PRESS FREEDOM IN BANGLADESH: LESSONS FROM THE DIGITAL SECURITY ACT
In partnership with the Centre for Governance Studies (CGS), TrialWatch
analyzed 222 cases involving 396 journalists to document how the Digital Security Act, 2018
(DSA) was applied to punish reporting and criticism online (451 incidents of
criminalization). Thirty cases were also selected for deep-dive analysis, including
by interviewing the affected journalists.
Our data reveals that the DSA was widely used as a tool to harass and
intimidate journalists, having a chilling impact on press freedom in
Bangladesh. While the law has changed, many journalists are still suffering
the consequences of having cases brought against them under the DSA, and the
newly introduced Cyber Security Ordinance still poses significant risks.
Bangladesh’s Succession of Cybercrime Laws
Provisions of the DSA
Data on the provisions invoked was available for 176 of the 451 incidents of
criminalization.
The provisions most invoked against journalists invoked were vague and
especially easy to weaponize. Journalists faced multiple offenses in many
cases, even though prosecuting the same speech for these multiple offenses
was not necessarily logical.
Section 25 was one of the two most commonly weaponized provisions
against journalists.
SCROLL DOWN ↓
Section 25 was invoked 158 times.
This section deals wth offensive, false or threatening information with
intention to annoy or insult a person or false information or propaganda
to affect the reputation of the country.
Section 29 was invoked over 157 times.
It criminalises publishing or transmitting defamatory information
online.
In many cases, journalists faced multiple offenses. Sections 25 and 29 were used together in the majority of cases. They both were invoked over
142 times.
For instance, one journalist faced charges under both Sections 25 and 29
for an article about alleged tax issues of a company which a mayor had
been or was affiliated with.
THE LIFECYCLE OF A CASE: THE DSA AS A TOOL OF INTIMIDATION AND HARASSMENT
Arrest and Pre-Trial Detention
Journalists facing DSA charges were often arrested and subject to pre-trial
detention, because ‘non-bailable’ provisions were added to cases that
involved ‘bailable’ provisions. Among the 30 case studies analysed, 90% of
the journalists faced arrest (27 of the 30).
While the DSA has been repealed, the danger is not past. The CSO includes a
broad, vague provision, which carries forward some of the flaws of Section 31
of the DSA. And it is not clear whether new safeguards will be sufficient to
prevent arbitrary arrests and prolonged proceedings even under a narrower law.
Further reforms are needed to protect journalists and press freedom in
Bangladesh, so that no one is afraid to report the truth.