"This report examines the state of media freedom in Afghanistan for the period from 15 August 2021 to 30 September 2024. Under the government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the media sector grew exponentially in the country, leading to the broadening of media platforms and greater access to more diverse domestic sources of news and information. However, after 15 August 2021, a large number of media outlets ceased their operations. This has been attributed to different factors, including loss of revenue stemming from the overall economic difficulties of the country, the withdrawal of donor support after the Taliban takeover, an exodus of journalists, as well as various restrictions imposed by the de facto authorities. The de facto authorities continue to create an extremely challenging operating environment for media, including but not limited to censorship and difficulties in accessing information. Additionally, journalists and media workers are subjected to intimidation, arbitrary arrest and detention, ill-treatment, court proceedings and imprisonment for performing their functions.
The de facto authorities’ measures interfering with editorial content and internal operation of media outlets have substantially diminished media freedom. Between 15 August 2021 to 30 September 2024, UNAMA HRS documented instances of human rights violations affecting 336 journalists and media workers – 256 instances of arbitrary arrest and detention (249 men, 7 women), 130 torture and ill-treatment (122 men, 8 women) and 75 threats or intimidation (66 men, 9 women). The lack of transparent procedures in determining violations and the use of intimidation, arbitrary arrests and detentions on those who criticize the de facto authorities create a culture of self-censorship and negatively impact freedom of expression.
On 19 September 2021, the de facto authorities’ “Government Media and Information Centre” issued an 11-Point Guidance to media, forbidding the publication of content deemed contrary to Islam and Afghan culture, or more broadly deemed to be against national interests. Media are often required to co-ordinate and seek approval from the de facto authorities prior to publishing a report, while news agendas are subjected to pre-vetting, which is tantamount to censorship. What constitutes content in violation of the guidance on editorial content is subject to broad and uncertain interpretation. Nonetheless, the fact that violations, or perceived violations, can lead to severe punishment creates a pervasive culture of self-censorship among journalists. As these instructions aim at limiting the range of permissible topics for public discourse and in penalizing media outlets being critical of the de facto authorities, they are incompatible with the conditions needed to limit freedom of expression under the ICCPR." (Executive summary, page 3)