Cancel new tele-tapping law

The Presidential announcement was made after an amendment of the Telecommunications Law 2001 including the provision for eavesdropping that was approved by the cabinet. The amendment was put into force through an ordinance since the parliament was not in session. The amended law empowers the Ministry of Home Affairs to tap telephones. The provision was absent in the original law of 2001. Under the new law, the government may delegate power to officials and persons working in intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies to record or prevent conversation of any user of telecommunication services and collect information in this regard for the sake of state security or public order. The law empowers the Ministry of Home Affairs to take all necessary measures.

In spite of what has been said in any law, the 97 (2) sub clause of the law says that the government may withhold or amend any charter, order or licence or service provided by operating organisation under the law for a certain period if the President declares the state of emergency or for the sake of state security and public order as considered by the government. Although operating organisation mean private land and cell phone organisations, the law did not make it clear.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

The law does not say how long the provision for eavesdropping will continue. In a television interview, Law Minister Barrister Moudud Ahmed said that the law will remain effective for a certain period. He did not say how long will be that certain period.

Will it continue until the end of the tenure of the present regime? Did not previous civil and military government monitor telephone in the past? Of course they did. The difference is that the unethical measure has been legitimised this time.

Please note the time of the promulgation of the ordinance. The ordinance was announced when the opposition has been agitating against the government. The ordinance legitimised eavesdropping when several newspapers reported that telephone conversation of opposition leaders is being recorded. We are suspicious about the real intention of the government for amending the law in haste with the excuse of curbing extremism without waiting for the next session of the parliament. The parliamentary session was prorogued just a few days ago. Our suspicion deepened since law makers were not involved with the formulation of the law. The people of the country have right to know what laws the government is preparing for or against them. We think that the government has shown the lack of integrity through the imposition of the law to some extent in a secret way.

The government side said that the amendment was necessary for curbing extremists. Almost everybody alleges that our intelligence agencies do not run independently. So, it is understandable how much success will be achieved through the amendment if the present practice is not changed. Intelligence agencies say that extremists use cell phones to organise their operations. But three hill districts are not under cell phone networks. Still, bombs exploded in 63 districts, including three hill districts, simultaneously on 17 August. This shows that extremists are not operating their network through cell phones only. Undoubtedly, they have their own system of communications also.

We apprehend that the law will be abused more than any other law, because intelligence agencies have been given arbitrary powers. Check and balance is the main spirit of any law so that a single agency does not hold the absolute power. But the new law which comes in force from 1st January 2006 gives unlimited authority to agencies under the Home Ministry to curb individual rights. As a result, people can be harassed for political reasons or intentionally. Speaking in favour of the ordinance, three barrister ministers, Moudud Ahmed, Nazmul Huda and Aminul Huq, claimed that many countries in the world have similar laws. If any country has made an anti-people bad law, should we have to do the same? The previous government made black law in the name of public safety act; the present government has also made a similar black law in the name of speedy trial law. The United States has a similar law related to eavesdropping, but the government or any government agency cannot arbitrarily tap telephones of any citizen. Prior permission from the court is needed to do so. The permission is granted if the court thinks that there are enough reasons for tapping telephone of any citizen.

Please don't misunderstand us. We are not against making tough laws to deal with extremism. All criminal activities, including extremism, must be resisted in a democratic society preserving constitutionally recognised basic rights. We consider the new amendment as a black law since it lacks any safeguard. For this reason, the law is a direct intervention into private life of citizens and a clear violation of human rights. The government can make a new law if it thinks it needs a tough anti-terrorism law.

The ordinance is not only contrary to basic rights, but also against civility since it will hamper day-to-day activities of the people. The law violates the clause 29 of the constitution, and hence it is to be cancelled. The clause 29 prevents the state from making any law that contravenes basic rights. As a result any law that is not compatible with basic rights will be considered as redundant. We, therefore, demand immediate cancellation of the law that infringes individual rights.

Robaet Ferdous is an Assistant Professor of Mass Communication and Journalism, Dhaka University.
Abu Naser Rajib is a Lecturer in Media and Communication, Independent University, Bangladesh (IUB).