“The police raid of JİNNEWS reporter Rabia Önver’s house was completely unjustified for an alleged disinformation investigation and is yet another example of the tactics frequently used in Turkey to intimidate journalists,” said Özgür Öğret, CPJ’s Turkey representative. “Turkish authorities should drop the investigation into Önver’s work, stop harassing journalists with house raids, and allow the media to report without worrying about retaliation.”

On September 20, police in the southeastern city of Hakkari raided Önver’s house.

The police had a prosecutor’s order to take the journalist into custody, but the warrant was discontinued after they did not find her at home, Önver’s lawyer Azad Özer told CPJ on Monday. The lawyer also confirmed that Önver was being investigated for “publicly spreading disinformation” due to her reporting on alleged corruption by some authorities involved in a possible narcotics trafficking and prostitution crime ring.  

CPJ emailed the Hakkari chief prosecutor’s office for comment but received no immediate reply.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

The joint statement urged the European Commission and EU Member States to take immediate and decisive action to protect NGOs and independent journalists in Hungary.

On June 26, Hungary’s Sovereignty Protection Office announced that it had  launched an investigation into the Hungarian branch of the anti-corruption watchdog Transparency International and Átlátszó, an investigative journalism outlet that focuses on corruption. The office was established last year as a government authority with broad powers to investigate foreign interference in public life.

The bill creating the office “bears the hallmarks of a Russian-style foreign agent law” and it “could bring a new level of state-sanctioned pressure and chill independent reporting,” CPJ said in a statement last year.

Read the full statement of solidarity here.

Disclaimer: CPJ’s Europe representative Atilla Mong is a former investigative journalist for Átlátszó, currently serving as a member of its supervisory board.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

Sent via email

Madam Prime Minister Hasina,

We, the 19 undersigned press freedom and human rights organizations, write to seek your administration’s urgent intervention to immediately end the harassment and intimidation of journalist Adhora Yeasmean, who faces an investigation under the Digital Security Act (DSA) for her April 29 video report for RTV on the alleged crimes of the religious organization Rajarbagh Darbar Sharif. The authorities should immediately drop their investigation into Yeasmean.

We have also received disturbing reports that Rajarbagh Darbar Sharif members have conducted unlawful surveillance of Yeasmean since mid-July, continually following her and threatening to file additional complaints against her and her family members in retaliation for her reporting. The authorities must swiftly investigate these threats, hold the perpetrators accountable, and ensure her physical and psychological safety and security.

We also call on the Government of Bangladesh to dismiss the DSA investigation into the journalist’s interviewee and co-accused, Akramul Ahsan Kanchan, who has been targeted in this case for claiming in Yeasmean’s report that Shakerul Kabir, one of Rajarbagh Darbar Sharif’s leaders, took possession of the properties of locals based on false promises of financial gain.

Legal retaliation against a source in journalistic reporting is an act of intimidation that inhibits the functioning of a free press. Journalism is not a crime, and the media should be free and empowered to cover local and national developments in Bangladesh without fear of reprisal by subjects of reporting or the authorities. This is particularly relevant in the run-up to the January 2024 national election.

Further, while we welcome the government’s recent decision to repeal the DSA, the draft of the law’s replacement, the Cyber Security Act, retains several repressive sections previously used to stifle independent journalism and human rights, including freedom of expression, privacy, and liberty in Bangladesh.

We urge your administration to consult with and incorporate feedback from civil society organizations, journalists, and other stakeholders to ensure that the new legislation aligns with international human rights standards, upholds the rights to freedom of expression and media freedom as guaranteed under the Constitution of Bangladesh, and does not place journalists and human rights defenders at constant risk of criminalization for their work. The authorities should immediately drop all DSA charges against those targeted under the law solely for peacefully exercising their right to freedom of expression and release those held on these charges.

Your administration can start by addressing the wrongful accusations against Yeasmean. On May 13, the Chittagong Cyber Tribunal registered Kabir’s complaint accusing Yeasmean and Kanchan of violating three sections of the DSA, and the police were ordered to investigate. In violation of her right to due process, it took nearly two months for Yeasmean to learn about the case, since Dhaka’s Tejgaon Police Station called her only on July 8, by which time the investigation had already been transferred to the Noakhali Criminal Investigation Department, about 173 kilometers (107 miles) from her home.

In May, Kanchan was convicted and imprisoned in a separate “fraud” case, which his lawyer Shishir Manir claims is an act of retaliation for alleging to the media that Rajarbagh Darbar Sharif had engaged in “land grabbing,” and for organizing collective legal action against the organization in 2021, leading to three court-ordered government probes. One of these probes found Pir Dillur Rahman, Rajarbagh Darbar Sharif’s head, and his followers had lodged 49 “fictitious” criminal complaints, including those of human trafficking, violence against women, and attempt to murder, against Kanchan due to a property dispute. We call for an independent and transparent commission of inquiry to thoroughly and impartially investigate the circumstances surrounding Kanchan’s detention and to release the findings to the public.

We urge the Government of Bangladesh to swiftly follow procedure to dismiss the DSA case against Yeasmean and Kanchan by submitting a final report to the cyber tribunal and ensuring that they, like others targeted under the law solely for peacefully exercising their right to freedom of expression, are not subjected to further retaliation.

