Key areas of concern stay
FROM PAGE 1
“Your (journalists’) concerns are of great importance to the government. I can say that you will be happy with the amendments,” Law Minister Anisul Huq had told reporters at the Secretariat on 25 July.
The OCHCR in its technical note called on the government to amend section 31 and only penalise speech “within the narrow scope of incitement to hatred.”
“An amended version of section 31 should define incitement narrowly as the broader the definition in domestic legislation, the more it opens the door for arbitrary application,” it said.
The OCHCR had also recommended that the government amend section 32, which refers to “breaching of government secrecy” saying, “the broad scope of this section coupled with the harsh penalty of a maximum jail term of fourteen years and/or fine, could have a negative impact on investigative journalism.”
The section remains as is, with the only difference being a reduction in penalty to 7 years, and the offence is now bailable.
The OCHCR had also commented that section 21 of the law be changed. This section, which criminalises any kind of propaganda or campaign against the Liberation War, spirit of the Liberation War, Father of the Nation, national anthem or national flag, was called overly broad by the UN body.
It said that this criminalised legitimate expression, lacked precision and made it difficult for individuals to regulate their conduct to avoid prosecution.
“The harshness of the penalty, including life imprisonment for repeat offences, could act as a deterrent to legitimate public discourse,” it said, asking the government to repeal this section.
The section has been kept intact, and this is still a non-bailable offence, although the jail term has been reduced from 10 years to seven.
The OCHCR had also pointed out that the Digital Security Act allows for warrantless searches, seizures and arrests if a police officer believes “that an offence under this Act has been or is being committed, or is likely to be committed in any place”. The UN body had said that Bangladesh should amend this section to ensure that law enforcing officers know what kinds of expression are restricted, and safeguards are put in place to make sure that there is no abuse of power.
The section, previously section 43 and currently section 42, remains as is, word-for-word.
In addition to these, a group of civil society members had met the law minister on March 30, and submitted a recommendation pointing out that the law is being used disproportionately against minors, and that the law includes nothing to ensure that their rights are protected.
This recommendation was not taken up although there are approximately 20 children in prison, incarcerated under this law, said the civil society group, including Dr Iftekharuzzaman, executive director of Transparency International Bangladesh; Barrister Jyotirmoy Barua; Professor CR Abrar and others.
“There is no alternative to repealing the law because it violates fundamental rights and the rights of citizens,” the group had said in its submission to the minister.
Experts point out that the issue with the law is not just with its penalties, but the offences described under the law.
DSA Tracker shows that the majority of those filing the cases are politicians (38.7 percent) and 80 percent of those politicians are directly linked with the ruling party.
While Awami League leaders and activists filed as many as 246 cases, only three of those cases were from BNP, two were from Jatiya Party, and one each from Islami Andolon, Hefajat-e-Islam and Communist Party Bangladesh.
Dr CR Abrar, an academician who was a part of this civil society group, said that the new Cyber Security Act is nowhere near the recommendations they made.
“Our only recommendation was to repeal the law. The minister was adamant that the law must be kept and amended, but we pointed out that amendment is not an option,” he told The Daily Star yesterday.