Last June, Malaysian authorities burned the homes and boats of members of the Bajau Laut, an indigenous community in Malaysian Borneo whose livelihoods are inextricably linked to the sea. This destruction left families without shelter, and with few ways to support themselves.
After videos of the displacement went viral, the Malaysian government faced heavy criticism. Their response? Relying on a 1948 colonial-era law, they arrested human rights defender Mukmin Nantang for sedition, after he drew attention to the plight of the Bajau Laut.
England adopted sedition laws in the 16th century to prevent criticism of the monarch. Today, these antiquated statutes are increasingly being repurposed by governments to suppress opposition by prosecuting speech. For instance, a Hong Kong court convicted two former newspaper editors under its colonial-era sedition law for articles critical of the government.
These colonial relics are not the only laws now invoked to try to immunize governments from "disloyal speech." New analogues, like Hong Kong's National Security Law, are also used to convict pro-democracy figures for "subversion." In jurisdictions as disparate as Thailand, India, Pakistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Eswatini, and Zimbabwe, governments are deploying repressive legal interpretations to silence free speech.
This is alarming. In recent years, Pakistan and India have escalated abuses of colonial-era sedition laws -- using the same provisions under which Mahatma Gandhi was famously tried a century ago. At the time, Gandhi described sedition as "the prince among the political sections of the Indian Penal Code designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen." Recently, the same law has been invoked against Pashtun rights advocates in Pakistan and celebrated Indian author Arundhati Roy, who now also faces terrorism charges under India's draconian Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
In 2023, human rights lawyer Thulani Maseko was gunned down in Eswatini after challenging sedition laws, and Barbudan environmental advocate John Mussington was threatened with sedition charges for opposing luxury developments that would deny local communities vital access to the sea.
The same tactics are creeping into cyberspace. Authorities are supercharging antiquated "traitor" laws to target online speech, while creating new ones that apply the same colonial logic.
June 2025 marked three years since Cambodian American lawyer Theary Seng was incarcerated for "conspiracy to commit treason" and "the intent to incite social unrest" for Facebook posts critical of the Cambodian government. Although these are not colonial-era offences, they trace their origins to centuries-old French and English laws, which served as blueprints for legal frameworks across the region.
In 2023, Zimbabwean opposition leader Jacob Ngarivhume was sentenced to four years in prison for inciting public violence after he posted a video on X denouncing corruption.
In Thailand, a sedition law is frequently abused -- alongside the draconian lèse-majesté law that criminalizes insulting royalty. In 2023, Katanyu Muenkhamruang was convicted for alleged involvement in Facebook posts encouraging people to protest against the military government. More than 150 others, some of them children, are still facing sedition charges five years after Thai pro-democracy protests erupted in 2020.
Yet amid the resurgence of colonial-style oppression, there is hope. In 2023, Pakistan's Lahore High Court held the country's sedition law was unconstitutional. India's new penal code eliminates sedition entirely. Singapore and Malawi have both recently repealed their sedition laws. But these victories are precarious. The Pakistani government has appealed the Lahore High Court's decision and India's new penal code includes a replacement offense, subversion, that some call a mere "nomenclature makeover."
This trend should be addressed head-on. We offer several recommendations.
First, we need to develop case law rooted in the Global South and formerly colonized countries to strike down laws that are vague and overbroad, and thus unclear and ripe for abuse. Courts from Pakistan to Uganda have held that sedition laws violate their constitutions. This progress should be brought to the attention of courts in other countries considering similar cases.
Second, lawyers should utilize international and regional human rights bodies to challenge overbroad legal provisions. There is positive precedent from the East African Court of Justice and the Community Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States regarding sedition laws. We need more cases like these to build a body of jurisprudence to tackle these laws.
Third, we must guard against "sedition 2.0," or new laws that accomplish colonial-inspired repressive ends. As governments seek to chill free speech online, human rights defenders must counter this trend forcefully by monitoring trials to expose new tactics and amplifying the stories of those who are targeted.
Courageous advocates around the world are fighting and winning important battles in this struggle. We need to work together to amplify these results rather than standing by as the authoritarian playbook expands.
Stephen Townley is the legal director of the TrialWatch initiative at the Clooney Foundation for Justice.
Louise Ehlers is program manager of security and rights at the Open Society Foundations.