Cyber Security Act: Will those imprisoned under the repealed law remain behind bars?

By abolishing the Digital Security Act (DSA), Awami League has proven the point that this was a repressive and oppressive law.

Anyone could be imprisoned if a case was filed against them under this law. Not everyone can put up a fight through legal process. For example, free speech writer Mushtaq Ahmed died in prison, facing charges under this law.

Nobody knows where Shafiqul Islam Kajal, another victim of this law, had been for the few months before he landed in jail. Jagannath University student Khadijatul Kubra has been in the jail for over a year after being arrested in this law, despite being entitled to bail as a female, a student and suffering from health problems.

As soon as the Cyber Security Act was passed in parliament on Wednesday, the Digital Security Act, which faced myriads of criticism at home and abroad, was abolished. But this offers no good tidings for those who are already arrested or face cases under the act.

Law minister Anisul Haque clearly stated that the cases under the DSA shall continue although it has been abolished. There is no question of compensating the accused, he said. Law minister was right.

The state compensates those who purloin billions of takas. The state compensates those who rob poor people by creating artificial crises. Why should it compensate the poor journalist, cartoonist or university student arrested under digital security act?

The minister used Article 35 of the constitution to justify his contention, but this argument is questionable. This article states, “No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than, or different from, that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.”

But how will the accused be punished if no offence was even committed? The law was formed to curtail press freedom and repress dissenting opinions. The report by Prothom Alo’s Savar correspondent citing a day labourer had nothing regarding the government or any minister. Yet he was picked up from his home by the people identifying themselves as CID and he was charged under the DSA 20 hours later.

Although he is out on bail now, his case continues. Criticising the government, expressing different opinions or publishing the distress of a day labourer cannot be an offence in a democratic society.  

Only two per cent of the 7,000 cases filed under this act have been settled. This indicates that the remaining cases were vindictive and with vested interests. According to the law, the investigating officer has to finish investigations within 90 days.

In a special situation he could extend this by 15 more days. But what is the reason for keeping those cases whose investigation work has been stalled month after month, year after year? The government could review the cases by forming a judicial commission. But they did not choose to do so.

Amnesty International has rightly said, those who were imprisoned under the DSA only for practicing their freedom of expression, must be unconditionally and immediately released and all charged against them dropped.

It was because the DSA was flawed that the government introduced a new law named the Cyber Security Act in its place. But it was seen that the government may change the outer colours, but the inner structure and character remains the same. That is why some are terming it as “old wine in a new bottle’’ or “farce in the name of legal reforms.”

The government certain paid little heed to the stakeholders while passing the Cyber Security Act. In the new law, 10 sections which were non bailable earlier, become bailable. According to the new law, the term and stringency of certain sentences has been reduced.

But the question is whether the offences as identified by the new law, are offences at all. Why are the offences that can be brought to justice through other laws, including defamation laws, included here? The spirit of liberation war, hurting religious sentiments are identified as offences. But is there any universally accepted definition about these? One may say that not fulfilling the basic right of each and every citizen, or not ensuring their voting rights, is hurting the spirit of liberation war. Will the government file cases against the accused following this contention?  

The main demand of the stakeholders was to eradicate the fear of the public about DSA in the new law. But the new Cyber Security Act has enough provisions to harass the freedom of media, free thinking, freedom of expression and fundamental rights of the people.

The Cyber Security Act still has provision for arrest, searching and seizure of goods without any warrant and that too, not in the presence of any executive magistrate. A police officer can take a decision in this regard. This provision gives the arbitrary power to the police.

The United Nations Commission on Human Rights recommended the repeal of Sections 21 and 28 of the Digital Security Act and the amendment of eight other sections. These clauses are against freedom of speech and free press. But the government did not take that into consideration either.

Let me give two examples of harassment cases under the DSA. Jhumon Das of Sunamganj did not say anything hateful against any religion. However, he had to spend several months in jail with a case filed under DSA. In connection with the 2016 clashes in Brahmanbaria's Nasirnagar, a poor fisherman, Rasraj Das, was harassed under the DSA.

The new law has not alleviated the culture of fear that the DSA had created in the country before the 2018 elections. This law has also given enormous powers to the police. As a result, that fear remains in the Cyber Security Act just as in the DSA.

Many people think that the government passed the DSA to sail through the 2018 elections. Is the objective of the Cyber Security Act to create a similar environment so the 2024 elections can also be carried out without a hitch?

* Sohrab Hassan is Prothom Alo’s joint editor and a poet. He can be contacted at [email protected]

* This column appeared in the print and online edition of Prothom Alo and has been rewritten for the English edition by Syed Faiz Ahmed