Draft cyber ordinance contains repressive provisions: TIB

Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) has expressed concerns over the recently drafted Cyber Protection Ordinance 2024, highlighting its potential for misuse due to some repressive provisions similar to those in the controversial Cyber Security Act (CSA).
At a press conference on Tuesday in Dhaka, TIB criticized the hasty finalisation of the draft, which excluded consultations with experts and stakeholders.
The organization called for an immediate revision of the draft, incorporating feedback after consultation with relevant parties.
The draft Cyber Protection Ordinance, 2024, was approved on December 24 during a meeting of the interim government's advisory council.
While the government asserts that the ordinance aims to secure cyberspace and uphold media freedom, TIB believes the ordinance's objectives could be undermined due to the lack of consultations with all stakeholders before approving the draft, the organisation's executive director Dr Iftekharuzzaman said at the press briefing.
He questioned why the Law Commission was not involved in the drafting process.
"The ordinance appears to prioritize control and surveillance over freedom of speech and expression, we are concerned," Dr Iftekharuzzaman said.
He further noted that although digital rights were mentioned, the ordinance lacks a rights-based approach, instead of incorporating vague terms and provisions that could infringe on fundamental rights, which are unacceptable.
Dr. Muhammad Ershadul Karim, Associate Professor of Law and Emerging Technologies at the University of Malaya, Malaysia presented virtually his paper titled "Cybersecurity Ordinance, 2024: TIB's Review" at the event.
He highlighted that the ordinance granted extensive powers to the Director-General of the National Cyber Security Agency, including the authority under Section 8 to request the removal or blocking of content deemed a cyber security risk-without judicial oversight.
Dr. Karim cautioned that such unchecked powers could obstruct the ordinance's intended objectives.
He also critiqued Section 25A, which defined cyber bullying as actions such as intimidation, harassment, or spreading harmful content online.
Dr. Karim argued people will be hesitant to speak for fear of offending others, and the space for criticism will shrink.
He noted that complaints of defamation or mental harm could result in warrantless arrests, further curbing public discourse.
Additionally, Dr. Karim pointed out issues with the provision targeting the dissemination of information lacking artistic or educational value.
He argued that conflating cybercrime, cybersecurity, and speech offences under a single legal framework is problematic, as such issues cannot be addressed under a single law.

[email protected]