Signed:

Amnesty International

ARTICLE 19 South Asia

Asian Human Rights Commission

Bangladeshi Journalists in International Media

Capital Punishment Justice Project

CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation

Coalition For Women In Journalism (CFWIJ)

Committee to Protect Journalists

Forum for Freedom of Expression, Bangladesh

Free Press Unlimited

IFEX

International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)

International Federation of Journalists (IFJ)

International Women’s Media Foundation

PEN America

PEN Bangladesh

PEN International

Reporters Without Borders

Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights

____

CC: Mr. Asaduzzaman Khan
Minister of Home Affairs
People’s Republic of Bangladesh
minister@mha.gov.bd

CC: Mr. Anisul Huq
Minister of Law, Justice, and Parliament
People’s Republic of Bangladesh
secretary@lawjusticediv.gov.bd

CC: Mr. Md. Faridul Haque Khan
Minister of Religious Affairs
People’s Republic of Bangladesh
moragovbd@gmail.com

CC: Mr. A.K. Abdul Momen
Minister of Foreign Affairs
People’s Republic of Bangladesh
fm@mofa.gov.bd

CC: Mr. Kamal Uddin Ahmed
Chairperson of National Human Rights Commission of Bangladesh
People’s Republic of Bangladesh
info@nhrc.org.bd

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Erik Crouch.

On Saturday, August 27, police in the Punjab city of Rawalpindi filed a first information report, a document opening an investigation, into Satti, a senior political correspondent for the privately owned broadcaster Geo News, according to news reports, statements by the Pakistan Press Foundation press freedom group and the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists trade group, and the journalist, who spoke to CPJ in a phone interview.

The investigation stems from a since-deleted video posted on Satti’s Twitter account on August 26, which presented quotes attributed to former Prime Minister Imran Khan of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party, according to those sources. The video, which CPJ reviewed, attributed quotes to Khan that are critical of Islam and the Quran. Satti often posts political commentary on his Twitter account, where he has about 75,000 followers.

Authorities opened their investigation after receiving a complaint by Chaudhry Nasir Qayyum, a public relations officer for Muhammad Bashrat Raja, a PTI party member in the Punjab provincial assembly, according to Satti and those reports. Qayyum accused Satti of attributing “disrespectful” and inaccurate statements about Islam to Khan.

Satti is under investigation for allegedly violating sections of the Pakistan penal code relating to blasphemy and defamation, according to a copy of the first information report that Raja posted on Twitter.

“The launching of a blasphemy and defamation investigation into Pakistani journalist Waqar Satti is an unacceptable abuse of power by Punjab provincial authorities,” said Carlos Martinez de la Serna, CPJ’s program director. “Authorities must immediately drop their investigation into Satti, cease harassing him in retaliation for his work, and instead focus on investigating those who have recently threatened the journalist.”

If charged and convicted of blasphemy, Satti faces up to 10 years in prison and a fine; convictions for defamation carry up to two years in prison and a fine, according to Pakistan’s penal code.

Satti told CPJ that, after posting the video on August 26, he received a number of threats on social media from people who appeared to be PTI supporters, who threatened to kill him and his family. Satti told CPJ that he has previously received similar threats from PTI supporters through comments on Twitter.

Satti also received calls from two unknown numbers, asking why he posted the videos, he said.

In his tweet posting the first information report, Raja accused Satti of “inciting religious hatred for political point-scoring.”

Satti told CPJ that he stood by the video, saying the quotes were accurate.

Pakistan’s parliament ousted Khan from power in April 2022, but the PTI holds power in Punjab, according to news reports.

The country’s federal information minister, Marriyum Aurangzeb, who was appointed in April 2022 by the new government led by the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz party, tweeted a condemnation of the investigation into Satti on Sunday.

CPJ emailed Raja’s office and the PTI party for comment, but did not receive any responses. CPJ was unable to find contact information for Qayyum.

CPJ contacted Punjab police Inspector-General Faisal Shahkar for comment via messaging app, but did not receive any reply.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Erik Crouch.

The three journalists each told CPJ that they are facing ongoing legal processes over criminal defamation and insult complaints about their work.

“The spate of spurious criminal defamation cases against journalists in Angola shows that politicians and powerful figures are allergic to public scrutiny and are taking advantage of colonial-era laws to criminalize journalism,” said Angela Quintal, CPJ’s Africa program coordinator, in Johannesburg, South Africa. “Prosecutors must stop pandering to elites who want to keep citizens in the dark and should refuse to entertain such cases in line with a 2010 resolution by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights urging African Union members states to abolish criminal defamation and insult laws.”

Convictions for criminal defamation carry prison terms of up to 1.5 years and a fine set by a judge; insult convictions carry one year and a fine, according to the penal code and Nelson Custódio, a local lawyer who represents both Caetano and Constantino, and who spoke to CPJ via messaging app. CPJ has recently reported on several other criminal defamation cases against journalists in Angola.

On June 6, investigators with the police criminal investigation service in the capital, Luanda,  sent a summons to José, editor of the privately owned newspaper Hora H, and on June 13 they questioned him in relation to defamation and insult complaints filed by Bento Bento, the ruling People’s Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) first secretary in the capital, according to news reports and the journalist, who spoke to CPJ via messaging app.

Bento’s complaints stemmed from a March 29 report by Hora H’s affiliated online video outlet, in which José covered corruption allegations involving a land deal by Bento, José told CPJ. Authorities released José after classifying him as “arguido,” or a formal suspect in criminal proceedings, a necessary step to possibly being charged with a crime or arrested.

José told CPJ that Hora H had sought Bento’s comment more than a month before publishing their story.

“Instead of any reply to our questions, Bento chose to intimidate journalists by using his political weight to sue us,” José said, adding that this was the 24th criminal defamation suit he had faced over his work. He said most of those cases were unresolved, and some had closed without a formal prosecution.

CPJ called Bento and contacted him via messaging app for comment but he did not answer.  

Separately, on June 20, a judge in the province of Kwanza Sul held a hearing in criminal defamation and insult cases against Constantino, a reporter for the Catholic Church-owned broadcaster Radio Ecclésia, according to news reports and Constantino, who spoke to CPJ via messaging app.

That case stemmed from complaints filed by Morais António, the former president of the provincial electoral commission, over a 2020 report by the journalist about António’s resignation amid an alleged sex scandal, according to those sources. Constantino has been classified as arguido in that case since 2021, he told CPJ.

