Cyber Protection Act amendment draws fire from Bangladesh critics

The Cyber Protection Act amendment is facing fresh criticism in Bangladesh. Citizens, lawyers and politicians say the proposed law could be used to silence people online, The Daily Star reported on Wednesday.

The amendment is still described as a proposal. No source we reviewed gives its stage in parliament. The criticism comes from a mix of rights groups and opposition-aligned figures.

What the Cyber Protection Act amendment would change

Critics at a National Press Club discussion on 10 October described several provisions, according to Daily Waadaa. They said Section 8 would let authorities block or remove content without prior court approval. They said Sections 25 and 26A would force news publishers to seek official verification.

Speakers also warned that offences such as spreading rumours or unverified information are vaguely defined. Some feared memes could be criminalised. Others said cyber cases might go to mobile courts, which can punish on the spot.

The event was organised by the National Citizen Party’s reform committee. Most speakers belonged to that party. Readers should treat these as one political side’s concerns.

Government response

The prime minister’s adviser, Dr Zahed Ur Rahman, reportedly assured critics that the BNP government would not misuse the law, Daily Waadaa said. Critics replied that political promises are no substitute for legal safeguards.

NCP joint convener Sarwar Tushar said 21 to 22 people had reportedly been arrested over Facebook posts since February. FTD has not verified that number.

Academic Nabila Idris asked who would decide what counts as a rumour. Editor Faisal Mahmud warned newsrooms could start to self-censor.

The debate echoes an older fight. Earlier laws on digital speech drew similar objections after the 2024 uprising raised hopes for reform. Many Bangladeshis expected a lighter touch.

Why it matters

Online speech is how many Bangladeshis report corruption, organise and mock the powerful. Broad powers to block content can chill all of it. Narrow, court-supervised rules protect both safety and expression.

Lawmakers can still amend the text. Clear definitions and judicial oversight would answer many objections. We have also examined how vague speech laws work elsewhere for comparison.

Fact basis: The Daily Star, 28 October 2026; Daily Waadaa, 10 October 2026. Provisions are as described by critics; the draft text was not independently reviewed.