How the Digital Security Act was used to intimidate Bangladesh’s journalists
Two new reports help provide context for how Bangladesh’s recently repealed Digital Security Act (DSA) became one of the most potent tools for stifling press freedom in the country. Dated Nov. 24, 2025, from the Pan Pacific Sonargaon Hotel in Dhaka, the report revealed a disturbing trend: the DSA was as much about protecting digital security and integrity as it was about fear, silencing and control.
A Law Turned into a Weapon
The research was based on 222 cases brought against 396 journalists and interviews with 30 reporters personally impacted by the law. The findings are stark. The DSA did not exist to defend the people but to criminalise journalism, to punish those who dug for stories that embarrassed the powerful.
Politicians filed 73 of the cases themselves, often to settle scores or silence criticism. The majority of these were brought by the rich and powerful to get their own back on adverse reporting. In multiple cases, reporters were taken into custody without warrants and often charged with multiple offences for a single investigative story, the result of a provision that allowed anyone to lodge complaints regardless of their connection to the alleged offence.
One of the cases in the report involves a journalist who reported on police corruption and was killed not by the incriminated officer but rather through an attack by a partisan from the ruling party. During his interrogation, he was cross-examined by several officers, electrocuted, and quizzed on whether he had an “anti-government mindset.”
A Panel of Prominent Voices
The report was released at a panel discussion featuring Attorney General Md Asaduzzaman, human rights lawyer Barrister Sara Hossain, Maneka Khanna from the Clooney Foundation for Justice, and Professor Sazzad Siddiqui of Dhaka University. The chair for the session was CGS Research Associate Roman Uddin.
Asaduzzaman, the attorney general, admitted that the state’s dependence on repressive laws was deeply ingrained.
“The state has left so many channels for silencing journalists,” he added. “And the statutes are so many and varied, like the stars of heaven.”
He said he welcomed the repeal of the DSA, but that real change can only come about if the state mentality changes. He hoped the new government would not use any law as an instrument of repression.
Trials Rare Trauma Widespread
For every DSA case filed, the research found something surprising: most never actually went to trial. The overwhelming majority of them were dismissed or resulted in acquittals. Only one such case ended in a conviction, a track record that mirrors the broader lack of legal foundation underpinning many complaints.
But the impact was devastating. It offered frontline journalists the torment of extremely protracted legal battles, financial hardship, mental pressure and strain, job loss, and a profound chilling effect on their profession. Even if they were acquitted, the ordeal of being taken to trial was a punishment.
‘The Goal Was Never Justice, It Was Silence’
Barrister Sara Hossain emphasised that the DSA was a political weapon targeted against journalists rather than a tool to address wrongdoing.
“There were never cases against journalists where the idea would be to go to trial. Their goal, she said, was to prevent journalists from speaking and writing freely.”
Though she welcomed recent reforms, there are now stricter rules on warrantless arrests; for example, under amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code, enforcement is still feeble. She also attacked the Bangladesh Press Council for its lukewarm role and endorsed the report’s recommendation to form a Media Commission. It would give much-needed teeth to the Human Rights Commission and the Information Commission, she said, making them more powerful forums for dispute resolution outside court.
Toward a Freer Future?
Repealing the DSA may mark a step forward, but one thing is certain in reading this report: the law is not enough to protect press freedom. If any system for intimidation exists, whether legal or informal, the independence of journalism stands at risk.
What the CGS-Clooney Foundation research does is provide us with a potent reminder of the suffering endured by journalists in Bangladesh and a warning that we must never see the tools of state power directed against those who shout truth to power ever again.
For a media sector seeking to recover trust and fortitude, the findings are both a caution and an opening, an opportunity to defend the storytellers who make it possible for the nation to be informed.