He said his court appearance in the case is scheduled for July 6, when he expects to learn whether he has been convicted. The public prosecutor had asked for the charges against Constantino to be dropped because of a lack of evidence, according to news reports and Custódio.

António told CPJ by phone that he believed Constantino “went beyond the facts in his reporting” and accused the journalist of failing to publish his reply to the allegations. Constantino told CPJ he stood by the reporting, which he said was based on António’s resignation letter.

António also filed separate criminal defamation and insult complaints against Caetano, a correspondent for the U.S. Congress-funded broadcaster Voice of America and the news website Club K in Kwanza Sul province, over a December 2017 report by Club K about alleged corruption in the management of the provincial electoral commission, the journalist told CPJ by phone. Caetano said he was notified of his status as arguido in the case in November 2021.

That 2017 report was published under someone else’s byline, and featured a photograph that was later reused in an unrelated report written by Caetano in December 2019, Caetano told CPJ. He said he was not the author of the 2017 report and had “no say” in the photo in the 2019 article, adding, “This is a good example of how easily journalists can get sued in Angola for next to no reason.”

António told CPJ that Caetano must prove that he was not the author of the 2017 report, as the photograph was the same and Caetano was the only Club K reporter in the province.

“If it is not him so who is it?” António said, noting that the 2017 article alleged that he had embezzled money.

Caetano had his first court hearing in that case in March, according to Custódio. The case was adjourned and a date for the next hearing had not been set by June 29, Custódio said.

Kwanza Sul public prosecutor Mário Sacuiema told CPJ in a phone interview that he could not comment on Constantino or Caetano’s cases, and confirmed that a date for Caetano’s next court hearing had not been set.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Erik Crouch.

On June 3, police in the Sitapur district in northern Uttar Pradesh state opened an investigation into Zubair, co-founder of the fact-checking website Alt News, after he tweeted that three right-wing Hindu activists were “Hate Mongers,” according to news reports. 

On June 8, police in the capital New Delhi opened an investigation into Naqvi, a freelance journalist, after she shared a satirical meme on her Twitter account about a recent claim that a revered symbol connected to the Hindu god Shiva had been found in a mosque in the northern Varanasi city, according to various news reports. The meme was shared by several Twitter users, including a member of parliament, and republished by the financial newspaper Economic Times. However, only Naqvi, who is Muslim and known for her criticism of right-wing Hindu politics, was named in the investigation. 

This is the second social media-connected investigation into Naqvi, and the fifth into Zubair, according to those reports. Both journalists use social media as part of their jobs, according to CPJ’s review of their social media accounts.

“Indian police need to stop targeting journalists who are critical of sectarian politics,” said Steven Butler, CPJ’s Asia program coordinator, in Washington, D.C. “Selective investigations into Mohammed Zubair and Saba Naqvi strongly suggest that they are being unacceptably targeted because of their Muslim religious identity and work as journalists.”

Police are investigating Zubair under Section 295(a) of the penal code for “deliberate and malicious acts” intended to create religious outrage and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act for “publishing or transmitting obscene material,” according to those reports. He faces three years imprisonment under Section 295(a) and an additional three years and a fine of 500,000 rupees (US$6,400) under Section 67, according to the law. 

According to those reports, Bhagwan Sharan, who identified himself as the district head of Hindu right-wing group Rashtriya Hindu Sher Sena, filed the complaint against Zubair. On June 13, the Allahabad High Court declined Zubair’s plea to end the investigation, according to the independent news website Scroll.in. Zubair did not respond to CPJ’s text message asking for comment.

Police are investigating Naqvi for violations of the penal code under Section 153 for “promoting enmity” between groups, Section 295, and Section 505 for inducing others to commit offenses against the state or “public tranquility,” according to those sources. She faces six months imprisonment under Section 153, two years imprisonment under Section 295, and five years imprisonment under Section 505, according to the law. Each section also carries an unstated fine.

The complaint against Naqvi was filed by the Intelligence Fusion and Strategic Operation unit of the Special Cell of Delhi Police for “inciting various groups and creating situations that are detrimental to the maintenance of public tranquility in the country,” according to the independent outlet India Today.

“I was shocked,” Naqvi told CPJ by text message. “[This investigation has] implications for free speech in India, suggesting that there can be cherry-picking to target certain journalists.”

Suman Nalwa, New Delhi’s police spokesperson, and Uttar Pradesh police did not immediately respond to CPJ’s text message and email requesting comment.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

On Thursday, May 5, local media reported that the Ministry of Internal Affairs department in Moscow’s Preobrazhenskoye district had launched a probe into Ber, chief editor of the fact-checking website Provereno.

According to those reports, the investigation stems from an April 27 Facebook post Ber posted to his personal account, where he has about 4,200 followers and posts news commentary and Provereno’s fact-checks, in which he disputed pro-Russian Telegram accounts’ commentary on reports about the deaths of Ukrainian civilians in the city of Bucha.

In an interview with the Lithuanian news website Delfi, where he also contributes to fact-checks, Ber said he learned about the investigation on social media, calling it “a bit predictable” and saying he was not “particularly interested” in its outcome.

“Russian authorities’ investigation into journalist Ilya Ber for fact-checking pro-government claims is deeply troubling, and should be dropped at once,” said Gulnoza Said, CPJ’s Europe and Central Asia program coordinator, in New York. “Russian authorities should let Ber work freely and should stop their efforts to stifle all critical reporting and commentary about the war in Ukraine.”

Provereno is a fact-checking news website launched in 2020, and it has repeatedly published articles debunking pro-Russian coverage of the war in Ukraine.

“We as a project are not politicized, we are unbiased and we write the truth. If the truth does not suit the Russian authorities or the police, that is not my problem,” Ber told Delfi.

Russian authorities have opened multiple criminal proceedings into journalists accused of spreading “fakes” about the Russian military, as CPJ has documented.

