DHAKA, Bangladesh

Anadolu Agency recently interviewed a top newspaper editor in Bangladesh about a recent case against him and 31 others for defamation under the country’s “digital security act.”

Matiur Rahman Chowdhury, Editor-in-Chief of the Manabzamin newspaper, shared his views and described the prevailing environment for journalism in Bangladesh, and the Digital Security Act -- vastly criticized by various rights groups for its alleged controversy on controlling press freedom and freedom of expression.

Anadolu Agency (AA): As you know, Amnesty international, Editors’ Council [platform of editors of national newspapers in Bangladesh] have expressed worry and urged Bangladesh to withdraw the case under the Digital Security Act. What is your response to that and what is your newspaper’s stance dealing with the issue?

Matiur Rahman Chowdhury (MRC): It is a matter of great strength for me and Manabzamin that Amnesty International and Editors’ Council issued such strong statements regarding the issue. And, it is important that the magnitude of the case and its significance be known to all. And, we will deal with the matter under the legal framework of the country.

AA: A senior photojournalist also co-accused in the case among the 32 is reportedly missing. Is he from your newspaper or is there any detail information about the missing photojournalist?

MRC: We are expressing concern. The senior photojournalist in question is not a member of Manabzamin, and we do not have information about his whereabouts.

AA: What did your daily publish on the arrest of an expelled female leader of the ruling party that could go against the Digital Security Act and the lawmaker who filed the case felt defamed?

MRC: A Jubo Mohila League leader [ruling Awami League party women’s wing] was arrested by law enforcement agency, and our news report mentioned that during interrogation by law enforcers the arrestee had named several people who had been closely tied to her and her business. In our news report, no names were ever mentioned, nor any details to indicate who the individuals may have been.

AA: What do you think -- is there any legal base or merit of the case filed against you and 31 others, and did your news report violate any laws of the country?

MRC: There is no legal basis for the case, as the name of the filing party was never mentioned, nor was there any indication or innuendo to even prompt anyone to think from our reporting that he may be involved with the “Papia Case” [the expelled ruling party female leader]. He has taken it upon himself to file the case to harass and intimidate us using human rights violating the law of grave significance. The Editors’ Council has long been vocal critics of the Digital Security Act, and this case is a tool to oppress and silence free speech.

AA: Months ago, another top Bangladeshi newspaper editor sued in a case in connection with the death of a ninth-grader in Dhaka, and there were reports of implicating journalist in cases for running news stories. Do you think those are directly or indirectly putting pressure on newspapers or attacking press freedom from any quarter? If so, then how do Bangladeshi newspapers do their jobs?

MRC: It is incredibly difficult for this landscape. Our hands are tied and we must resort to self-censorship or else face the consequences.

AA: How is the Digital Security Act impinging or interrupting press freedom in Bangladesh?

MRC: The Digital Security Act is corrosive to freedom of expression and is designed to arbitrarily punish whoever the state does not agree with. It is gravely concerning, and many have suffered horrible fates because of its enforcement, despite wide condemnation from national and international quarters.

AA: What do you think. Platforms of different journalists’ associations in Bangladesh are doing enough to support journalists and media when they feel unsecured? And, are those associations working for their fellow newsmen or any influential mechanism has already polluted those platforms?

MRC: In my case, some of them promptly responded. And, its true, supports that expected is not well enough. And, there are pressures on those platforms from different quarters.

Background

A ruling Awami League party lawmaker filed a lawsuit last Monday under the country's Digital Security Act against 32 in the case.
Amnesty International said in a statement that it is alarmed by the vague and overly-broad provisions within the Digital Security Act and the rigorous punishment that they entail for the legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of expression.

It also read March 13, Bangladesh authorities must launch an urgent investigation to determine the fate and whereabouts of Shafiqul Islam Kajol, release him if he is in custody and drop the case against him and 31 others.

According to Amnesty International, nearly 400 cases have been filed under the Digital Security Act at the cybercrime tribunal in the first 11 months since the legislation has been passed the Bangladesh Parliament in October 2018. According to media reports, more than 200 cases have been dismissed for lacking sufficient evidence.