DSA used as a tool to harass, intimidate journalists: Report

The Centre for Governance Studies (CGS) and the Clooney Foundation for Justice today (24 November) launched a research report examining the impact of the Digital Security Act (DSA) on media freedom in Bangladesh and the lessons the country must draw for the future.

The report, launched at a publication event and panel discussion at a city hotel, claimed the ruling authorities used the DSA as a tool to harass and intimidate journalists.

Panel speakers at the report launch included Md Asaduzzaman, attorney general of Bangladesh, Sara Hossain, barrister and senior advocate of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh and honorary Executive Director of BLAST, Maneka Khanna, senior legal program manager at the Clooney Foundation for Justice, and Sazzad Siddiqi, professor and chairman of the Department of Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Dhaka.

The discussion was moderated by Roman Uddin, research associate at CGS.

The study analysed 222 cases involving 396 journalists to show how the DSA was used to criminalise journalism and criticism. In addition, interviews were conducted with 30 journalists to gather firsthand accounts of the law's application and its consequences.

Politicians, who filed 73 out of the 222 cases, along with other influential individuals, frequently used the law to pursue personal vendettas or to abuse their power, said the report.

The report said many journalists were arrested without warrants and the law allowed anyone to file a complaint, regardless of whether they were the actual victim, which led to multiple cases being filed against the same individual for a single incident.

One example noted in the report describes how, after a news report exposed corruption within the police, a ruling party supporter filed a DSA case against the journalist even though the implicated police officer did not.

The journalist said that during interrogation, five to six officers questioned him aggressively. He also alleged that he was subjected to electric shocks. Investigators focused on whether he held an "anti-government" attitude.

Asaduzzaman said the state has kept many avenues open for the repression of journalists. "As the saying goes, the laws have as many sections as the stars in the sky. All kinds of legal provisions are applied to control and suppress journalists."

He said that repealing the Digital Security Act alone will not ensure the protection of journalists and stressed that a change in the mindset of the state is essential to end this trend.

Asaduzzaman expressed hope that the next elected government will step away from all forms of repressive laws and will not return to policies like the Digital Security Act.

Most DSA cases never reached the trial stage. Among the cases that did go to trial, most journalists were acquitted, with only one conviction recorded in the dataset.

This highlights the weak legal basis of the cases. However, the lengthy legal process caused severe personal, professional, and financial harm to journalists and created a chilling effect on media freedom overall.

Barrister Sara Hossain said that cases against journalists were never filed with the intention of being taken to trial. "Their purpose was to stop journalists from speaking and writing freely."

Referring to recent legal reforms, she noted that the Supreme Court's guidelines on arrest without warrant have now been incorporated into amendments to the CrPC.

Sara described this as an important step forward, although implementation remains weak, and stated that the Press Council is not functioning effectively.

She welcomed the recommendations for establishing a Media Commission and emphasized the need to strengthen the Human Rights Commission and the Information Commission so that disputes can be resolved outside the courts.