On May 6, Ilya Azar, a reporter with the independent newspaper Novaya Gazeta, wrote on his Telegram channel that he had been charged with “discrediting the Russian army” and faces a fine of up to 100,000 rubles (US$1,473). CPJ is investigating to determine if those charges are related to his journalistic activity.

When CPJ called the Interior Ministry’s Preobrazhenskoye office, a representative said they could not comment on Ber’s case and referred CPJ to the ministry’s press office. CPJ was unable to contact that office, as its website did not load.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Erik Crouch.

The public prosecutor’s office in Muscat, the capital, informed al-Hanai, a reporter for the news website Atheer, on March 15 that criminal charges had been filed against him, according to the London-based human rights organization Oman Centre for Human Rights and the regional human rights group Gulf Centre for Human Rights.

The charges were filed under Article 249 of the Omani penal code, which bars publishing news about ongoing investigations, according to those sources. If convicted, al-Hanai could face up to two years in prison and a fine of up to 1,000 riyal (US$2,600).

“Intimidating journalists who report on embezzlement cases is a counter-intuitive anticorruption strategy, to say the least,” said CPJ Senior Middle East and North Africa Researcher Justin Shilad. “Omani authorities should drop their charges against Mukhtar al-Hanai and stop interfering with journalists covering sensitive issues.”

The charges cite March 9 tweets by al-Hanai reporting that eight government officials had been found guilty of embezzlement and falsifying government records, and that the Omani Ministry of Information had barred local media from reporting on the cases, according to those human rights groups.

Al-Hanai frequently posts on Twitter about Omani politics and alleged corruption, and has about 90,000 followers; he has continued tweeting as of May 3, but CPJ was unable to find the tweets mentioned in the charges, which appear to have been deleted.

A hearing for al-Hanai’s case had been scheduled at the Muscat Court of First Instance for May 8, but was moved to June 19, according to the human rights groups. The Oman Centre for Human Rights noted that Article 249 did not bar people from publishing about trials that had concluded, as the corruption case had.

The Gulf Centre for Human Rights reported that al-Hanai is barred from leaving the country while his case is pending. Authorities previously detained and questioned al-Hanai for three days in 2019 over a report on corruption he published in Atheer, according to the Oman center.

Atheer posted statements on Facebook and Twitter saying that the outlet “stands in solidarity with our colleague Mukhtar al-Hanai” and expressing faith in the Omani judicial system.

CPJ emailed the Omani Ministry of Information for comment but did not receive any response.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Erik Crouch.

On March 30, police in Uttar Pradesh’s Ballia district arrested Ojha and Singh, journalists with the privately owned Hindi daily Amar Ujala, in relation to their reporting on leaks surrounding a state school exam, according to multiple news reports.

Separately, on April 3, attendees of a demonstration in Delhi organized by right-wing Hindu groups attacked at least five journalists covering the event, and police opened an investigation into Faisal over his commentary on that attack, various news reports said.

“Police harassment of journalists in Delhi and Ballia mark a worrisome trend of attacks on the free press that need to come to a halt immediately,” said Steven Butler, CPJ’s Asia program coordinator, in Washington, D.C. “Indian authorities must release Ajit Ojha and Digvijay Singh immediately, drop their investigation into Meer Faisal, and hold to account those responsible for attacking journalists in Delhi.”

Police have arrested more than 30 people, including the students’ parents and Singh and Ojha, over the leaks of two school exams in Uttar Pradesh, according to those news reports. Singh was quoted in the Indian Express saying that police had repeatedly asked about the sources for his reporting on the leaks, and Ojha was quoted in The Wire saying that police vandalized his office and manhandled his colleagues while arresting him.

Those reports also stated that Manoj Gupta, a journalist with the Rashtriya Sahara newspaper, had been arrested, but CPJ was unable to immediately determine whether he also covered the leaked exams.

Police are investigating both journalists under Section 66B of the Information Technology Act, pertaining to receiving stolen digital resources, Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, which covers “cheating and dishonesty,” as well as two sections of the Uttar Pradesh Public Examination Act, pertaining to disclosing school exams, according to The Wire.

Convictions under the IT act can carry prison terms of up to three years and fines of up to 100,000 rupees (about US$1,317); convictions under Section 420 of the penal code can carry prison terms of up to seven years and a fine; the Uttar Pradesh exam law can carry penalties of up to five years in prison and a fine of up to 500,000 rupees (US$6,580).

In Delhi, attendees of the April 3 event attacked Faisal, reporters Shivangi Saxena and Ronak Bhat of the news website Newslaundry, freelance photojournalist Md Meharban, and Arbab Ali of the news portal Article 14, and shouted insults at Meghnad Bose of The Quint and another journalist whose name was not disclosed, according to multiple news reports.

Saxena and Bhat wrote that demonstrators hit Bhat, threw his glasses to the ground, tried to steal his equipment, and “one tried to pull his backpack, another his arms and legs.” When Saxena tried to film the assault, “one grabbed her bag, another held her shoulder, a third held her hand in which she had her phone” they wrote. Neither journalist wrote that they sustained any serious injuries.

Ali told Newslaundry that the mob hit him and Faisal in front of the police, and that demonstrators said “don’t give these two to the policemen, just kill them. These are jihadis, they are mullahs.”

Following that attack, police in Delhi opened an investigation into those suspected of assaulting the journalists, and also started an investigation into Faisal, a journalist with Article 14 and the news website Hindustan Gazette, according to those reports and a statement by the police.

Police accuse Faisal of inciting hatred between classes in a tweet he published after the attack, saying the journalists were “beaten up because of our muslim identity by Hindu mob.” Police are also investigating Article 14 for the same offense after it also tweeted about the incident.

If convicted of making statements to create or promote enmity, hatred, or ill-will between classes under Section 505(2) of the Indian penal code, Faisal and the publisher of Article 14 could face up to three years in prison.

