---

WHEN the newly elected government passed the Cyber Security Bill 2026 on 10 March, it marked a significant step in the advancement of the country’s cyber laws. Within the constitutional deadline of 30 days following the first session of Parliament, the bill transformed the interim government’s Cyber Security Ordinance into law. This development, coming after years of debate over digital regulation, provided an important moment to reflect on the difficult lessons from the period under the Digital Security Act.

Several months earlier, in November 2025, I had the chance to moderate a sideline session at the Bay of Bengal Conversation in Dhaka. The session launched the report Press Freedom in Bangladesh: Lessons from the Digital Security Act. I led the study from the Centre for Governance Studies in partnership with the Clooney Foundation for Justice. The report examined how the Digital Security Act had been applied against journalists and what those experiences meant for the future.

The Digital Security Act of 2018 had replaced the controversial Section 57 of the Information and Communication Technology Act. It was later replaced by the Cyber Security Act of 2023, which retained many of the same problematic provisions. The interim government eventually repealed the CSA and introduced the Cyber Security Ordinance to correct the most serious issues. Yet when we gathered for the report launch in November 2025, important questions still remained about the resolution of old cases and the strength of new safeguards.Computer Security

Our study revealed a sobering reality. Between 2018 and 2024, we identified 451 instances where the DSA was invoked against journalists. These stemmed from 222 cases involving nearly 400 reporters. Many journalists faced multiple charges. Arrests occurred in more than half the incidents, often without warrant, at odd hours, and by plainclothes officers. In the 30 detailed case studies we conducted, 27 journalists had been detained. Investigations routinely exceeded legal time limits. The median gap between complaint and charge sheet was eight months, against a prescribed limit of 75 days. Over half the cases remained stuck at the investigation stage for years. Most journalists were eventually acquitted or saw their cases stayed or dismissed, but only after enduring severe personal, financial, and professional damage.

The law’s vague provisions made it easy to weaponise. Clauses dealing with offensive or false information, defamation, and content affecting law and order or religious sentiments were applied broadly. Complaints often came from politicians affiliated with the then-ruling party, government officials, or even rival journalists and businessmen. In many cases, the complainant had no direct connection to the reported content. Police frequently combined speech-related charges with unrelated offences such as fraud or hacking, complicating defence and prolonging detention.Maps

The human stories behind the numbers were painful. Journalists spoke of blindfolded arrests, threats of crossfire, physical and mental abuse during interrogation, and families left uninformed for hours or days. Some lost jobs after images of their arrests circulated. Others faced blacklisting or instructions from editors to avoid sensitive topics. Self-censorship became common. Many reporters began avoiding investigative work or limited their online activity out of fear. The cumulative effect was a shrinking space for independent journalism and weakened democratic accountability.

Discussions at the session highlighted the deeper structural issues at play. Participants noted how such laws constrained individual potential and dignity, contributing to broader societal strain. They described how cases were often not intended to reach fair conclusions but served instead to create prolonged uncertainty, discouraging journalists from writing or speaking freely. Concerns were raised about vague legal language, unrestricted filing of complaints, warrantless arrests, and the absence of meaningful accountability for misconduct. The need for stronger judicial oversight and consequences for violations of procedural safeguards was emphasised. There was also broad agreement that freedom of speech and expression, protected under Article 39 of the Constitution with only reasonable restrictions, had been undermined in practice.Country specific content

As moderator, I listened as senior voices stressed that withdrawing speech-related cases should be treated as a clear policy commitment rooted in constitutional principles. The atmosphere that day reflected both the weight of past repression and cautious hope for reform.

Today, several months after that November gathering and following the passage of the Cyber Security Bill 2026, the situation for press freedom is better than during the peak of the DSA era. Journalists enjoy better space to report and criticise without the constant threat of arbitrary arrest under vague cyber provisions. Public discourse has widened. The swift constitutional process through which the elected parliament converted the ordinance into law signals a welcome return to orderly legislative practice.Computer Security

Yet we must avoid complacency. Our media is not fully free yet. Structural challenges persist. Incidents of mob violence against journalists continue in different parts of the country. Some reporters who served the previous regime and engaged in unethical or partisan reporting now face arrest. While accountability for past misconduct is necessary, using false or exaggerated accusations and denying bail in such cases risks repeating old patterns of harassment. These developments remind us that protecting press freedom requires consistent application of due process, not selective enforcement.

The recommendations from our report remain highly relevant. All pending cases under the earlier Information and Communication Technology Act, Digital Security Act, and Cyber Security Act should be fully quashed, including convictions, with a public list issued to end lingering uncertainty. Vague provisions in the new law, particularly those that could be stretched to criminalise legitimate expression, need careful narrowing. Criminal defamation provisions in the Penal Code should be reviewed and limited to prevent them from becoming the new instrument of pressure. An independent National Media Commission should be established so that complaints against the press are handled by a specialised body rather than directly by police stations. This approach has proven effective in other countries and would better balance accountability with the protection of good-faith journalism.

Police and judicial reforms are equally important. Strict enforcement of guidelines on warrantless arrests, adherence to investigation time limits with real consequences for delays, and an end to the arbitrary clubbing of unrelated offences would go a long way toward preventing abuse. Making reports of warrantless actions public would also allow civil society to monitor implementation.

These measures are not merely technical fixes. They are essential to rebuilding institutional trust and ensuring that laws intended to secure cyberspace do not become tools to stifle legitimate voices. Press freedom remains the litmus test for democratic health in Bangladesh and across the Bay of Bengal region. When journalists can investigate without fear, citizens gain the information they need to hold power accountable. When investigative reporting flourishes, governance improves and corruption is exposed.Country specific content

As someone who led the study from the CGS and moderated the session at the Bay of Bengal Conversation, I believe the lessons documented in the report must continue to guide future actions. No law should ever again be allowed to silence the press in the name of security. By fully implementing the safeguards we discussed and by ensuring the new cyber security act serves its intended purpose without undermining constitutional freedoms, Bangladesh can strengthen its democratic foundations.

The Bay of Bengal region is closely connected. Democratic transitions and institutional reforms in one country affect the broader neighbourhood. Bangladesh has the opportunity to demonstrate that it is possible to move from repression to renewal. Honouring the journalists who suffered under earlier laws means committing to a future where press freedom is protected not only on paper but in practice. Let us ensure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated and that the promise of a more open and accountable Bangladesh is kept.   l

Roman Uddin is a senior research associate at the Centre for Governance Studies.

This article was originally published on The Newage.
Views in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect CGS policy.