CPA changes risk reviving DSA-style repression
Political leaders, lawyers, journalists and rights advocates on Saturday warned that proposed amendments to the Cyber Protection Act (CPA) could pave the way for a new form of digital authoritarianism in Bangladesh.
They said the changes would expand criminal liability for online expression, introduce vaguely defined offences and allow authorities to remove digital content without judicial approval.
The result, they warned, could be a return to the climate of fear created by Section 57 of the ICT Act and the Digital Security Act (DSA).
They spoke at a discussion titled “Proposed Amendments to the Cyber Protection Act: The Future of Freedom of Expression and Civil Rights” at the National Press Club in Dhaka, organised by the Reform Implementation Committee of the National Citizen Party (NCP).
Presenting the keynote, academic Dr Nabila Idris, a former member of the National Human Rights Commission, questioned why new restrictions were needed when several of the offences cited were already covered by existing law.
Online incitement, harassment of women and children, and deliberate misinformation were legitimate concerns, she said, but the government must justify additional criminal provisions.
She called the proposed treatment of rumours a serious problem.
Who would decide what counts as a rumour, and by what standard? Without clear answers, even people reporting wrongdoing could face prosecution.
“The state is not the guardian of its citizens,” she said, warning against giving authorities broad powers to police civility in public discourse.
Political promises, including a government adviser’s assurance that the BNP would not misuse the law as the Awami League did, were no substitute for legal safeguards, she said.
She called for precise definitions, transparent verification, independent investigations and judicial oversight.
NCP Member Secretary Akhter Hossain said the amendments threatened to undo post-2024 reforms.
He alleged the government was broadening definitions of criminal conduct and applying different standards to supporters and critics.
He also criticised its handling of constitutional reform, and referred to Saturday’s postponement of the Department of Youth Development recruitment exam over alleged question leaks, demanding that those responsible be identified and prosecuted.
Under the proposed law, he warned, citizens discussing such failures could themselves be accused of spreading rumours. He urged withdrawal of the amendments.
Daily Waadaa Managing Editor Faisal Mahmud said Sections 25 and 26(A) threatened journalistic independence.
Vague verification requirements could make reporters dependent on official confirmation, he said, even though investigative reporting often involves information that powerful institutions refuse to acknowledge.
Newsrooms could begin censoring themselves to avoid criminal complaints.
He also criticised changes to Section 8 allowing content to be blocked or removed without prior judicial approval, saying ordinary citizens could face harassment too.
Amar Bangladesh Party Chairman Mojibur Rahman Bhuiyan Manju questioned the scope of Section 26A, asking whether someone who prayed “Inna Lillahi” after believing a false report of a death would be prosecuted for spreading unverified information.
He warned the BNP that such laws have historically been turned against their creators after they lost power.
NCP Joint Convener Sarwar Tushar accused the government of “selectively retaining powers introduced through interim government ordinances.”
He said the interim government’s cyber ordinance narrowly defined offences, whereas the amendments could facilitate digital authoritarianism.
Citing media reports, he said 21 to 22 people were arrested over Facebook posts since February, often under other laws such as the Anti-Terrorism Act.
He warned that a two-thirds parliamentary majority does not guarantee lasting political security.
NCP Legal Affairs Secretary Advocate Zahirul Islam Musa said successive governments had changed the names of cyber laws without removing opportunities for abuse.
The amendments, he warned, could criminalise memes, retain criminal defamation and punish vaguely defined rumours.
He said the power to remove content should rest exclusively with the courts, and opposed bringing cyber offences under the Mobile Court Act.
Writer Apurba Jahangir, executive editor of Nutshell Today, asked whether the initiative stemmed from “bureaucratic priorities or political objectives” and who would decide whether information is false.
He welcomed public debate and hoped the authorities would reconsider the contentious provisions.
Moderator Advocate Arman Hossain said the July uprising had raised expectations that no future government would suppress free expression through repressive laws.
The amendments, he said, risked repeating the abuses Bangladesh sought to leave behind.
