The Editors’ Council has issued a detailed statement urging the government to incorporate robust safeguards for journalists in the draft cyber law currently under consideration. The council emphasized that provisions related to content removal, arrest, searches, seizure, surveillance, and interference with digital data must be grounded in transparency, explicit legal authority, prompt judicial oversight, and effective remedies.

The draft, which remains unfinished, aims to address cybercrime while preserving the professional independence of the media and the public’s right to information. The council recommended that prior court approval be mandatory before journalists can be arrested, searched, or placed under surveillance in connection with their professional activities. Additionally, any emergency actions undertaken without prior judicial authorization should be subject to court review within 48 hours and permit bail.

The council stressed that journalistic activities such as news reporting, investigative journalism, analysis, opinion pieces, satire, and legitimate criticism—whether political or consumer-related—should not be criminalized solely based on content or critical stance. They called for explicit legal definitions to replace vague phrases like “disparaging the state” or “threats to national security.” Journalists engaged in research, human rights monitoring, international cooperation, or public-interest disclosures should be shielded from criminal prosecution and non-bailable charges.

On the issue of content removal or blocking, the council asked for clear legal grounds, written explanations, and justification for such actions. Except in emergencies, individuals or organizations affected by content removal should be allowed to respond, and every order should be subject to appeal before an independent body or court. Emergency blocks must be reviewed within 48 hours, and information on such orders should be publicly available.

The council opposed elevating online defamation to a more serious cybercrime category, instead advocating for complaints to be handled under existing procedures through the Bangladesh Press Council. They recommended against allowing mobile courts or executive authorities to adjudicate cases involving media expression or content and insisted that punitive actions like arrests, fines, or content removal require judicial oversight. They also opposed any closure or cancellation of media outlet registrations based on individual reports, suggesting such disputes be referred to the Press Council.

Legal protections for journalists’ confidential sources were highlighted as essential, with the council opposing any compulsion to reveal these sources. They also proposed enhancing the Press Council’s jurisdiction to include digital news platforms alongside traditional newspapers, ensuring complaints related to ethics and professional conduct are addressed appropriately.

The council called for the formation of an independent National Cyber Protection Council tasked with overseeing agencies authorized to investigate, arrest, conduct surveillance, and remove online content. It recommended that the council's membership include cybersecurity, legal, human rights experts, and senior media professionals to guarantee independent and accountable decision-making. Transparency in the council’s decisions and policy recommendations was deemed vital.

At a government discussion on September 28, officials agreed to establish two expert committees to review the draft amendments after journalists raised concerns. The council criticized the draft’s failure to clearly distinguish between cybersecurity, cybercrime, and journalism in the digital realm, warning that it could undermine media freedom and independent reporting.

Journalists’ representatives, including Independent Television’s Chief News Editor Mostafa Ahmed and Daily Waadaa’s Editor Shafiqul Alam, stressed the importance of legal protections for investigative journalism and urged reforms to replace criminal defamation with civil penalties. Opposition was particularly strong against Section 29, which allows revoking an entire media outlet’s license for the misconduct of a single employee, and a provision permitting indefinite seizure of media devices and data centers on suspicion alone. Manabzamin’s Chief Editor Matiur Rahman Chowdhury condemned these measures, asserting that a media organization should not be punished for an individual’s actions, and criticized the prospect of mobile court trials for journalists as incompatible with democratic principles.

Critics also highlighted concerns about the draft’s concentration of power in the proposed National Cyber Security Council, chaired by the prime minister and dominated by senior government and intelligence officials, with no representation from the National Human Rights Commission. Journalists and human rights advocates warned that such a structure could be exploited to curtail media freedoms and called for inclusive representation to balance power. Additional contentious provisions include blanket immunity for government officials and the authority to block content without prior court approval. The council urged the removal of ambiguous terms such as “defamation,” “bullying,” “rumour,” and “misinformation” from the draft.

The Editors’ Council concluded by emphasizing that a secure digital environment and media independence are mutually reinforcing goals achievable through carefully crafted legislation developed in consultation with stakeholders.