Political leaders, lawyers, journalists and rights advocates on Saturday warned that the proposed amendments to Bangladesh's Cyber Protection Act could pave the way for a new form of digital authoritarianism.
It will, they said, possibly revive provisions that were previously used to prosecute journalists, writers, and government critics.
They said the amendments would expand criminal liability for online expression and introduce vaguely defined offences and at the same time would allow authorities to remove digital content without judicial approval.
The result, they warned, could be a return to the climate of fear created by the Information and Communication Technology Act's Section 57 and the Digital Security Act.
The concerns were raised at a discussion titled “Proposed Amendments to the Cyber Protection Act: The Future of Freedom of Expression and Civil Rights”, held at the National Press Club's Zahur Hossain Chowdhury Auditorium in Dhaka.
The Reform Implementation Committee of the National Citizen Party (NCP) organised the event.
Academic Dr Nabila Idris, a former member of the National Human Rights Commission and the Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances, presented the keynote paper.
The speakers included NCP Member Secretary and Rangpur-4 MP Akhter Hossain, Amar Bangladesh Party Chairman Mojibur Rahman Bhuiyan Manju, NCP Joint Convener Sarwar Tushar, Daily Waadaa Managing Editor Faisal Mahmud, Nutshell Today Executive Editor Apurba Jahangir and NCP Legal Affairs Secretary Advocate Zahirul Islam Musa.
NCP Central Organiser Advocate Arman Hossain moderated the discussion.
Nabila Idris questioned the government's justification for introducing new restrictions on online expression when several of the offences cited were already covered by existing legislation.
Online incitement, calls for violence, harassment of women and children, and the deliberate spread of misinformation were legitimate concerns, she said.
But the government must explain why additional criminal provisions were necessary.
She identified the proposed treatment of rumours as a particularly serious problem.
Who would decide whether information constituted a rumour? What standards would apply? Would the government, an independent investigator or a court determine its accuracy?
Without clear answers, she warned, even individuals reporting wrongdoing could face prosecution.
She said the law must protect the publication of truthful information in the public interest, particularly when dealing with defamation.
Dr Nabila also challenged the idea that the state should regulate offensive language simply because it was socially unacceptable.
“The state is not the guardian of its citizens,” she said, stressing that citizens have the right to criticise their government.
She warned against giving authorities extensive powers to police civility in public discourse.
Referring to Prime Minister's Adviser Dr Zahed Ur Rahman's assurance that the BNP would not use the law as the Awami League had done, Nabila said political promises were no substitute for legal safeguards.
The Digital Security Act had already demonstrated how arrests and prosecutions over social media posts could discourage people from speaking.
That produced a “chilling effect”, she said, in which citizens censored themselves to avoid legal trouble.
Nabila called for precise definitions of offences, transparent verification procedures, independent investigations and judicial oversight.
Such protections, she said, must apply equally to journalists and ordinary social media users.
NCP Member Secretary Akhter Hossain said the proposed amendments threatened to undo the reforms introduced after the 2024 mass uprising.
He recalled how the Digital Security Act had been used under the Awami League government to arrest and harass journalists, writers and ordinary citizens.
The death of writer Mushtaq Ahmed in prison, he said, exposed the consequences of that legislation.
The interim government subsequently introduced the Cyber Protection Ordinance to address genuine online offences while limiting arbitrary arrests.
The BNP government was now seeking to broaden the definitions of criminal conduct, he alleged.
Akhter accused the government of applying different standards to its supporters and critics.
He said government supporters could spread rumours, use abusive language and make defamatory statements without consequences, while opposition activists and ordinary citizens risked prosecution for criticising those in power.
He also criticised the government's handling of constitutional reform.
By refusing to take the oath as members of the Constitutional Reform Council and unilaterally establishing a constitutional amendment committee, the government was disregarding the referendum mandate and national consensus, he alleged.
He compared the approach with authoritarian practices under the Awami League and warned that constitutional changes imposed through a parliamentary majority could create another political crisis.
He referred to earlier disputes over the caretaker government system and the political circumstances that culminated in the January 11, 2007, emergency.
Akhter also criticised the government's failure to address extortion, looting, deteriorating law and order and rising commodity prices.
He alleged that syndicates were selling liquefied petroleum gas above government-fixed prices without effective intervention.
Referring to Saturday's postponement of a Department of Youth Development recruitment examination following allegations of question paper leaks, he demanded the identification, dismissal and prosecution of those responsible.
He also called for compensation for applicants who had travelled from different districts.
Under the proposed cyber law, he warned, citizens discussing such failures could themselves face allegations of spreading rumours or misinformation.
He urged the government to withdraw the amendments.
Daily Waadaa Managing Editor Faisal Mahmud said the proposed amendments, particularly Sections 25 and 26 (A), posed serious threats to journalistic independence.
He warned that imposing vaguely defined verification requirements on news publication could effectively make journalists dependent on official confirmation.
Investigative reporting frequently involves information that governments, corporations and other powerful institutions refuse to acknowledge.
If publication without official confirmation could trigger prosecution, he said, media owners and editors might pressure reporters to withhold sensitive stories.
The consequences would extend beyond individual journalists.
Newsrooms could begin censoring themselves to avoid criminal complaints, suppressing information that the public had a legitimate interest in knowing.