CPJ emailed Uttar Pradesh Police Director-General Mukul Goel and Delhi Police Commissioner Rakesh Asthana for comment, but did not receive any replies.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Erik Crouch.

In November 2019, Iceland’s public broadcaster Ríkisútvarpið (RÚV), the privately owned news website Stundin, and Qatari broadcaster Al-Jazeera published joint reporting on alleged corruption involving Samherji and government officials in Namibia.

In May 2021, Stundin and the news website Kjarninn both reported on efforts by Samherji to discredit the journalists involved in that reporting; CPJ also documented the company’s efforts to harass the reporters who covered those corruption allegations.

Following that May 2021 reporting, a Samherji employee filed a criminal complaint alleging that reporters had illegally accessed their cellphone, and police opened a criminal investigation into Stundin reporter Aðalsteinn Kjartansson, Kjarninn reporter Arnar Þór Ingólfsson, Kjarninn editor Þórður Snær Júlíusson, and Þóra Arnórsdóttir, who edits the RÚV’s investigative program “Kveikur,” for alleged violation of privacy, according to news reports and Kjartansson, who communicated with CPJ via email.

On March 16, 2022, the Court of Appeals in Northeast Iceland refused Kjartansson’s appeal to drop the investigation, according to the journalist and statements by the police and the court.

“Iceland police must ensure that criminal complaints are not used to stifle journalists’ work or to retaliate against their coverage,” said Attila Mong, CPJ’s Europe representative. “Journalists in Iceland must be able to cover powerful companies without fear that they will face legal harassment and smear campaigns.”

Police accuse the journalists of violating the law by using data from that Samherji employee’s stolen cellphone in their May 2021 reporting, according to a report by Stundin, which said that authorities allege that the phone contained pornographic photos and videos of the employee.

Kjartansson said that he and the other reporters denied the charges.

The complainant had filed the case “for the sole reason that [the defendants] reported on Samherji’s activities against journalists,” Kjartansson said, adding that police were investigating “in a case where there is no evidence that a crime has been committed.”

If charged and convicted of violating that employee’s privacy, the journalists could face up to one year each in prison, according to Iceland’s penal code.

Kjartansson said that he had challenged the police force’s decision to declare him as an official suspect in the case, saying that the journalists’ reporting was in the public interest and they had not violated the employee’s privacy.

The Court of Appeals in Northeast Iceland, however, rejected that challenge and has allowed the investigation to continue, reports said.

CPJ emailed the Police Department in Northeast Iceland, Samherji, and the Samherji employee who filed the criminal complaint for comment, but did not receive any replies.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Erik Crouch.

On March 4, the Islamabad High Court ordered police not to arrest anyone named in the case until another hearing on Monday, March 7; at that hearing, Chief Justice Athar Minallah said that police officers’ use of excessive force and the registration of a criminal case against the protesters constituted an abuse of state power, according to news reports.

Toor, who was present at the March 7 hearing, said that Attorney General Khalid Jawed Khan told the court that the state would withdraw the case. Toor told CPJ on March 9 that he had not been formally notified that the case had been withdrawn.

Khan and Shabbir Ahmad, the station house officer of Islamabad’s Kohsar police station who filed the complaint, did not respond to CPJ’s requests for comment sent via messaging app.

Toor told CPJ that he denied any leadership role in the protest, held on March 1 at the city’s National Press Club to protest the disappearance of an ethnic Baloch student, and only attended to cover it as a journalist.

A number of students were injured when police charged the protesters and attacked them with batons, according to Dawn. Toor alleged that the investigation was retaliation for his coverage of the protest and the police crackdown on his YouTube-based current affairs channel, Asad Toor Uncensored.

In a first information report, a police document opening an investigation, authorities accused Toor and several others of criminal conspiracy, rioting, unlawful assembly, obstruction of a public servant’s duties, defamation, and intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace. The most serious of those crimes, criminal conspiracy, can carry a death sentence, according to Pakistan’s penal code.

Previously, in September 2020, the cybercrime wing of the Federal Investigation Agency in the northern city of Rawalpindi filed a first information report against Toor for allegedly defaming the army through his social media posts, according to news reports.

After four months of legal proceedings, the Lahore High Court dismissed the case for lack of evidence, according to news reports and Toor. He said that the state never informed him or his lawyers about who filed the complaint that led to the registration of a first information report, or which social media posts were allegedly defamatory.

Separately, in May 2021, unidentified armed men attacked Toor at his home and left him bound and gagged, as CPJ documented at the time. Toor told CPJ that police have not identified the perpetrators of that attack.

CPJ emailed the Federal Investigation Agency and Islamabad Police Inspector-General Muhammad Ahsan Younas for comment, but did not immediately receive any replies.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Erik Crouch.

On February 16, the Provincial Court of Madrid acquitted a police officer on charges of attacking freelance photojournalist Guillermo Martínez during a demonstration in 2021, and ruled that prosecutors should open a criminal investigation into Martínez and three other journalists for alleged false testimony, according to news reports and Martínez, who communicated with CPJ via email.

The three others—freelance photographers Fermín Grodira and Juan Carlos Mohr, and a journalist from the news website Público whose name was not disclosed—all acted as witnesses supporting Martínez during the trial, according to those sources.

If charged and convicted of giving false testimony, they could each face a fine and up to two years in prison, according to the Spanish criminal code.

“Spanish authorities should drop their investigations into photojournalists Guillermo Martínez, Fermín Grodira, Juan Carlos Mohr, and an unnamed Publico reporter, and ensure that members of the press do not face legal harassment for reporting on the police,” said Attila Mong, CPJ’s Europe representative. “Rather than pursuing journalists who file complaints about alleged police abuse, authorities should ensure that investigations into police actions are fair and transparent.”

