The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) had put forward recommendations to the Bangladesh government regarding amendment of the controversial Digital Security Act. These technical suggestions basically revolve around three core issues. In response of inquiries by Prothom Alo, the three broad issues highlighted by OHCHR are, criminalising legitimate forms of dissent, broad powers given to the authorities against the so-called crimes, and non-bailable offences and pre-trial detention.
During her visit to Bangladesh in August last year, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights at the time, Michelle Bachelet, had said that her office's human rights law experts had submitted a set of recommendations to the government regarding the Digital Security Act.
It has been six months since the government has received the recommendations they had requested from the UN human rights experts, but no visible action has been taken to implement these suggestions as yet. The law minister Anisul Huq has, however, made repeated reassurances of amending the law, taking the UN experts' recommendations into consideration.
Neither the government nor OHCHR has revealed the details of these recommendations. A message was sent by WhatsApp on Thursday to the law minister, inquiring whether the assurance to amend the law would be fulfilled and also whether the UN experts' recommendations would be made public. He, however, did not reply.
Later, when Prothom Alo contacted him over mobile phone on Friday night, law minister Anisul Huq referred to the OHCHR recommendations as a draft and said that these had not been finalised as yet. He said that they were continuing discussions with the Bangladesh government about the recommendations. He said they had sent a letter to the OHCHR asking for a date to discuss the draft recommendations, but had not received any date as yet.
Law minister Anisul Huq also said, "When the recommendations are finalised, they will be incorporated with the sections of law if possible. However, the law can be amended too, if so required. We have kept all options open."
The law minister claimed that the government had already adopted some measures and that was why the misuse of the Digital Security Act, as well as harassment, had been halted.
Prothom Alo had contacted OHCHR several times to know about what the recommendations contained. Finally on Wednesday, the high commissioner's spokesperson Jeremy Lawrence replied by email, saying that the OHCHR's technical suggestions revolved around three core areas. He said they were unable to provide the precise details at this stage, but could share a general overview.
One of the three areas of which OHCHR mentioned was criminalising legitimate forms of dissent, with harsh punishments. For example, Section 28 of the Digital Security Act suggests, "anyone who publishes information that hurts religious values or sentiments" will be considered to have committed a crime.
Section 28 speaks about the 'Publication, Broadcast, etc. of such information in any website or in any electronic format that hampers the religious sentiment or values," and includes three clauses in this regard.
(1) If any person or group intentionally or knowingly with the aim of hurting religious sentiments or values or with the intention to provoke publish or broadcast anything by means of any website or any electronic format which hurts religious sentiment or values then such activity of that person will be considered an offence.
(2) If any person commits an offence under sub section (1), the person will be sentenced to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 7 (seven) years or fine not exceeding 10 (ten) lac or both.
(3) If any person commits the offence mentioned in sub-section (1) second time or repeatedly, he will be punished with imprisonment not exceeding 10 (ten) years or fine not exceeding 20 (twenty) lac taka or both.
OHCHR also gives its opinion regarding the broad powers given to the police and the digital security authority, the Digital Security Agency (DSA). For example, the OHCHR spokesperson cited Section 8 which says, any data-information published or propagated in digital media that hampers the solidarity, financial activities, security, defence, religious values or public discipline of the country or any part thereof or incites racial hostility and hatred -- the scope of this is extremely broad.
In recent times, many ministers and leaders of the ruling party and alliance have been actively speaking in favour of this law at various forums. This collective campaign to justify this law gives rise to apprehensions about any possibility of it being amended.
Two clauses of Section 8 that deals with the 'power to remove or block some data-information', determined this scope:
1. If any data-information published or propagated in digital media regarding a subject that comes under the purview of Director General which threatens the Digital Security, then the Director General can request the Bangladesh Telecommunications and Regulatory Authority (BTRC) to remove or block the said Data-information as appropriate.
2. If it is evident to law and order enforcing security force that any data –information published or propagated in digital media hampers the nation or any part therein in terms of nations unity, financial activities, security, defense, religious values, public discipline or incites racism and hatred then the law and order enforcing Security force can request BTRC to block or remove the data-information via the Director General of the Agency.
The third core area of OHCHR's technical suggestions was non-bailable offences and pre-trial detention. In the spokesperson's words, "all the offences are non-bailable, which by default leads to lengthy pre-trial detention."
Section 53 which deals with 'Cognizable and Bailable Offence', mentions that the offences mentioned in Sections 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 are cognizable and non-bailable offences. Most of the cases filed since the enactment of this law have been under the non-bailable clauses.
There are no official records of how many cases have been filed under the DSA over the past four years, how many have been accused, how many are behind bars and how many have been convicted or acquitted. However, according to records published in September last year by the human rights organisation Ain O Salish Kendra (ASK), there have been 1,700 cases so far. But the number of accused was not given.
Without any amendments in the law, last year in face of strong criticism from home and abroad, at the advice of the law minister and directives of the home minister, exceptions had been made in the application of this section, but only for journalists. In recent times, many ministers and leaders of the ruling party and alliance have been actively speaking in favour of this law at various forums. This collective campaign to justify this law gives rise to apprehensions about any possibility of it being amended.
* This report appeared in the print an online edition of Prothom Alo and has been rewritten for the English edition by Ayesha Kabir