Amid widespread criticism, the parliament passed the Cyber Security Bill 2023 on Wednesday, keeping offences under four of its sections non-bailable by replacing several provisions of the much-talked-about Digital Security Act.
Opposition party lawmakers, journalists’ organizations, diplomats, and local and international rights activists have expressed concerns, alleging that this law can be used as one of the most effective tools for suppressing dissent and free thought.
They also claimed that the Bill was passed in parliament in a hurry without getting recommendations from the stakeholders.
Asked why the ruling party was in a hurry to pass the Bill, a cabinet member wishing not to be named said that it would be very effective during the next national parliament election.
"We are living in a digital era, and people are using digital devices intensively. I think the next election campaign will be based on the digital space. On social media, anybody can do anything if there is no law or embargo set by the government. Digital platforms can be very dangerous, and even false information, propaganda, and hate speech in cyberspace can foil the next election," the cabinet member added.
Sources in the Parliament Secretariat said that the CSA was not on the list to be passed. However, there were some discussions that the 24th session of the 11th parliament might be the last. Then this Bill was inserted into the list.
On Thursday, the 24th session was prorogued, and the house leader, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, said another session is going to be held, and that will be the last session.
However, the ruling party had the intention to clear this Bill before the next national election because, after scrapping the DSA, there was no Act or law that could work as a safeguard for cyberspace so far.
In addition, journalists expressed their concern about Section 42 of the Bill which empowers the police to search and arrest without a warrant.
In this section, inspector-level police officers are given the power to search and arrest without a warrant. This clause was also in the DSA.
However, when asked, Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Advocate Anisul Huq Friday said that the CSA does not permit warrantless arrests except for cognizable offences.
Anisul explained that the CSA imposes a maximum imprisonment of 14 years for technical crimes such as hacking or damaging computer systems. However, he emphasized that all clauses in the Digital Security Act that were previously contested by journalists have undergone significant revisions.
Addressing concerns about warrantless arrests, he clarified that only four sections of the CSA pertain to cognizable offences.
The minister asserted that the questions and criticisms raised are based on misconceptions about the new law. However, the provisions of the DSA that the journalist community had objected to have been radically changed, he said.
Regarding the recommendation from the stakeholders, the US Embassy in Dhaka said in a statement on Thursday: "We regret that the government of Bangladesh did not give stakeholders adequate opportunity to review and provide input on the new law to ensure it meets international standards."
It added: "Unfortunately, the CSA retains many aspects of its predecessor, the Digital Security Act. The new legislation continues to criminalize freedom of expression, retains non-bailable offences, and too easily could be misused to arrest, detain and silence critics."
However, State Minister for Foreign Affairs Md Shahriar Alam, before the US embassy's statement, said that the government had considered all concerns.
While talking to this correspondent, two ministers said it was not true that the government did not take any recommendations from the stakeholders.
This Bill was cleared at the cabinet meeting on August 7, and then a 14-day timeframe was announced on August 10 to collect public opinion on this draft. Later, the Bill was made public on the website of the ICT division.
Sources in the ICT Division said they received about 500 opinions and recommendations. However, since many identical opinions came under different names, the officials scrutinized them and forwarded 176 opinions to the Law Ministry for review.