Martínez alleged that on April 7, 2021, during a demonstration by the far-right Vox party in Madrid, a riot police officer whose name was not disclosed requested his press accreditation and then, before he could take the document out of his wallet, grabbed his arm, hit him from behind with a baton, and threw him into the ground, according to Martínez and a report by Público.

During the trial, Martínez showed videos of the incident taken by the three other journalists, which were published in that Público report. He also showed the court a forensic report that showed bruising consistent with a baton attack, Martínez told CPJ.

In a November ruling that acquitted the police officer, which was upheld on February 16, a court stated that it could not determine whether an officer hit Martínez with a baton, and said the journalist fell and that an officer tried to help him up, according to Público. That court then recommended the four journalists be investigated over their testimony in the trial, which the Provincial Court of Madrid upheld in its ruling.

After the April 7 demonstration, at least five journalists alleged that police acted aggressively towards the press and hit several reporters as officers tried to contain the crowd, reports said.

Martínez said that the February 16 verdict could not be appealed, and while the Spanish Constitutional Court accepts complaints concerning such cases, he said that court “only accepts 1 per cent of the cases and take an average of six years [to issue a ruling],” so he would not file a complaint there.

In response to an email seeking comment, the Madrid Municipal Police said it would not comment on court decisions. CPJ emailed the Provincial Court of Madrid for comment, but did not receive any reply.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Erik Crouch.

On Tuesday, the prosecutor general’s office announced a criminal investigation into Kaktus.media over its publication of an article, originally published by a Tajik news website, concerning a recent clash at the disputed border between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.

The prosecutor’s office stated that the article, reposted from the Tajik website ASIA-Plus, inaccurately alleged that Kyrgyz soldiers fired the first shots in the confrontation, which could constitute a violation of Article 407 of Kyrgyzstan’s criminal code, which bans the “propaganda of war” and the publication of information “with the aim of provoking aggression or igniting military conflict.”

The penalty for conviction is a fine of up to 100,000 soms (US$1,180) or up to five years in prison, according to the criminal code.

Kaktus.media founder and director Dina Maslova told CPJ via messaging app that investigators summoned her and two of the outlet’s editors for questioning on Monday, and she believed the case was a part of authorities’ wider crackdown on the independent press in Kyrgyzstan.

“Kyrgyz authorities’ investigation into Kaktus.media for so-called ‘war propaganda’ offenses is absurd, and is an obvious attempt to intimidate and harass the outlet,” said Gulnoza Said, CPJ’s Europe and Central Asia program coordinator, in New York. “Republishing news from foreign outlets is not a crime. Authorities in Kyrgyzstan must immediately halt their investigation into Kaktus.media and let all independent outlets operate freely.”

Maslova told CPJ that such “war propaganda” charges have not been brought before in Kyrgyzstan to her knowledge, so she did not know how the case would develop.

Maslova said that Kaktus.media, one of the country’s most popular news websites, reprinted the ASIA-Plus article on the border conflict on the evening of January 27, but deleted it soon thereafter.

The next morning, following an outcry on social media, the outlet issued a statement explaining that the goal of publication had been to show the Kyrgyz public what kind of information Tajik authorities were distributing to their citizens. The Kaktus.media editorial team “has always adhered to and continues to adhere to the national interests of the Kyrgyz people,” the statement said.

Later that day, a small group of demonstrators protested outside Kaktus.media’s office, calling for the outlet to be closed down and making calls against other prominent independent outlets, according to news reports.

On the evening of January 31, state news channel Ala-Too 24 broadcast a report on Kaktus.media, and called for outlets to be held accountable for publishing false information; that report did not mention that the article in question was a reprint.

Since January 28, Kaktus.media has reported a number of attempts to hack its Instagram account and the personal accounts of its journalists on social media platforms, and the outlet has been subject to trolling and distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks, reports said.

On January 31, dozens of media outlets, journalists and media advocacy organizations published an open letter calling on authorities to stop their “mass attack” on media outlets and journalists through criminal cases, coordinated trolling, and surveillance.

CPJ emailed the prosecutor general’s office for comment, but did not immediately receive any reply.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Erik Crouch.

Prosecutors with the Special High Court in Athens recently summoned Vaxevanis, publisher and reporter with the Documento newspaper, and Papadakou, a former journalist who worked as a reporter for the To Vima newspaper and as a host at the Alpha TV broadcaster, according to multiple media reports and both journalists, who communicated with CPJ via email.

Authorities accuse the journalists of multiple criminal offences relating to their reporting on government officials who allegedly took bribes from the Swiss drugmaker Novartis, as well as other corruption allegations, according to those sources.

Vaxevanis and Papadakou told CPJ that they denied the allegations and said they were facing political retaliation for their work.

“Greek authorities should drop their investigations into journalists Kostas Vaxevanis and Ioanna Papadakou, and ensure that members of the press do not face legal harassment for years-old investigations into government corruption,” said Gulnoza Said, CPJ’s Europe and Central Asia program coordinator, in New York. “Authorities should stop pursuing journalists simply for doing their jobs, and should encourage investigative reporters who expose corruption.”

The prosecution accuses both journalists of membership in a criminal organization and three counts of conspiracy—to expose innocent people to prosecution, to extort, and to breach duty—which could carry up to five years in prison each if charged and convicted, for a total of 20 years, according to Papadakou and Vaxevanis.

The allegations against Vaxevanis stem from Documento’s 2018 to 2020 investigations into government officials who allegedly took bribes from Novartis, according to the journalist, those news reports, and CPJ’s review of that reporting. 

Vaxevanis told CPJ that he appeared at the court on January 19 in response to the summons, where he was given a case file of tens of thousands of pages, and is required to return to court on February 18 for his full testimony, after which he may be formally charged.

