FOR more than half a century, Bangladesh has grappled with the promise of democracy, caught in a cycle of progress and regression, and听 hope and suppression. The country鈥檚 journey towards a democratic society, one where the freedom of expression and civil liberties are respected, has been obstructed by waves of political repression and authoritarian governance masked as democratic rule.
While the nation has held aspirations for a transparent and just government, what it has often experienced, instead, is a sequence of draconian laws that suppress dissent and silence voices that dare to question authority. Now, with a shift in the political landscape and the overthrow of the Awami League from power, the country has a chance to turn the page on this legacy of repression. The need of the hour is to abolish these oppressive laws, drop all cases filed under them and initiate reforms that pave the way for genuine democratic governance.
The path of Bangladesh鈥檚 democratic evolution has been marked by restrictive laws that grant authorities sweeping control over public discourse. This trend began with the introduction of the Information and Communication Technology Act in 2006, initially designed to address cybercrimes. However, Section 57 of this law which criminalised online content deemed 鈥榝ake鈥� or 鈥榦bscene鈥� soon became a weapon against free expression.
With vague terms and broad interpretations, the law allowed authorities to prosecute anyone they viewed as a threat, from journalists and activists to ordinary citizens, for action as minor as posting satirical content or voicing criticism of the government. By 2017, nearly 3,000 individuals had faced charges under this law, sending out a powerful message that criticism of the government would not be tolerated.
Section 57 was a pivotal moment in the state鈥檚 use of legislation to enforce silence. This broad clause enabled the government to monitor and censor online speech, creating a chilling effect across the country. Between 2012 and 2017, people were routinely arrested, detained for months and chaged with prison terms of up to 14 years. Despite public outrage and international condemnation, the authorities showed little inclination to change course. Instead, they introduced the Digital Security Act 2018, supposedly to address the flaws of the ICT Act. Yet, in reality, the Digital Security Act retained much of the ICT Act鈥檚 repressive essence.
The Digital Security Act became another powerful tool in the hands of authorities to stifle dissent, with provisions that criminalised 鈥榦ffensive鈥� information-sharing under Section 25 and prohibited content that might 鈥榟urt鈥� religious sentiments under Section 28. Between 2018 and 2023, according to data available, more than 1,500 cases were filed under this law, many of them targeting the journalists, activists and citizens who expressed critical views of the government.
According to the Centre for Governance Studies, a significant portion of these cases, more than 40 per cent, was filed by individuals linked to the ruling party, underscoring how the Digital Security Act was used to serve political interests rather than protect public order. As the public became increasingly fearful of voicing their opinion, the Digital Security Act served as a reminder of the government鈥檚 capacity for repression.
Growing national and international criticism of the abuse of he Digital Security Act prompted the government to introduce the Cyber Security Act 2023. Presented as a 鈥榬eform measure鈥�, the legislation was touted as a more balanced approach to online regulation. However, the new law maintained many of the repressive features of its predecessors, retaining broad language that allowed authorities to prosecute individuals for 鈥榦ffensive鈥� content and for speech that might 鈥榯hreaten鈥� public order. Although some penalties were reduced, the Cyber Security Act continued to criminalise dissent in the guise of maintaining social harmony. This legislation, much like the Information and Communication Technology Act and the Digital Security Act before it, wielded ambiguous terms to control speech, creating a legal environment where expression was stifled rather than safeguarded.
A significant concern with the Cyber Security Act is its failure to retroactively address cases filed under the ICT Act. Thousands of individuals remain trapped in legal limbo, facing charges for actions that, under the current law, are no longer classified as offences. The 鈥榮avings clause鈥� of the Cyber Security Act preserved cases filed under the Digital Security Act, leaving cases from the ICT Act to languish in a grey area, violating the principle of legality 鈥� a cornerstone of international human rights. According to this principle, once a law is repealed, cases under it should be dismissed as prosecuting individuals under repealed laws contravenes fundamental legal principles. This oversight in the Cyber Security Act has left numerous individuals in prolonged legal jeopardy, marking yet another instance of the government鈥檚 failure to address its repressive legacy.
Bangladesh鈥檚 repressive cyber laws have not only drawn domestic criticism but also garnered international attention. Courts in India, Uganda and Kenya have struck down similarly vague laws that criminalised 鈥榦ffensive鈥� content, acknowledging the dangers of granting authorities鈥� excessive interpretative power. The United Nations and human rights advocates have repeatedly called for the repeal of such laws, emphasising the importance of precise legal definitions that protect free expression and prevent abuses.
Recently, the Clooney Foundation for Justice鈥檚 TrialWatch Initiative and CGS published a white paper recommending the dismissal of all pending cases under the ICT Act and the Digital Security Act, arguing that such cases lack a legal basis and violate international standards. To demonstrate its commitment to democratic principles, Bangladesh must take decisive action to align its laws with international human rights standards, ensuring that cyber laws target genuine cybercrimes without criminalising free speech.
The recent political transition presents a unique opportunity to address these longstanding issues. With the departure of the Awami League and the installation of a reform-oriented interim government, led by Muhammad Yunus, the country has a chance to build a foundation for true democracy. To begin this process, the interim administration should abolish the ICT Act, the Digital Security Act and the Cyber Security Act in their entirety and immediately withdraw all cases filed under these laws. By publishing transparent data on the number of cases filed under these laws and committing to their dismissal, the government can begin to restore public confidence and signal a genuine break from the repressive tactics of the past.
As Bangladesh looks to the future, any new cyber legislation must be carefully crafted with input from civil society, rights organisations and international experts. Laws targeting cyber offences should address genuine harm, such as hacking or harassment, without infringing on citizens鈥� right to the freedom of expression. Bangladesh鈥檚 progress towards becoming a true democracy lies in enacting laws that protect its people from legitimate threats while respecting the principles of free speech. Future legislation must avoid the vague language that has historically enabled authorities to weaponise laws against dissent, and instead, it must focus on clear, narrowly defined terms that prevent misuse.
Furthermore, to ensure a fair implementation, Bangladesh should consider establishing an independent oversight body to monitor and review any future cyber laws. Such a body would play a critical role in ensuring that these laws are not used arbitrarily against citizens, providing impartial guidance on their application. This oversight mechanism would uphold principles of justice, fairness and transparency, ensuring that laws serve the interests of citizens rather than suppressing them.
The road to democracy is clear: dismantling the ICT Act, the Digital Security Act and the Cyber Security Act and dismissing all related cases are the first essential step. This would signal a strong commitment to upholding the freedom of expression and other fundamental rights. By abandoning the oppressive legacy of its draconian laws, Bangladesh has the chance to build a society where citizens feel empowered to participate in shaping their future, laying the foundation for a democratic state that respects the rights of its people and values open discourse.
听
Roman Uddin is a research associate at the Centre for Governance Studies.
