The Sexual Offences Against Children and Evidence of Child Witness Act Advocacy Group expressed concern that children, child rights groups, and other stakeholders were not consulted during the drafting of the bill.

“This failure to engage highlights a lack of recognition of the specific vulnerabilities of children in the digital environment, and raises questions about the adequacy of this legislative process.

“It also underscores the government’s failure to understand and respect children’s rights to freedom of expression and participation under the Convention on the Rights of the Child,” it said.

The group includes the Women’s Aid Organisation, Voice of the Children, Kemban Kolektif, Childline Foundation, All Women’s Action Society, and the Child Rights Innovation & Betterment Foundation.

In a statement, it said the amendments to Section 233 of the act would make it “too broad” and overlap with the Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017 (SOACA).

It said amendments such as the addition of the term “grossly” before “offensive” to narrow the scope of Section 233 did not go far enough.

“The parameters of harmful content – that which is ‘obscene’, ‘indecent’, ‘false’, and ‘menacing’ – remain alarmingly broad,” it said.

It added that the use of “vague” explanatory notes rather than concrete legal definitions only added to the uncertainty, leaving room for highly subjective interpretations that could harm children.

“We are particularly alarmed by the significant overlap between the harmful content described in these amendments and offences such as child sexual abuse material, sexual communication with a child, and child grooming, which are already covered under SOACA,” it said.

The group also warned of a risk that if the bill was passed, perpetrators involved in child sexual abuse material might face lesser penalties if charged under the CMA instead of SOACA.

“For instance, the penalty for making, producing, or directing the making or production of child sexual abuse material under SOACA includes imprisonment for a maximum of 30 years, whereas under the amendments to Section 233 of the CMA, it is a maximum of five years.

“We fear that the authorities would choose the easier path of prosecuting such crimes under the CMA instead of SOACA,” it said.

The group also lamented that children were not exempted from liability for offences under the CMA, adding that the proposed bill failed to consider a child’s mental developmental process and comprehension, as well as the potential harm of criminalising children.

“Rather than expanding the reach of the CMA with vague, broad, and overly punitive measures, we call for more focused reforms that prioritise the safety of children, uphold privacy rights, and provide clear and enforceable guidelines for content regulation.”