The Committee to Protect Journalists, a nonprofit organisation which promotes press freedom and defends the rights of journalists, on Monday expressed concern over the draft Cyber Protection Act, saying Bangladesh’s government must immediately withdraw or substantially revise its proposed amendments that would criminalise reporting officials deemed unverified, and grant authorities the power to block journalists’ work and deregister news outlets.
“The sweeping amendments to Bangladesh’s Cyber Protection Act are so broad that they could undermine press freedom,” CPJ’s Asia-Pacific Program Coordinator Kunal Majumder said in a statement.
“Journalists must be able to publish independently sourced and fact-checked information, including information authorities have not approved. Bangladesh has a history of cybercrime laws being misused to target journalists, and the current government should not repeat that pattern under the guise of fighting misinformation,” Kunal added,
In the statement titled “Bangladeshi journalists face 10-year jail terms for ‘unverified’ reporting under draft cybercrime law”, the CPJ noted that the draft amendments, which the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting discussed with select members of the media at a September 10 consultation session, include a new criminal offense for circulating “rumour” and “misinformation” online that carries a punishment of up to 10 years in prison or a heavy fine.
In the proposed draft, online material could be in violation of the law if authorities decide it is “unsubstantiated or unverified” and it creates public confusion, panic, or unrest. Cases would be tried before a specialized court, the Cyber Tribunal, that hears cases under Bangladesh’s digital and cyber laws.
News outlets could also be convicted of violating the law and courts would be empowered to suspend or cancel the company’s license to operate.
The statement cited Information and Broadcasting Minister Andaleeve Rahman saying the draft amendments were aimed at stopping disorder on social media and protecting social harmony.
The CPJ also pointed to Bangladesh’s track record of using cybercrime legislation against journalists in politically motivated cases.
It mentioned that under the previous Awami League government, at least 255 journalists were sued under the Digital Security Act that governed online speech and digital offenses between 2018 and 2023. Writer Mushtaq Ahmed, who was charged under the act, died in custody after nine months in pretrial detention.
The statement mentions that the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting did not immediately respond to CPJ’s emailed request for comment.
Earlier on Sunday, Activate Rights, a non-profit working to protect digital rights in Bangladesh, also voiced concerns, saying the draft cyberlaw could expand criminal liability for online expressions and weaken safeguards against government content restrictions.
In a statement, it said the Proposed Section 26A criminalises publishing or disseminating “rumour and disinformation”, but does not specify any definition.
“‘Rumour’ includes unsubstantiated or unverified information that causes, or may cause, confusion, panic or unrest, but does not expressly require an intention to mislead. This creates uncertainty over whether journalists, researchers or citizens could face criminal liability for information that is merely unverified.”
It further said Section-25 of the draft incorporated broad language, which risked criminalising legitimate criticism, commentary and public-interest expression.
It also highlighted the impact it could have on judicial oversight and transparency.
“Section 8 would remove the earlier three-day Tribunal approval requirement for blocking orders and the requirement to publicly disclose blocked content. This could reduce judicial oversight and transparency over government-ordered restrictions,” the rights body said.
Activate Rights called for precise definitions, independent oversight, effective appeal mechanisms and meaningful consultation before the amendments are finalised.
“Activate Rights recognises the government’s responsibility to address cybercrime and harmful online conduct, but such measures must protect fundamental rights. Restrictions on expression should be narrow, proportionate and safeguarded against misuse,” the statement reads.
Any legislation should address genuine online harms while protecting legitimate expression, public interest, journalism, access to information and due process, it concluded.