Papadakou, who lives in Brussels, said the allegations against her relate to her coverage of the Novartis case when she worked as a journalist, as well as her coverage of the 2013 leak of a list of wealthy Greeks who used Swiss bank accounts to allegedly avoid paying taxes.

She told CPJ that she was summoned to appear on January 25, but that date was postponed due to snow in Athens and a new date had not been set. She said she requested the investigation against her be annulled, and said she stands by her reporting.

In an editorial in Documento, Vaxevanis said that the investigations represent an “unprecedented criminalization of journalism.” He accused the conservative New Democracy party, which took power in 2019, of pursuing the investigations with political motives.

CPJ emailed the prosecutor’s office at the Special High Court in Athens, the press department of Novartis in Greece, and the New Democracy party for comment but did not immediately receive any replies.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

On October 29, Finnish prosecutors announced that three Helsingin Sanomat journalists had been criminally charged with disclosing and attempting to disclose state secrets, according to a press release by the national prosecutor’s office, a report by Helsingin Sanomat, and the newspaper’s managing editor, Esa Mäkinen, who communicated with  CPJ via email. The three have denied any guilt, according to that press release.

The charges stem from a December 16, 2017, article about the activities of the Finnish Intelligence Research Center, a unit conducting military intelligence operations, as well as a planned series of articles covering the center that ultimately were not published, the indictment says.

According to the Finnish national broadcaster Yle, authorities charged the two reporters who published the December 16 story, Laura Halminen and Tuomo Pietiläinen, as well as editor Kalle Silfverberg, who led the paper’s political news department at the time.

Mäkinen told CPJ that no trial date has been set, and if found guilty, the journalists face up to four years in prison.

“Finnish authorities must immediately drop all charges against journalists at Helsingin Sanomat, who were simply doing their jobs by covering matters of national importance,” said Gulnoza Said, CPJ’s Europe and Central Asia program coordinator, in New York. “It is unacceptable that investigative journalists in an E.U. country could face prison sentences for their work. Prosecuting these journalists will have a chilling effect on national security reporting in Finland.”

Authorities previously raided Halminen’s home on December 17, 2017, in relation to the article published the previous day, as CPJ documented at the time.

The Yle report stated that authorities also investigated the paper’s editor-in-chief Kaius Niemi and managing editor Esa Mäkinen, but did not charge them with any crime. It said authorities are also investigating military intelligence officials for allegedly leaking classified information to the newspaper.

In an October 29 press release, Helsingin Sanomat stood by its reporting, saying the journalists did not disclose state secrets and it was in the public interest to publish the 2017 article.

The statement said that article “provided background information on this branch of intelligence less known to the public” at a time when politicians were debating whether to expand intelligence organizations’ powers.

Niemi was quoted in Helsingin Sanomat as saying that the indictment’s inclusion of the unpublished articles that had been planned to follow the December 16 report constituted “pre-censorship.”

Deputy Prosecutor General Jukka Rappe was quoted in that Helsingin Sanomat article as saying that the trial, which is likely to be held behind closed doors due to the nature of the case, will examine whether the reporting exposed wrongdoing by authorities, what kind of information was public at the time, and which parts of the reporting may have been prohibited under national security laws, among other considerations.

CPJ emailed the prosecutor’s office for comment, but did not immediately receive any reply.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

On August 11, the Bangladesh Financial Intelligence Unit, a government agency responsible for investigating money laundering and terrorist financing, ordered all scheduled banks to provide details of any accounts associated with Rozina Islam, a senior correspondent for the daily newspaper Prothom Alo, according to news reports and a person familiar with the case, who spoke to CPJ on the condition of anonymity, citing fear of reprisal. Islam is under investigation for allegedly photographing documents at the country’s Health Ministry without permission.

“Scheduled banks” refer to the 61 banks that are controlled and supervised by the government-owned Central Bank of Bangladesh.

Separately, on September 16, the Bangladesh Financial Intelligence Unit ordered banks to provide such information for an additional 11 journalists, according to various news reports and Muhammad Abdullah, city editor of The Daily Amardesh and president of a group within the Bangladesh Federal Union of Journalists, who spoke with CPJ via messaging app. The 11 journalists named in the September 16 order are also all executive members of several different journalist trade organizations, according to those news reports.

Authorities have not disclosed any reason for the order targeting those journalists, according to Abdullah, who said the reason behind the probe remains unclear.

“The Bangladesh Financial Intelligence Unit’s investigation of the bank accounts belonging to a dozen prominent journalists looks suspiciously like selective law enforcement aimed at intimidating the independent press,” said Steven Butler, CPJ’s Asia program coordinator. “Authorities should immediately drop these investigations, cease harassing journalists, and commit to allowing the media to operate openly and freely.”

According to the news reports and Abdullah, the 11 journalists are:

• Farida Yasmin, senior subeditor of the privately owned Bengali-language newspaper The Daily Ittefaq and president of the National Press Club of Bangladesh
• Elias Khan, special correspondent with the privately owned news outlet The Daily Amardesh—which has been prevented from publishing a print edition since 2013 and whose website was blocked domestically in 2020—and general secretary of the National Press Club of Bangladesh
• Kader Gani Chowdhury, senior reporter with The Daily Amardesh and president of a group within the Dhaka Union of Journalists
• Muhammad Abdullah, city editor of The Daily Amardesh and president of a group within the Bangladesh Federal Union of Journalists
• Mohammad Shahidul Islam, subeditor of the privately owned Bengali-language daily newspaper The Daily Sangram and general secretary of a group within the Dhaka Union of Journalists
• Sajjad Alam Khan Tapu, business editor of the privately owned news channel Jamuna TV and president of a group within the Dhaka Union of Journalists
• Nurul Amin Rokon, news editor of the privately owned Bengali-language daily newspaper Daily Asia Bani and secretary general of a group within the Bangladesh Federal Union of Journalists
• Molla Jalal, editor of the privately owned Bengali-language news website NNB and president of a group within the Bangladesh Federal Union of Journalists
• Abdul Majid, special correspondent of the privately owned Bengali-language daily newspaper The Daily Samakal and secretary general of a group within the Bangladesh Federal Union of Journalists
• Mursalin Nomani, senior reporter with the state-owned news agency Bangladesh Sangbad Sangstha and president of Dhaka Reporters Unity, a local journalist training and press freedom group
• Mosiur Rahman Khan, senior reporter with The Daily Samakal and general secretary of Dhaka Reporters Unity

Hasan Mahmud, the minister of information and broadcasting, told reporters at his office that the government can ask anyone for their bank details, and “if someone is transparent, there’s no reason to be worried about it,” according to The Dhaka Tribune.

