Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right that holds immense importance in any democratic society. It serves as a platform for individuals to voice their opinions, share their thoughts and ideas, and engage in meaningful discussions and debates. However, the extent to which freedom of expression is upheld and practised varies from one country to another. In Bangladesh's case, although freedom of expression is enshrined in the constitution, its implementation faces significant challenges.

At first glance, it may appear that people in Bangladesh enjoy the freedom to express themselves without fear of persecution. The media also seems relatively free to report on matters of public interest. However, a closer examination reveals the existence of substantial limitations to this freedom.

One of the serious issues with freedom of expression in Bangladesh is its heavy bias towards certain individuals and groups. While some individuals, particularly those who are part of the ruling elite or possess political influence, can freely criticise the government and its policies, others do not have the same privilege. Those who lack political connections or are not part of the ruling elite face restrictions in expressing their opinions. They often become targets of persecution when they dare to speak out against the government or its policies.

Read more

Column by Mahfuz Anam: DSA to CSA, a sham of a reform

Furthermore, freedom of expression is confined to specific topics in the country. People are allowed to discuss issues that do not directly affect the larger population, but they are prohibited from being critical of the government's failures or the shortcomings of its institutions. To achieve this, the government employs various tactics such as intimidation, harassment, imprisonment, and even violence. The media is not immune to such suppression, as journalists are frequently targeted and attacked for reporting on sensitive issues. Such restrictions do not align with the principles of democracy.

In Bangladesh, a unique style has emerged, favouring those who have political connections or are part of the ruling elite. This creates a significant power imbalance, silencing the voices of the majority while allowing the minority with access to power to dominate the conversation.

How did the country arrive at this point? Is it solely due to the efforts of successive governments to silence dissidents, or have the institutions tasked with protecting the rights of the people also succumbed to vested interests?

In a democracy, freedom of expression encompasses the right to criticise the government and its policies, and the press is expected to be free from bias. If Bangladesh aims to progress towards a more democratic society, it must ensure that freedom of expression is guaranteed to all its citizens, irrespective of their political affiliations or social status.

While it is valid to discuss the failure of institutions, a sizable portion of the blame falls on the media in Bangladesh as well. Impartial and unbiased journalism is increasingly limited in the country – not only due to informal embargoes and formal legal restrictions but also due to other factors. One crucial factor is the prevalence of media and journalists being aligned with partisan politics. While journalists having political alignments is not inherently wrong, it becomes problematic when they forget the fundamental principle of journalism: presenting the facts. Journalists with political biases or perceived biases often manipulate or distort information to support a specific political agenda or gain personal advantages. They tend to align themselves with the political party in power, compromising the freedom of expression that is crucial in a democratic society.

Another concerning trend in Bangladesh is the influence of businesses or business conglomerates that own media outlets. These entities often leverage their media ownership to protect their business interests by eliminating competitors or evading accountability for crimes and wrongdoing. In such cases, the media outlets tend to align closely with the power structure, serving the interests of those in power, rather than speaking up for the people.

Even in the presence of formal and informal restrictions imposed by the state, journalists should be able to report freely on matters of public interest. This freedom is essential for the press to remain relevant and create a platform for open dialogue among the people, their representatives, and public institutions. By doing so, the press can uphold the citizens' right to freedom of expression.

Read more

Cyber Security Act will not stop criminalising freedom of expression

Journalists and media organisations in Bangladesh must reaffirm their commitment to impartiality, independence, and the presentation of facts. By adhering to these principles, they can counteract the influence of partisan politics and business interests on journalism and contribute to the preservation of press freedom in the country. Additionally, efforts should be made to foster a media environment that encourages diverse perspectives and safeguards the integrity of journalism.

In a democracy, freedom of expression encompasses the right to criticise the government and its policies, and the press is expected to be free from bias. If Bangladesh aims to progress towards a more democratic society, it must ensure that freedom of expression is guaranteed to all its citizens, irrespective of their political affiliations or social status. But the question remains: how can the country do so?

Meer Ahsan Habib is an IVLP and Hubert Humphrey fellow. His X handle is @meeriyadh

Views expressed in this article are the author's own.

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission. 

