The Context and Lineage of the DSA

The government of Bangladesh enacted the Digital Security Act (DSA) in 2018 in two contexts

• significant domestic and foreign criticism of the Information and Communication

Technology Act 2006 (amended in 2013) and the upcoming parliamentary election. Analyzing both the context and the use of the vague provisions of this Act, it can be seen that the Act was framed as an alternative to the ICT Act to stifle dissenting voices ahead of the upcoming elections (See. “Unending Nightmare”, pp.6-9).

As the existing law could not properly address growing cybercrimes and regulate emerging e-commerce, the BNP government passed the ICT Act in 2006, which was later significantly amended by the Awami League government in 2013 with the inclusion of significant punitive measures in the controversial Section 57. This amendment included several vague definitions and identified these offenses as cognizable. It restricted bail and allowed arrests without warrants. These changes came at a time when the then-opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) was agitating for a caretaker government and announced a boycott of the upcoming 2014 elections unless the caretaker provision to oversee national elections is reinstated in constitution. The provision was scrapped by the Bangladesh Awami League-led parliament in 2011. Until the amendment was made in 2013, in seven years (2006 to 2013), 426 cases were filed under this Act, but in the following five years the number increased more than 1.5 times (as of 2018, 676 cases). In 2015, when authors and academics filed a petition in the High Court under Article 39, the High Court sought a response from the government, but the government did not respond. But later, when various national and international organizations heavily criticized this law, especially the controversial Article 57, and demanded the repeal of this law, the government started the process of enacting the Digital Security Act as an alternative law in the middle of 2017. In early 2018, as the new Digital Security Act was being discussed apprehension was that the number of cases would increase if the Digital Security Act were introduced (Riaz 2018).

The second context in which the DSA was enacted in 2018 was political unrest and the upcoming parliamentary elections. Before passing this Act, the government had promised to repeal all the controversial sections: 54, 55, 56, 57, and 66 of the ICT Act, but after the Act was repealed, it was found that the controversial sections were divided into different parts in the new Digital Security Act. International organizations like Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and Human Rights Watch (HRW) criticized the law. Also, Amnesty International pointed out in November that ‘the new Act is deeply problematic’ (Amnesty International 2018). But the government did not take it into account. Even after meeting with the journalist community, two ministers of the government assured that they would consider the concerns of journalists and would offer amendments. Minister of Posts, Telecommunications and Information Technology, Mustafa Jabbar, assured that “We are going to bring necessary amendments, so the freedom of press does not get hampered” (Dhaka Tribune 2018a). But after passing the law, they did not keep their word. In a statement on September 17, 2018, the editors’ council expressed “surprise and disappointment” (Dhaka Tribune 2018b). As before, this Act also restricted bail and empowered law enforcement forces to arrest without a warrant.

Every year since the enactment of this law, the number of cases under this act has increased, but the Prime Minister and other ministers of the country have repeatedly assured that there will be no misuse of it. But by September 2020, two years after the law was enacted, the number of cases under the law had risen to more than 1,000 (Asaduzzaman 2020), and the number kept on rising exponentially.