does not give anyone the license to incite violence, spread falsehoods, or cause panic. When such misuse occurs, especially on platforms as powerful as Facebook, the government has a constitutional mandate to act in the public interest. This may involve restrictions that are time-bound and proportionate, but these are neither permanent nor arbitrary.

Importantly, this is not the first time governments around the world have taken such steps. Even in long-established democracies, social media platforms have been restricted or regulated during times of unrest. The key is whether such measures are lawful, temporary, and proportional—which, in this case, appears to be true. Once the risks are mitigated and stability is restored, Facebook access should resume, and citizens will again exercise their freedoms within a safe and secure environment.

In conclusion, the shutdown of Facebook is not a violation of fundamental freedoms. It is a measured response to protect public safety, consistent with the Constitution’s provision for qualified rights. Citizens should resist the urge to politicise every government action and instead seek to understand the legal and historical context. In times of national concern, our collective security must come first—but always under the rule of law and with the preservation of our democratic values.