The denial of bail to two Dhaka Tribune directors in connection with a defamation charge brought under the ICT Act lays bare the travesty that are our ICT laws.
We cannot think of a better example to highlight everything that is wrong with the ICT laws in this country, with both the ICT Act and its successor Digital Security Act that have been weaponized time and time again, than this latest inexplicable and seemingly arbitrary exercise of the judicial function.
It is not just that the laws are used to silence and chill speech, but that the procedural elements of the law are so draconian that the mere accusation of defamation can lead to the accused being put behind bars, before the case is even heard and the merits of the case can be adjudicated. What could be more manifestly unjust than that?
What could the possible justification be for denial of bail in such a case? What threat to society can the accused -- the accused, mind you, not even the heard, let alone the convicted -- pose that justifies denying them bail even before their case is heard?
Denial of bail should be the exception, not the rule, and it should be exercised stringently and only in the most serious of cases. As it is, in our courts, bail is routinely denied, and our jails are filled with tens of thousands of defendants or respondents who have been convicted of no crime and against whom neither are the charges brought serious nor, often, are they ever proved in court.
The case against the two Dhaka Tribune directors, both of whom are upstanding and respected members of the community, with not even a shadow of a blemish on their reputations, has been bought under the now repealed Section 57 of the ICT Act, which provided for draconian punishment for potentially minor infractions, and, of course, as has happened in this instance, for possibility of denial of bail to the accused.
Under this act and its successor Digital Security Act, a person who has been the subject of any case can be sent to jail based solely on the judge's discretion without any kind of trial or legal procedure.
Indeed, under the DSA, fully 14 of the 20 causes of action contemplated are non-bailable, which makes any other outcome aside from sending the accused to jail impossible.
For a country that purports to uphold the rule of law and respect the dignity and rights of its citizens, this is simply unacceptable.
Our laws with respect to digital security have been a bone of contention ever since their first iteration and subsequent revisions have not made things any better. Activists and legal experts have repeatedly opined that due to the vague and opaque nature of the laws, they are ripe for misuse. Experience has proved exactly that.
Over the years, we have seen disproportionately heavy sentences for offenses as small as calling out someone on Facebook. We have also seen people falling victim to jailing on the pretenses of flimsy cases. It is worth repeating that judges mostly don't even have a secondary option to sending the accused to jail. Cases typically languish and go nowhere, but this is little consolation to those who are left behind bars through denial of bail.
It is the fundamental right of people to get justice and not be placed behind bars unless convicted, absent truly compelling and stringent conditions.
All of Bangladesh’s progress will be for naught if we cannot ensure this one simple right.
