Opposition MPs warn cyber law risks reviving Bangladesh’s old machinery of repression
Two opposition lawmakers have strongly criticised the proposed Cyber Protection (Amendment) Act 2026, warning that its vaguely defined speech offences could restore the system of arrests, harassment and politically driven cases associated with Bangladesh’s previous cyber laws.
Speaking at a discussion, titled “Freedom of Expression Under Threat Again: How Much Does the Amended Cyber Law Mirror the DSA?” on Monday, MPs Al Amin and Mardia Momtaz also questioned the government’s broader approach to lawmaking, arguing that Parliament provides insufficient room for dissent and that reforms promised after the 2024 mass uprising are being steadily diluted.
Their criticism comes as opposition to the draft cyber law grows among journalists, rights groups and digital-rights organisations. The proposed amendments would criminalise online “rumour” and “disinformation”, expand provisions covering defamation, humiliation and bullying, and broaden government powers to remove or block online content.
The government has said the legislation is intended to combat online abuse while protecting freedom of expression. Information and Broadcasting Minister Andalib Rahman Partha said this month that the government did not want the new law to leave scope for the kind of harassment and suppression of media associated with earlier legislation.
Speaking at the event organised by Voice for Reform, Al Amin said he was particularly concerned about provisions dealing with “rumour” and misinformation because of the uncertainty over who would determine whether contested information met those definitions.
“Who will determine what is a rumour?” he said.
A case could be filed first, he argued, leaving an accused person to spend years establishing that the information was not false.
The proposed Section 26A would criminalise publishing or disseminating “rumour” or false information in cyberspace. Rights groups say the provision could cover information considered “unsubstantiated or unverified” if it causes public confusion, panic or unrest. The maximum sentence could reach 10 years.
Al Amin, a lawyer by profession, compared that structure with his experience handling cases under Section 57 of the Information and Communication Technology Act and the later Digital Security Act.
He recalled repeatedly seeing defendants spend entire days in court without their cases being heard.
“It was nothing but harassment,” he said. “The judge knew it, the advocate knew it, and the state lawyer knew it.”
The purpose in some cases, he argued, was the legal process itself rather than an eventual conviction.
He also described what he said was a familiar pattern in politically sensitive cases: formulaic first information reports in which the basic language remained the same while names, addresses and relevant legal provisions were changed.
“There is a common format,” he said. “They simply insert the names and addresses, add the sections, and the case is ready.”
Returning to such a system, he said, would mean Bangladesh was “walking backwards”.
The draft has drawn similar criticism outside Parliament. Tech Global Institute has called it more regressive than the Digital Security Act, arguing that broad definitions of defamation, disparagement, rumour and disinformation leave substantial scope for subjective interpretation.
The Committee to Protect Journalists has called for the amendments to be withdrawn or substantially revised, particularly objecting to the prospect of journalists facing criminal liability for reporting that officials consider unverified.
The Cyber Protection Act was enacted on April 10 and amended on June 30. The government subsequently formed a five-member cabinet committee headed by Posts, Telecommunications and Information Technology Minister Faqir Mahbub Anam to review further amendments.
Al Amin placed the cyber law within what he described as a wider retreat from reforms expected after the uprising.
“We thought the country would move forward,” he said, particularly on human rights and civil liberties. “Instead, we are seeing the country move backwards.”
He pointed to the replacement of the Rapid Action Battalion with the Special Response Battalion, arguing that changing the force’s name was insufficient if its methods did not change.
He cited a recent case in which, he said, three people were detained following the death of a teacher after a mugging near Parliament, only for detectives later to conclude that they had not committed the crime.
The episode, he argued, illustrated the danger of authorities producing quick arrests for public consumption before evidence had established responsibility.
Al Amin also criticised proposed legislation on enforced disappearances, saying law-enforcement agencies could end up investigating allegations involving members of the same security apparatus.
His broader argument was that institutions established after the uprising risked retaining practices associated with the previous political order.
He also accused the government of failing to honour agreements reached through the reform process and the July Charter, saying 33 political parties had spent months negotiating a political settlement that should not be discarded after an election.
Al Amin said a government with a democratic mandate should complete its term and explicitly rejected any undemocratic removal of an elected administration. But he argued that electoral victory did not remove the need for scrutiny between elections.
The idea that voters could simply judge government decisions after five years, he said, was becoming increasingly common among ruling-party politicians.
That reasoning, he argued, resembled the rhetoric of the previous Awami League government.
Mardia Momtaz focused much of her criticism on both the substance of the cyber legislation and the process through which laws are being passed.
She said MPs could receive legislation only about two hours before it was introduced, leaving little opportunity for meaningful scrutiny.
Parliament itself was “very controlled”, she said, with rules and political decisions limiting how long MPs could speak and what subjects they could address.
Momtaz, a former university teacher, contrasted that with her previous profession.
“I was the king inside my class” for an hour and a half, she said. In Parliament, she now felt confined to two minutes.
She cited parliamentary consideration of human rights and enforced disappearance legislation as examples in which opposition MPs had sought more time and proposed changes but found little room to influence the final outcome.
The government’s two-thirds parliamentary majority, she warned, made scrutiny particularly important.
“When we reach a point where we can no longer question the process of making laws, we should be seriously afraid,” she said.
Momtaz said she supported cyber legislation where it addressed specific harms, but argued that the proposed law was focused on the wrong problems.
She identified data leaks as one area requiring stronger enforcement.
Personal information belonging to MPs, including permanent and present addresses, had been placed online, she said. Her own personal details had subsequently been misused, while political pages had circulated phone numbers and email addresses.
She said she had been forced to abandon an email address and cancel a SIM card after her details were leaked.
“This is where I want cyber law to work,” she said.
Death threats were another area in which she wanted stronger protection, but she questioned whether enforcement would be politically neutral.
“If someone gives me a death threat, I want the authorities to pay attention,” she said.
Momtaz also called for stronger action against online sexual abuse, including social-media groups that circulate photographs of women and children without consent.
She described public Facebook groups in which images of children were allegedly accompanied by sexually abusive comments, and others where photographs or videos of women taken in vulnerable or unprepared moments were circulated.
Cyber legislation, she argued, should focus on such conduct as well as child exploitation, trafficking, drugs and online betting.
She also called for measures against people impersonating journalists or operating unregistered online outlets, saying Facebook pages and identification cards were sometimes enough for people to present themselves as news organisations.
Her argument was not that abusive online speech should go unanswered, but that criminal law should not automatically be the response.
Momtaz described an encounter with a government political aide who she said behaved badly towards her during a television discussion. Rather than seeking legal action, she publicly said she would no longer appear on programmes with him.
“I will not sit with him,” she recalled saying. “It works.”
“I can handle my problem,” she added. “I do not need the government for that.”
The distinction, she argued, should be between offensive speech that individuals and institutions can answer through social or platform mechanisms and conduct requiring state intervention because it creates tangible threats to safety, privacy or children.
--