Police arrest journalists over Facebook posts, state accountability under scrutiny
SOFT KILLING OF CRITICAL VOICES
KATHMANDU/February 11: Aishwarya Kunwar, a journalist based in Kanchanpur district, posted on Facebook four days ago that her life is in grave danger. “I would like to inform the residents of Kanchanpur. I believe I am in grave danger because I have been working as the voice of the voiceless. As a result, if anything bad happens to me, the state should be held accountable,” according to her post. “I am home safe and secure,” she said in another Facebook post on February 9. However, in a Facebook post yesterday, she stated that she had been arrested. “I was arrested by the police,” she wrote in her Saturday post.
Similarly, Puskar Bhatt, another journalist, has been arrested by police. Puskar also made a Facebook post four days ago, claiming that police were attempting to arrest him. He also requested that a person named Binod prepare for a legal battle via his post.
“They are attempting to arrest me in a cybercrime case; the district SP has issued an arrest warrant after receiving permission from the district administration in Kanchanpur,” he wrote. “What I cannot figure out is whether the arrest warrant for cybercrime was issued by the court or by the DAO. What is cybercrime? Writing a news story by a journalist is considered cybercrime. If so, I am ready to fight this lawsuit. Binod, get ready to fight the case for me.”
The coincidence for the arrest of both journalists is linked with the criticism of unlawful activities by police. As per their posts and news stories, both of them have been robustly shining light on malpractices by the police.
In another post, Puskar wrote that he was aware that, as soon as he published an interview with the police, Inspector Binu Shahi and the SP of Kanchanpur were going to torture me in multiple ways.
Likewise, Ganesh Dutta Bhatta wrote on Facebook that the police have not been able to provide a solid basis for the arrest of journalists Kunwar and Bhatta. When asked by a group of journalists in the afternoon, the police were unable to explain the reason of their arrests. “Questions about the actions of officials from government agencies and public organizations could be raised on Facebook to express arguments and opinions, so no crime was committed,” he said. His post reads that the intention of the Kanchanpur police leadership is nothing but to detain and threaten journalists for two days.
Meanwhile, Laxman Datt Pant, chair of Media Action Nepal, stated that this is a soft-kill for critical voices. “Journalists are the front runners for critical voices; if their voices are silenced in this manner, it will pose a threat to democracy as a whole rather than just to journalists,” Pant stated. As a result, the state must protect critical voices in order for a healthy democracy to thrive, and journalists should not be held in this manner, he added. “Additionally, laws such as the Electronic Transaction Act should be amended to align with fundamental rights and the country’s international human rights obligations.”
Journalists are the front runners for critical voices; if their voices are silenced in this manner, it will pose a threat to democracy as a whole rather than just to journalists. As a result, the state must protect critical voices in order for a healthy democracy to thrive, and journalists should not be held in this manner.
Article 47 of the Electronic Transaction Act 2008 stipulates, “Publication of illegal materials in electronic form: (1) If any person publishes or displays any material in the electronic media, including computer, internet, which is prohibited to publish or display by the prevailing law or which may be contrary to the public morality or decent behavior or any types of materials which may spread hate or jealousy against anyone or which may jeopardize the harmonious relations subsisting among the peoples of various castes, tribes and communities, shall be liable to the punishment with the fine not exceeding One Hundred Thousand Rupees or with the imprisonment not exceeding five years or with both. “(2) If any person commits an offence referred to in Sub-section (1) from time to time, he/she shall be liable to the punishment for each time with one and one half percent of the punishment of the previous punishment.”