Law Minister Anisul Huq recently stated that he thinks the misuse of the Digital Security Act, 2018 will stop after the enforcement of the proposed Cyber Security Act. He said the problems (that is, some sections of the DSA) which worried the journalist community would be gone, and so the harassment of journalists would also stop. It is supposedly not an "old wine in a new bottle."

Read more

Cyber Security Act: Only fine, no jail time for defamation

However, just a casual look into the draft CSA will prove to anyone that the optimism expressed by the law minister is entirely unfounded.

One of the most prominent critiques of the current DSA came from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in the form of the OHCHR Technical Note to the Government of Bangladesh on review of the Digital Security Act, published last year. In the report, the UN body highlighted three major issues with the DSA. Firstly, the vague and overly broad provisions of the DSA criminalise various legitimate forms of expression with overly harsh sentences. Secondly, the powers granted to the police and the Bangladesh Telecommunications and Regulatory Commission (BTRC) are far too broad. Thirdly, the offences stipulated in the DSA are non-bailable and allow pre-trial detention.

Read more

From DSA to CSA: Key areas of concern stay

Of course, one has to give credit where it is due. Under the drafted CSA, the significant positive changes include making several non-bailable offences bailable and also cancelling provisions for repeat offenders.

However, the key issues arising from vague provisions and the broad powers of police and the DSA enforcing agency remain totally unaddressed. Therefore, the function of the DSA as a tool for suppressing freedom of speech is entirely untouched by reform.

Read more

Cyber Security Act and the fear of history repeating itself

I would like to focus on a particular part of the CSA, which encapsulates the worst aspect of this problem.

When the ICT Act was replaced with the DSA in 2018, the government repealed Section 57 of the ICT Act, but all its provisions were included in four separate sections of the DSA. Namely, Sections 25, 28, 29, and 31. Of all the cases filed under the ICT Act, 65 percent were under Section 57. Since the DSA came into effect, the number of cases filed under the aforementioned four sections have exceeded 1,500, according to data collected by the Centre for Governance Studies. Almost one-third of all cases filed under the DSA are under Sections 25 and 29, mainly for defamation.

The UN human rights office observed that Section 25 – which criminalises "offensive, false or threatening data information" – and Section 29 – which criminalises "defamatory information" – of the DSA relate to acts considered civil liability issues in many other countries. The OHCHR also noted that these sections "do not include defences, such as the defence of truth or a defence for public interest in the subject matter…"

Simply allowing bail does not address the issue of why and how these two sections are being misused. Instead, by keeping the defamation clauses as a criminal offence subject to a fine of Tk 25 lakh, the process of suppression has been streamlined.

— Zillur Rahman

The core problem of these two sections in the DSA is that they are considered "desacato laws," meaning that they are laws which penalise offensive expressions directed at public officials and restrict freedom of expression and the right to information. These two sections are the most misused of the DSA, and are primarily used to target journalists and members of opposition political parties.

In the new CSA, the clauses under Sections 25 and 29 have been untouched. Simply allowing bail does not address the issue of why and how these two sections are being misused. Instead, by keeping the defamation clauses as a criminal offence subject to a fine of Tk 25 lakh, the process of suppression has been streamlined. It has to be understood that Tk 25 lakh is not pocket change for the average Bangladeshi citizen. For many in the middle class, especially those who are young, that amount equals their life savings. By adopting this approach, the police may no longer have to bother tracking down the accused individual, go through the hassle of picking them up and filling out the paperwork. Instead, fines can be easily sent out in mass against a large number of targeted people, who will inevitably fail to pay the exorbitant fine and will later be collected by police whenever it is convenient for the latter.

Read more

Cyber Security Act will not stop criminalising freedom of expression

The OHCHR has repeatedly stated a general view, under international human rights law, that defamation should be decriminalised as it discourages the media from publishing critical information on matters of public interest, thus posing a threat to freedom of expression and access to information of all kinds, and impeding journalists' legitimate work performance. Thus, the OHCHR is concerned that these sections fall short of Article 19(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Bangladesh has been a party to the ICCPR since September 2000.

Similar to the findings of the OHCHR, an analysis by the Sampadak Parishad (Editors' Council) stated that Section 25 of the DSA directly affects all investigative reporting in the media. Such reports are usually about some irregularities performed by institutions and individuals. Corrupt people might use this law to intimidate journalists and media organisations, and try to prevent the publication of such stories on the pretext that the reports have attacked or intimidated them. Regarding Section 29, they restated that a law already exists to deal with defamation, so a separate law for digital media is unnecessary.

