Writer: Shihab Ahmed, Journalist
One of the commendable initiatives of the current reformist government, formed through the largest mass uprising in independent Bangladesh, was the establishment of an independent Media Reform Commission. The goal was to ensure a more people-centric role for journalists by reviewing existing conditions, identifying obstacles, determining the nature and extent of interest-based pressures or threats, identifying laws that hinder journalism, and outlining ways to remain free from conflicts of interest.
The initiative was widely praised by the journalist community and remained at the center of public interest. The commission submitted a 180-page report within 90 days. Two of the most significant proposals were the formation of a ‘National Media Commission’ and the issuance of an ordinance to ‘Protect the Rights of Journalism.’
Disturbingly, seven months have passed since the report was submitted, yet none of the commission’s proposals have been implemented. Meanwhile, there has been no change in the adverse environment or the control exerted by influential groups over journalism. Although government officials assure that at least some recommendations will be implemented, news reports suggest a worrying trend: several vital sections of the commission’s original draft of the ‘Journalism Right to Protection Ordinance, 2025’ have been omitted in the preliminary draft prepared by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.
While the commission’s draft aimed to protect the professional independence, security, and privacy of journalists, the Ministry’s revised version undermines those objectives. The strong protective framework intended by the commission has been weakened by removing critical sections and sub-sections.
Section 3 of the Ministry’s draft states that the government or appropriate authorities are responsible for protecting journalists from violence, threats, and harassment. However, two crucial sub-sections from the commission’s proposal are missing. One explicitly stated that no person shall engage in any act that harms a journalist’s personal or professional life or property. The other emphasized that the government must take effective steps to ensure the professional independence and neutrality of journalists.
Similarly, in Section 4, while there is mention of protecting the privacy, home, and family security of journalists, two vital sub-sections have been dropped. These stated that a journalist cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or privacy, nor can their home be forcibly entered, searched, or their property seized. It also specified that no action could be taken against a journalist’s personal dignity, freedom, family, or property without a lawful process.
The commission emphasized that the government must ensure an environment where journalists can perform their duties independently, free from fear or physical and mental pressure from any individual, agency, authority, company, institution, government official, or law enforcement agency. Alarmingly, this fundamental sub-section has been excluded from the Ministry’s new draft.
Furthermore, a key protection in the commission’s draft was that if a journalist publishes a report in good faith and it causes harm to someone, no case can be filed against them unless a malicious motive is proven. This entire section has been completely scrapped by the Ministry. Additionally, the Ministry removed the provision allowing courts to treat fines as compensation for journalists, to be collected from the convicted individual.
The commission also proposed that investigations under this ordinance be conducted by a high-ranking official, not below the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP). This sub-section, intended to ensure the quality of investigations, has also been discarded.
These sections were the pillars of legal protection for journalists. Removing them strips the ordinance of its effectiveness and credibility. In short, the Ministry’s decision to cut these vital provisions has effectively dismantled the safety net the Media Reform Commission sought to build.
Veteran journalist Kamal Ahmed, head of the Media Reform Commission, has also raised objections. Speaking to the Daily Prothom Alo, he said:
“It is extremely unfortunate. It seems some officials in the Ministry are trying to sabotage this reform process. Some of them might fear that if this law is enacted, their authority or power will be curtailed. The changes proposed in the Ministry’s draft would render the law practically useless.”
My observation is that these sections in the original draft were not just words on paper; they were meant to be a moral shield created by the state for journalists. Making the path of professional journalism more difficult by removing these protections is unacceptable.
Internationally, in countries like Norway, Finland, the Netherlands, or the Indian state of Kerala, journalist protection laws play a crucial role in ensuring not just personal safety, but also freedom of information and state accountability. These regions have clear provisions for rapid investigation, trial of the accused, and compensation in cases of threats or lawsuits against journalists. Such clear processes are missing in Bangladesh’s proposed law.
Unless a safe, independent, and accountable working environment is ensured, the core objective of the ‘Media Reform Commission’ will remain unfulfilled. Mass media is not an opponent of the government; rather, it is the echo of the conscience of the state and society.
Weakening the legal framework for the protection and freedom of journalists does not just undermine a profession—it questions the very backbone of democracy. Therefore, the government should rise above the Ministry’s cuts and restore the commission’s original proposals in their entirety. Protecting the freedom of journalists is not just about their safety; it is about safeguarding the nation’s conscience.
