Arrests over non-abusive online criticism raise concerns

Sathi Akter went on Facebook Live to complain about repeated thefts at her beauty parlour and say she regretted voting for the BNP. Within hours, local BNP activists had gathered outside her business, demanding justice. By the following day, the Bhaluka businesswoman was in jail. Police later said they found no anti-government remarks in her videos. She was granted bail on 28 October.

No specific complaint had been lodged against Sathi, according to police. Instead, officers detained her amid the escalating tension and initiated preventive proceedings under Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Her case raises a troubling question: can public anger over peaceful political criticism become a reason to deprive someone of their liberty?

https://www.tbsnews.net/bangladesh/court/mymensingh-woman-who-criticised-bnp-govt-facebook-live-granted-bail-1585561

Two other cases reported earlier this year illustrate different routes through which online expression can lead to legal action.

In April, content creator AM Hasan Nasim was arrested in a case involving social media posts about a ruling party lawmaker. The complaint alleged that misleading information had been circulated about the lawmaker and that he had been subjected to attempted blackmail. The complainant, Nazrul Islam, a BNP activist who described himself as a supporter of the lawmaker, filed the case on his own initiative. He told newspapers that he had not spoken to the Member of Parliament before doing so. Nasim was sent to jail before being granted bail on 21 April.

https://bbc.com.im/bengali/articles/ckge3r6p4zdo

Bibi Saoda, a Jamaat-e-Islami activist in Bhola, was arrested in April over alleged anti-government Facebook posts targeting senior state figures. In her case, the complaint was filed by a sub-inspector of the police cybercrime investigation unit. She was detained under Section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and granted bail two days later. Although her party challenged the grounds for her arrest, the posts were not reproduced in full in the report, limiting independent assessment of their content.

https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/court/407196/female-jamaat-activist-granted-bail-over

Human Rights Watch (HRW), in an April 23 statement, raised concerns about arrests over online content allegedly critical of the new government. The cases highlight the importance of examining not only what people post but also who initiates legal action, what evidence supports the allegations and whether the response is proportionate.

Article 39 of Bangladesh’s Constitution protects freedom of speech and expression, subject to reasonable restrictions on specified grounds. Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Bangladesh is a party, also protects political expression. Restrictions must have a lawful basis and be necessary and proportionate to a legitimate purpose. Criticism does not lose that protection simply because it offends public officials or angers supporters of a political party.

Section 151 is a preventive provision, not a general power to detain people whenever their speech causes controversy. It permits arrest in specific circumstances involving an anticipated cognisable offence that cannot otherwise be prevented. Likewise, the filing of a complaint does not itself establish that a crime has occurred; allegations must be assessed through lawful procedures and evidence.

These cases do not establish that every arrest was unlawful. Authorities can investigate credible allegations of threats, blackmail or other genuine offences. But non-abusive criticism and expressions of frustration should not be treated as criminal conduct merely because they provoke an angry response.

The crucial test is whether the authorities distinguish between criticism and an offence. When political supporters can trigger pressure for action, or individuals can initiate cases over online expression, the police and courts must ensure that legal powers are not used to suppress legitimate dissent. Citizens should be able to complain about public services, question office-holders and criticise government policy without fearing detention simply because their views are unwelcome.