Ensure safeguards for journalists in cyber law

Says Editors’ Council, places 12-point recommendation

The Editors’ Council yesterday said the amendment to the Cyber Security Act, 2026, must ensure effective measures against cybercrime and clear safeguards for independent journalism, disclosure of information in the public interest, lawful expression, and the professional independence of the media.

It submitted a 12-point recommendation to the office of Principal Information Officer Syed Abdal Ahmad for forwarding to Information and Broadcasting Minister Andaleeve Rahman.

The organisation issued a press release signed by its President Nurul Kabir, editor of New Age, and General Secretary Dewan Hanif Mahmud, editor of Bonik Barta.

Provisions concerning the removal or blocking of content, arrest, search, seizure, surveillance, and interference with digital data must ensure transparency, a specific legal basis, prompt judicial oversight, and effective remedies, it said.

The organisation also called on the government to make prior court approval mandatory before journalists can be arrested, searched or placed under surveillance over allegations arising from their professional work.

The draft, which has yet to be finalised, should enable effective action against cybercrime while protecting the media’s professional independence and the public’s right to information.

For allegations directly related to journalists’ work, court approval should be required before seizing materials or accessing digital devices and data. Emergency action taken without prior approval must be reviewed or approved by a court within 48 hours. Such cases should be bailable.

News, investigative reports, analysis, and opinion published professionally or in the public interest should not be treated as cybercrimes merely because of their content or critical stance.

Fair criticism, satire, cartoons, parody, consumer complaints, political criticism, and unintentional errors should not be criminalised. Matters involving freedom of expression should not be made non-bailable.

Where the draft conflicts with laws protecting journalists and media outlets, provisions safeguarding press freedom and constitutional rights should prevail.

The organisation sought protection for reporting on corruption, abuse of power, financial irregularities, environmental damage, public health, consumer rights, government spending, and irregularities in public and private institutions.

Criticism of the government, state institutions, officials, public representatives, and policies, as well as political opinions, analysis, and satire, should not constitute cybercrime. Any prosecution must establish the elements of an offence clearly defined in law.

The council opposed vague expressions such as “disparaging the state” and sought precise definitions of statements deemed insulting to the state, threats to national security and harm to friendly relations with foreign countries.

Journalism, research, human rights monitoring, international cooperation, and public-interest disclosures should not be brought under such provisions or made non-bailable.

It called for separate definitions of incorrect information, disinformation, and rumours. Incorrect or incomplete information should not itself be criminalised, and information should not be treated as an element of an offence merely because it is unverified or unsupported.

Terms requiring clear definitions include bullying, defamation, disparagement, sexual harassment, and sextortion.

On removing or blocking news reports, posts, videos, and other digital content, the council sought a specific legal basis, written reasons, and an explanation of why action is necessary.

Except in emergencies, affected individuals or organisations should be allowed to present their views. Every order should be open to appeal before an independent authority or court within a specified period, with judicial review, according to the recommendations.

Emergency content blocking must receive court approval or review within 48 hours, while information on removal and blocking orders should be made public.

The council opposed making online defamation a new or more serious cybercrime, recommending that such complaints be referred to the Bangladesh Press Council under existing procedures.

Mobile courts and executive authorities should not adjudicate complaints involving news publication, expression, defamation or journalistic content. Arrests, fines, content removal, and other punitive measures in such disputes should be subject to judicial oversight.

No media organisation should be shut down, have its registration cancelled or face disproportionate punishment over an individual report or publication, the organisation said, proposing that such matters be referred to the Press Council.

It demanded legal protection for journalists’ confidential sources, saying journalists must not be forced to identify them.

For disputes involving reporting, professional conduct, ethics or media responsibilities, it recommended using the Press Council’s complaints and inquiry procedures before taking action, where appropriate. Its jurisdiction and effectiveness should be modernised, if necessary, to include relevant digital news outlets alongside newspapers.

The council called for an independent and accountable National Cyber Protection Council to oversee agencies empowered to investigate, arrest, search, seize materials, conduct surveillance or remove content.

It sought safeguards to ensure the independence of Protection Council members, limits on their powers and investigating officers, and accountability for their decisions. The body should include cybersecurity, legal and human rights experts, alongside experienced media professionals and editorial leaders.

Decisions affecting the public interest, policy recommendations, and the exercise of powers should be transparent and made public.

At a discussion on September 28, the government agreed to form two expert committees to review draft amendments amid concerns raised by journalists.

The draft did not adequately distinguish cybersecurity, cybercrime, and journalism in the digital sphere, which could undermine independent reporting and media freedom, the Editors’ Council said in its release.

It urged the government to reconsider the draft after consulting stakeholders, saying that a secure digital environment and independent media were not mutually exclusive and both could be strengthened through appropriate laws and safeguards.