“Kotha cholbem kolom cholbe (roughly translates as ‘Speech will continue, the pen will continue’)”—a banner bearing this slogan was seen at a protest rally at Dhaka University on Tuesday.
The demonstration was organised demanding the release of AM Hasan Nasim, who was arrested by police on 18 April on allegations of spreading misleading information on Facebook about the Chief Whip of Parliament, Nurul Islam.
Protesters, however, claimed that his arrest was triggered merely by sharing a cartoon on Facebook. He was granted bail later the same afternoon.
A series of recent arrests linked to social media posts has once again raised concerns over freedom of expression. In the past month alone, at least four individuals were arrested under Section 54, the Anti-Terrorism Act, and the Cyber Security Act, while another person was taken into police custody.
On 27 March, a certain Azizul Haque was arrested under Section 54 on allegation of sharing an objectionable post on Facebook about Prime Minister Tarique Rahman. He was sent to jail the following day. The post had originally been published with an image on a page and was later shared by Azizul Haque from his personal Facebook account.
In another incident in Bhola, a woman named Bibi Sauda was arrested under Section 54 over allegations of posting anti-government content on Facebook. She was later released on bail after the matter drew public attention.
Section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) grants police the power to arrest individuals without a warrant. Human rights organisations have long accused authorities of abusing this provision.
On 7 March this year, former vice-president of Dhaka University’s Shamsun Nahar Hall Union, Sheikh Tasnim Afroze Imi, was arrested for playing Bangabandhu’s historic speech. She was sent to jail under the Anti-Terrorism Act and remains in custody.
During the tenure of the interim government, amendments were introduced to the Code of Criminal Procedure. The revised provision states that in order to arrest someone without a warrant in a cognisable offence, police must demonstrate that the offence was committed in their presence. If an FIR or complaint is under investigation, police must show reasonable grounds for suspecting the person’s involvement. Preventive detention cannot be carried out solely under Section 54.
In this context, human rights activist Rezaur Rahman Lenin has questioned the use of Section 54 in two recent cases in Mymensingh and Bhola.
He told Prothom Alo that, under the law, police are required to clearly state the reason for arrest at the time of detention, but this is not being followed in many cases.
According to Lenin, restrictions on freedom of expression in Bangladesh have always been part of a continuing process.
He said that over the past one and a half decades, there has been a visible trend of lawsuits and arrests over opinions expressed on online platforms, and recent incidents are a continuation of that pattern.
Law has changed, but arrest practices remain the same
During the Awami League’s rule, the use of various laws to suppress freedom of expression was widely debated. Cases and arrests under repressive laws, including the Digital Security Act, increased significantly.
Initially, the Information and Communication Technology Act became a tool to curb dissent. The use of Section 57 of this Act drew widespread criticism. Later, the Digital Security Act was enacted in 2018.
Although the power of arrest exists, its necessity and proportionality must be carefully considered in each case.
According to then Law Minister Anisul Huq, speaking in Parliament on 5 June 2023, a total of 7,001 cases had been filed under the Act nationwide until 31 January that year. Amid widespread domestic and international criticism, the controversial law was repealed and replaced in 2023 by the Cyber Security Act.
Following the ouster of the Awami League government in a student-led mass uprising on 5 August 2024, the interim government repealed the Cyber Security Act and issued the Cyber Security Ordinance. However, despite changes in legislation, observers say there has been no visible change in the pattern of arrests relating to online expression.
On 17 April, content creator Hasan Nasim was arrested and shown as detained under a Cyber Security Act case filed at Gulshan police station in the capital.
His arrest was raised in Parliament by Hasnat Abdullah, Chief Organiser of the National Citizen Party (NCP) and member of parliament for Cumilla-4.
“We could not have imagined that after an election, someone would be arrested for sharing a cartoon, Hon’ble Speaker. During Hasina’s time, we saw arrests for making critical remarks,” he said.
In response, Chief Whip Nurul Islam said, “If someone has been arrested because a cartoon was drawn about me, I request that he be released.”
However, he also alleged that fake accounts had spread false and misleading propaganda against him and BNP in December last year. He further stated, “We still do not know whether that individual was involved in such cyber activities.”
Earlier, on 7 March this year, former vice-president of Dhaka University’s Shamsun Nahar Hall Union, Sheikh Tasnim Afroze Imi, was arrested for playing Bangabandhu’s historic speech. She was sent to jail under the Anti-Terrorism Act and remains in custody.
Growing concern
Human rights defenders say that the expectations of expanded freedom of expression following the July uprising are now being undermined by recent developments.
Nur Khan, former member of the Bangladesh Human Rights Commission, told Prothom Alo that there is an emerging impression that efforts are being made to discourage people from speaking against those in power.
“This is something even the previous authoritarian government used to do,” he said.
He added that when such issues are addressed through legal means, the public’s natural right to question and criticise gradually becomes restricted.
Speaking about this, Supreme Court lawyer Sara Hossain told Prothom Alo that while there has been relatively less legal action against online and offline criticism during the interim government, recent incidents following the elections show arrests being made over expressions of opinion, even in cases where there is no direct allegation of harm or threat.
She said that although the power of arrest exists, its necessity and proportionality must be carefully considered in each case.
Sara Hossain also noted that some arrests, such as alleged late-night detentions, are deeply concerning and pose risks to citizens. “These are not only bad practices but also clear violations of law and fundamental rights,” she said.
She called on the government to take a clear stance against such practices and ensure accountability for those involved in unlawful arrests.