Faisal also criticised the proposed changes to Section 8, which would allow authorities to block or remove online content without prior judicial approval.
He said the danger was not "limited to professional journalists."
Ordinary citizens expressing opinions on social media could also face legal harassment, he added.
"Punishing a relatively small number of people could create fear among many others," he warned, ultimately "restricting public debate."
He called for the disputed provisions to be reconsidered to protect press freedom and fundamental rights.
AB Party Chairman Mojibur Rahman Bhuiyan Manju questioned the scope of the proposed Section 26A.
He offered an example of someone who mistakenly believed a false report of another person's death and offered prayers by saying “Inna Lillahi”.
Would that person also be prosecuted for spreading unverified information? He asked.
Without clearly defined offences, he said, even "innocent actions could become grounds for harassment."
Manju warned the BNP that laws and security mechanisms created by governments had historically been used against their creators after they lost power.
He urged the party to consider the long-term consequences of expanding state authority.
He also accused the BNP of political inconsistency.
During the interim government's tenure, he said, the party had accused the authorities of selling the country over a proposed agreement with DP World.
Yet after taking office, the BNP government signed a port concession agreement with the same company.
He also criticised increases in electricity prices despite earlier promises not to raise them.
When the BNP government completed 18 months in office, he said, the public would compare its performance with that of the interim administration.
NCP Joint Convener and Political Council member Sarwar Tushar accused the government of "selectively retaining powers introduced through interim government ordinances."
“Of the 133 ordinances issued by the interim government, the BNP government repealed the important ones and then played a numbers game, claiming it had passed 113 ordinances.”
He cited local government legislation allowing the executive to remove elected representatives.
The government had repealed accountability-related measures while retaining the authority to dismiss local representatives, he alleged.
Sarwar said the interim government's cyber ordinance had narrowly defined offences such as online sexual harassment and incitement to violence.
The proposed amendments, by contrast, could facilitate digital authoritarianism.
He cited media reports that 21 to 22 people had been arrested over Facebook posts since the BNP government took office in February.
Many of those incidents did not fall under the existing cyber law, he said, prompting authorities to use other legislation, including the Anti-Terrorism Act.
Sarwar questioned how the government would define rumours, defamation and humiliation.
He referred to allegations circulated by government-linked figures that Jamaat-e-Islami Secretary General Golam Parwar owned 700 autorickshaws used to organise protests.
Who would determine whether such claims were rumours, he asked, and would government supporters face the same legal scrutiny as their opponents?
Sarwar also criticised the government's approach to constitutional reform.
The government had asked others to wait six months but had not waited even six minutes over the Constitutional Reform Council's oath-taking, he said.
Referring to political developments surrounding the 1996 and 2006 elections, he warned that a two-thirds parliamentary majority did not guarantee lasting political security.
He said the government must remain accountable or risk a backlash from younger generations, including Generation Z and Generation Alpha.
NCP Joint Member Secretary and Legal Affairs Secretary Advocate Zahirul Islam Musa said the proposed amendments risked reviving the repressive features of earlier cyber legislation.
From Section 57 of the ICT Act of 2006 to the Digital Security Act, successive governments had changed the names of laws without eliminating opportunities for abuse, he said.
The 2024 mass uprising had created expectations that such restrictions would not return.
Yet the proposed amendments could criminalise creating or sharing memes, retain criminal defamation provisions and punish vaguely defined rumours, he warned.
Musa argued that "protecting journalists and lawyers alone would be insufficient."
"Every citizen must enjoy the same constitutional protections,” he said.
He said the authority to remove digital content should rest exclusively with the courts, not executive agencies or other government-authorised bodies.
He also warned against bringing cyber-related offences under the Mobile Court Act, which could allow immediate punishment and increase opportunities for harassment.
The government must stop treating citizens as subjects rather than individuals with rights, he said.
He demanded the removal of the disputed provisions.
Writer and Nutshell Today Executive Editor Apurba Jahangir questioned the government's approach to drafting the amendments.
After years of political turmoil, people had expected an elected government to improve conditions, he said.
Instead, the proposed law had raised questions about its consistency with the BNP's election manifesto.
He also questioned whether the initiative originated from "bureaucratic priorities or political objectives."
Apurba said it was essential to establish who would determine whether online information was false or misleading.
Would the government decide, or would the matter be examined by a court or an independent body?
He also expressed concern about executive powers to remove online content.
Bangladesh's past experience made it difficult to rely solely on assurances from the government, he said.
Nevertheless, he welcomed continued public discussion and expressed hope that the authorities would reconsider the contentious provisions before finalising the law.
NCP Central Organiser Advocate Arman Hossain, who moderated the event, said the July uprising had created expectations that no future government would suppress freedom of expression through repressive legislation.
The proposed amendments, however, threatened to restore controversial provisions associated with the Digital Security Act.
He referred to the arrests of writers and government critics, allegations of custodial torture and deaths in detention under earlier legislation.
Arman warned that vague legal definitions could once again expose citizens to arbitrary prosecution and repression.
He called for the protection of freedom of expression, access to justice and fundamental rights, arguing that the proposed amendments risked repeating the abuses Bangladesh had sought to leave behind after the 2024 uprising.
--