Interview: Shahdeen Malik: ‘Digital Security Act has made things difficult for the media’

Our constitution hasn’t fully ensured freedom of expression or press freedom. Certain laws pertaining to state security, public discipline, ethics, civility and other factors have given the parliament the power to control press freedom. The laws that place certain restraints on the media, should be fair and justified.

The defamation clauses in the Digital Security Act (sections 21, 25, 28, 29, 31) have undoubtedly been excessively restraining to the media. These sections have been drawn up in a manner that any statements can be construed to be a violation of the law. Arrests can even be made in this regard. The so-called accused can be placed behind bars for extended periods of time. And I do not know why the judges in recent times have not been granting bail easily in these cases. That is why journalists often hesitate to practice freedom of press to the full extent. In fact, many take a step back from this freedom.

Things have not been easy under any government for the media. It was most difficult both in the seventies when almost all newspapers were shut down and also now because of the Digital Security Act. At present innumerable cases are being filed in police stations all over the country for just a statement, a report or a post. All these days I had known that there can be just one criminal case for one incident. This has been the rule for around 200 years, but over just the last two years, this has changed completely. You will recall that Barrister Mainul Husein had to face around 20 cases in various areas simply for using one particular word on a TV talk show. Such a deluge of cases is certainly the eighth wonder of the legal world.

In recent times, however, journalists have been curbing their own freedom to an extent. With just a couple of exceptions, almost all newspapers, media houses, TV channels and news portals are owned by business houses. Businessmen have steadily been making inroads into both the parliament and the media, in throngs. While there are exceptions, business interests undeniably curb press freedom.

There are definitely laws that go against press freedom. At the same time, other than the laws, fluctuations in democratic awareness, in the spirit of independence, awareness of one’s rights and blind support for certain political parties, etc. can also restrict freedom of speech. Officially speaking our democracy may be 50 years old, but in the real sense it is much less. That is our collective failure. And taking advantage of this failure, laws are drawn up to restrict freedom of speech further.

It must also be kept in mind that the lower courts are still under the law ministry’s control and the appointment of judges to the upper courts are often guided by political views and ideology. We see nowadays that the higher courts even confiscate books. In the past, if the government confiscated any book, the injured party could resort to the court to fight for his rights.

This is so shameful! A country of extreme communalism like Afghanistan and a country ruled by monarchy like Bhutan, are even above us in the index. We rank at 152 in the World Press Freedom index of Reporters without Borders. To get an idea of our situation, we can look at the countries that rank below us. With a few exceptions, these countries are either monarchies or by a person who has been in power for a quarter of a century, ‘winning election after election’.

There are all sorts of commissions nowadays simply to accommodate persons of one’s own camp. There are, of course, a few exceptions. However, in most cases the objective of these commissions is to create various posts. So it would be foolhardy to expect anything from these commissions.

The latter law is given priority over the former. The Right to Information Act came in 2009. Nine years later in 2018, the Digital Security Act was enforced and so the 2018 law will get priority over the one of 2009.

The Digital Security Act has so broadly defined various statements as punishable offences that it is the most effective system to accuse anyone for statements that they make. Propaganda and publicity can be an offence. But there is no specific criteria as to what statement or words of a journalist can be construed as propaganda or publicity.

In another section, certain types of misleading publicity are considered to be an offence. The problem, which type of publicity is misleading, which type is acceptable, which type is unacceptable – nothing has been defined. That is why in countries where there is democracy and freedom of speech, publicity, propaganda, etc are not defined as offences. There is an exception. If any misleading propaganda or publicity leads to the committing of crime, such as the arson, violence and damages in Brahmanbaria towards the end of March, this will be considered an offence. I feel that the Digital Security Act defines various statements as offences simply to curb freedom of speech, and the government has done this knowingly.

No. There are two sides to the Digital Security Act. One is to define cyber crimes and to determine the penalty for these offences. And the other is to spread fear and put journalists behind bars, restricting press freedom to any extent. And as the objective of this law is to restrict press freedom, a reign of terror will continue for as long as this law exists. The empty promises made by the minister that this act would not be used against journalists, will remain empty promises.

There is no harm in hoping, but only time will tell whether those hopes will come true.

Certainly not. As democracy here is very limited, so is our press freedom. You cannot expect press freedom in the monarchies of the Middle East. Egypt is a country that ranks below us in the press freedom index. They have such an ancient civilisation, with their pyramids, mummies and such. In their 3000-year history, there has been only once a democratic, free and fair election. The president elected in that election was sentenced to life imprisonment and died in prison.

Yes, of course. These are known as writ petitions. However, these are sensitive and complicated cases. Nowadays we often see people filing writ petitions. If the arguments of the case are weak and the judge scraps the case, then it will be difficult to get legal recompense for the concerned wrongdoing. So if a writ petition is filed without adequate study, consideration, preparation and research, it can backfire. So while there is scope to resort to the law, this must be done with extreme care and sound preparation.

Many less democratic countries are using coronavirus as an excuse to curb press freedom and our government is hardly an exception. As the coronavirus pandemic is not going away anytime soon, it is feared that our journalism will get more used to restricted freedom. The people will further lose awareness of their rights and the government’s lack of accountability will increase. I am sorry not to have been able to give any words of hope.

Thank you