Rights experts have raised questions over the use of the Digital Security Act (DSA) to file cases against journalists when it would be more appropriate to punish journalistic offences under the Press Council Act.
According to the Centre for Governance Studies (CGS), journalists are the second most prosecuted profession in DSA cases, after politicians. Out of 1,029 professionals who faced DSA cases between January 2019 and August 2022, as many as 280 were journalists and 301 were politicians.
Journalists make up 28% of the total 3,565 accused in DSA cases, CGS data says.
The 280 journalists were accused in 138 cases, and 84 of them were arrested.
Experts say that every DSA case against a journalist is being prosecuted in a similar manner. The case is filed directly against the journalist, not the news agency they work for, and the arrest is made immediately.
The information that a DSA case has been filed against the journalist is not usually disclosed until the accused is already in the custody of law enforcement officials. On Wednesday, Prothom Alo journalist Samsuzzaman Shams was shown arrested over 30 hours after he was picked up from his home late at night and brought before a court under the Digital Security Act.
Faruq Faisel, regional director of South Asia for ARTICLE 19, told the Dhaka Tribune: “The DSA is being used to intimidate and create fear, when the law was made for the protection of the people. In a word, this law needs to be amended and our demand is to close this law. The accused journalist can lose his job, he can be temporarily suspended, and many other measures can be taken if allegations are proven.
“The question is, if any mistake or inconsistency by journalists is revealed, what are the first steps to be taken in this case, and what kind of steps were taken in such situations before the Independence of Bangladesh? In view of a dissatisfaction or complaint from the government or any party concerned, a press note admitting the mistake is issued in the newspaper concerned. There is also the Press Council, which can investigate cases according to complaints, and punish the accused accordingly.”
Executive Director of Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) Dr Iftekharuzzaman also pointed out that grievances for alleged mistakes or discrepancies in media reporting can be redressed under the Press Council Act.
“When the Press Council Act is disregarded to first abduct a journalist and then show them as arrested on non-bailable charges under the Digital Security Act, it clearly represents an agenda to intimidate and suppress the media or anyone exercising the right to dissent and freedom of opinion,” he said.
As per media reports, the case against Shams was filed under sections 25(2), 31, and 35 of the Digital Security Act, of which section 31 is a non-bailable offence. Dr Iftekharuzzaman said there is credible evidence that these sections of the Digital Security Act are being misused.
“In the past few days, two more journalists were subjected to violence and intimidation under the Digital Security Act,” he added.
Supreme Court lawyer Barrister Jyotirmoy Barua said: “Since Section 31 of the DSA is non-bailable, it can easily be used to intimidate and teach a lesson. We are always against [the DSA], because this law is being misused.”
He also asked why the DSA was being used against journalists instead of taking action through other laws.
“I will not say that a case cannot be filed against journalists. If someone has committed a criminal offense, law enforcement forces can take him for questioning according to Section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But the way law and order forces took [Samsuzzaman] away from his home and after 30 hours disclosed that a DSA case has been filed against a journalist, that is completely out of line. The law enforcement forces are committing crimes,” he added.
Dr Ali Riaz, distinguished professor of Political Science at Illinois State University, USA, and a member of the advisory board of the Centre for Governance Studies (CGS), pointed out that the DSA empowers the government to order the removal and blocking of any information or data on the internet if it believes that doing so will silence those who are critical of its policies or who share information about human rights violations in this country.
Meanwhile, Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Anisul Huq yesterday said the government files cases over wrongdoing, not against any particular media or journalist.
Mentioning that the government is reviewing changes suggested by the UNHCR, he said: “"If necessary, changes will be made, but it is clear that the Digital Security Act is essential."