Read more

Why Sampadak Parishad opposes the Digital Security Act

The way to stop the CSA from being used against freedom of speech would be to turn the acts under Sections 25 and 29 into civil liability issues instead of criminal ones. For this, three things have to be ensured. Firstly, the criminal defamation laws have to be replaced with civil laws that are more narrowly defined. Secondly, only the party who is the alleged victim of defamation or harm to reputation should be allowed to file a case against the alleged perpetrator. And lastly, the sections must include defences and exemptions in regards to defamation, such as the defence of truth or a defence for public interest in the subject matter of the criticism.

Zillur Rahman is executive director of the Centre for Governance Studies (CGS) and a television talk show host. His X handle is @zillur

The phone number of Sirajum Munira, the elder sister of Khadijatul Kubra, a Jagannath University student who was in jail for over 14 months in DSA cases, flashed on the screen of this correspondent's mobile.

From the other end came the words: "Hello, it's me Khadija." Then a pause and she adds, "It feels unreal to be free!"

After six unsuccessful bail petitions, Khadija got out of the jail around 9:15am yesterday and was finally on her way back home in the capital's west Monipuri Para.

But not before serving time for an offence where the only prima facie evidence against her was the fact that she was present -- silently so -- in a webinar where another participant made contentious remarks about the government.

"I cannot explain to you what it will feel like to embrace my mother again," she said with palpable excitement.

They had met several times over the past 14 months as Khadija flitted in and out of the court for hearings. However, each time her hands were bound, or she was flanked by a horde of cops.

Inside the prison, meetings with family members happened with barricades in between and under the strict watch of the guards.

"There were women inside the prison who really cared for me, but nothing can be compared to the feeling of being able to embrace my sister right at the jail gate after getting out."

Khadija looked forward to eating the beef curry her mother cooked for her. It was a delicacy made on special days for the family, which runs on the meagre earnings of her migrant worker father -- a house staffer in Kuwait.

"But I won't be able to eat until the evening. I am fasting," said Khadija about a practice she developed in prison.

"Every day I prayed for a miracle. I used to fast only on Mondays and Thursdays. But I have been fasting every day from last month till November 16 [the day she was granted bail] and praying for this miracle."

After her bail pleas were repeatedly rejected by a lower court, the High Court granted her permanent bail on February 16.

However, the state immediately filed two petitions with the Supreme Court, challenging the bail order, which was then stayed by an SC chamber judge.

Later, Khadija sought justice from the Appellate Division, praying that the chamber judge's stay order be vacated.

But on July 10, her prayer was stood over for four months by a full Supreme Court bench, led by Chief Justice Hasan Foez Siddique.

The student received bail only after Chief Justice Obaidul Hassan took over the helm of the judiciary.

During the hearing, he had asked the lawyers how long Khadija had been in jail – and was visibly astonished when he heard the answer.

Khadijatul Kubra was arrested on August 27 last year after police pressed charges against her in two Digital Security Act cases, filed by Kalabagan and New Market police on October 11 and October 19, 2020.

The student was sued at the age of 17 for hosting the Facebook webinar, where guest speaker Delwar Hossain, a retired army officer, made the contentious remarks.

Although Khadija was sued as a minor, she had to undergo a full adult trial and incarceration.

Even after getting bail, her release was fraught with difficulties.

The jail authorities received the bail order finally on Sunday evening and though her family waited the entire day in front of the gate of Kashimpur Females' Central Jail, they had to return home without her.

Khadija's sister Munira said, "When we asked the jail authorities why Khadija was not yet being released, a police official came out and told us that they were waiting for clearance from other agencies and law enforcement units because the cases were under the Digital Security Act."

Barrister Jyotirmoy Barua, her lawyer, termed it a contempt of court.

A student of political science, Khadija went back to university right after being released.

While the law enforcers and the judiciary debated whether or not it would be safe to release her, all Khadija cared about was not failing out of college.

"My fourth-semester final exams are going on and I'm prepared for them. I sat for my statistics exams today and was able to answer three out of the four questions!

"I should be able to do better in the coming exams as I can study at home now."