- More
Khaled Saifulla 6 Dec 2025 , 6:19 PM Print Edition
Yes, the draft Bangladesh Telecommunication (Amendment) Ordinance 2025 is a transformative development. Its explicit ban on internet shutdowns directly addresses a long-standing legal gap. This change aligns Bangladesh with international digital rights standards.
Before this draft, executive power arbitrarily interfered with the digital network. The country, in fact, lacked any explicit legal basis for internet blackouts. Orders often came from the National Telecommunication Monitoring Centre (NTMC) to operators. Specifically, these were oral or encrypted orders that severed internet access without notice, publication, or public record. Consequently, this created a profound legal vacuum. Fundamental constitutional rights, such as the right to be treated only in accordance with law and the right to free speech and expression, could be suspended by administrative decisions alone. This constant threat generated systemic uncertainty for citizens and businesses.
However, the new ordinance intends to fix this historical problem by granting clear legal protection. It states clearly that authorities shall not shut down, disrupt, or restrict any telecommunication service or internet access. This mandate, if implemented, matches global principles on freedom of expression. Furthermore, it brings Bangladesh in line with the UN Human Rights Council’s repeated stance against unjustified blanket internet shutdowns, which it reaffirmed in 2022. This crucial legal intervention marks a pivot away from potential digital authoritarianism toward safeguarding digital access.
A single prohibitory clause is not enough for deep, lasting reform. Therefore, the new ordinance must also introduce robust institutional safeguards. These measures are essential to ensure the promise of non-interference survives changes in political leadership or administrative pressure. While the draft includes commendable provisions for parliamentary and judicial oversight, still more improvements are necessary to guarantee systemic and structural accountability.
First, transparency must be mandatory and immediate. Following models like the EU Digital Services Act 2022, we must obligate network operators to act as public information conduits. Operators, independent of government regulators, should publish detailed reports. These reports must detail every single government request that affects network operations, whether for a shutdown, throttling, or specific content removal. Hence, this public disclosure creates a crucial layer of accountability. It makes any attempt at arbitrary interference immediately visible to the public and the judiciary, conforming to the right to information. This obligation applies to all forms of service disruption requests and ensures a verifiable paper trail for all digital interventions.
Secondly, independent oversight is crucial for unbiased enforcement and citizen protection.
Independent Digital Rights Commission: Establish a commission with investigative and auditing powers. This body would investigate violations, audit the state’s use of digital powers (including interception and surveillance), and provide remedies. For example, similar commissions exist under the African Union Model Law on Access to Information (2013). This independent structure prevents the regulator from investigating itself and provides expert technical oversight.
Digital Compensation Fund: A dedicated fund should provide financial redress. This is necessary when governmental action or inaction, such as an illegal shutdown, causes quantifiable losses to businesses or citizens. Thus, the fund addresses the economic consequences of arbitrary action, creating a financial disincentive for the state to act illegally. Moreover, the presence of this fund strengthens investor confidence in the digital sector.
Finally, the draft Ordinance must also align with existing and upcoming data protection laws. This step is vital to ensure the right to connectivity complements the right to privacy under Article 43 of the Constitution. In short, protecting access to the internet must not become a trade-off for increased surveillance. This harmonization will help prevent security agencies from simply shifting focus from shutting down the network to mass surveillance or arbitrary data exploitation once the prohibition on shutdowns is active. Consequently, this holistic approach secures both the network and the data flowing through it.
Internationally, groups like Access Now and Article 19 have often cited Bangladesh for its opaque digital governance practices. By passing and robustly implementing this new ordinance with these essential safeguards, consequently, the country can move away from being a case study in digital authoritarianism. It could instead become a regional model for digital democracy and rights protection across South Asia.