The person familiar with Islam’s case said the August 11 order stemmed from an ongoing investigation by the Dhaka Metropolitan Police into a complaint filed by the country’s Health Ministry. On May 17, authorities arrested Islam for allegedly taking pictures of official documents at its Dhaka office, as CPJ documented at the time. She was released on bail on May 23, according to reports.

Islam has frequently reported on alleged corruption and mismanagement of the health sector’s COVID-19 response.

The ministry accused Islam of violating Sections 3 and 5 of the Official Secrets Act and Sections 379 and 411 of the penal code; if charged and convicted, she could face up to 14 years in prison or the death penalty, according to those laws.

On September 19, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Dhaka rejected Islam’s request for the return of her two mobile phones and press identification card, which were seized during her arrest, and her passport, which was seized as a condition of her release on bail, according to news reports and the person familiar with the case.

Health Minister Zahid Malek did not respond to CPJ’s request for comment regarding Islam’s case sent via email.

CPJ emailed Md. Masud Biswas, executive director of the Bangladesh Financial Intelligence Unit; Md. Shafiqul Islam, commissioner of the Dhaka Metropolitan Police; and Ferdousi Shahriar, the deputy chief of mission at the Embassy of Bangladesh in Washington, D.C., for comment on the 12 investigations, but did not receive any replies.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

The officers summoned Sasikaran, a freelance Tamil journalist and treasurer of the Batticaloa District Tamil Journalists Association, a local press freedom group, for questioning on July 6, according to the journalist and a report by the Tamil-language news website Tamilwin.

During that questioning, officers asked Sasikaran about his personal and family background and accused Sasikaran of organizing two political events, which he denied, he said. He told CPJ he contributed coverage of a January 27 event paying tribute to Indian fisherman who died in Sri Lankan waters to the local newspaper Virakesi, and covered a February 3 to 7 protest march calling on the government to resolve issues facing Tamils in the country for News First, a local broadcaster.

He said the officers also asked if he was a member of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, a group that the government classifies as a terrorist organization, which he also denied, saying he had no connection to that group. Police released Sasikaran after about four hours, he said.

CPJ was unable to determine if authorities have formally opened an investigation into the journalist under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, and the journalist said he had not seen any police document or news report indicating that a formal investigation has been opened. CPJ emailed U.P.A.D.K.P. Karunanayake, the deputy inspector-general of the Batticaloa district police, for comment, but did not receive any reply.

On July 15, Sasikaran filed a complaint to the Batticaloa office of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka seeking protection from arrest, according to a copy of that complaint posted to Twitter by Journalists for Democracy in Sri Lanka, a local press freedom group.

Sasikaran has covered politics, corruption, and human rights for the daily Tamil-language newspapers Tamil Thanthy and Virakesari, the new websites LankaSri and TamilWeb, and the broadcast news channels Shakthi TV, Sirasa TV, and News First, according to the journalist and Ruki Fernando, an executive committee member of the Free Media Movement, a local press freedom group, who spoke to CPJ in a phone interview.

Sasikaran told CPJ that he sometimes contributed writing and videos to these outlets anonymously, and added that he had suspended his journalistic activities in July because of authorities’ harassment.

Previously, police visited Sasikaran’s home on February 1 and 2, 2021, and served him a court order restraining organizers from moving forward with the protest march on February 3, according to the journalist and Journalists for Democracy in Sri Lanka. At the time, the journalist told police that he was not involved in organizing the protest march and only planned to cover it as a reporter, according to those sources.

On March 2 and 17, officers with the Batticaloa district’s Criminal Investigation Division interrogated Sasikaran about the January and February events in two four-hour questioning sessions, and he again denied participating in them, according to Sasikaran and Muthalvan News.

Sasikaran formerly lived in exile in Australia from 2012 to 2016, after he felt threatened by members of the Tamil Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal, a former paramilitary group that supported the Sri Lankan government during the country’s decades-long civil war, he told CPJ.

When he returned to Sri Lanka on January 20, 2016, authorities detained Sasikaran for 48 hours upon his arrival at Bandaranaike International Airport, and officers of the Terrorism Investigation Division interrogated him about his departure from Sri Lanka, his activities in Australia, and if he was a member of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, which he categorically denied, according to the journalist and reports by Sri Lanka Brief and Journalists for Democracy in Sri Lanka.

Authorities charged Sasikaran with illegally leaving the country, and a magistrate court granted his release on bail on the condition that he appear at the Criminal Investigation Department head office in Colombo for monthly check-ins until the investigation concluded, according to the journalist and Fernando. Authorities dropped that investigation into Sasikaran in August 2019 and ordered him to pay 50,000 rupees (US$250) according to a copy of the bail receipt, which CPJ reviewed.

Separately, in January 2020, unidentified people circulated leaflets in Batticaloa that said Sasikaran and six other journalists would be “given death punishment” for writing critically about the Sri Lankan government, according to the journalist and Journalists for Democracy in Sri Lanka.

Also, on July 12, 2021, police officers with the Batticaloa district’s Terrorism Investigation Division interrogated Selvakumar Nilanthan, a freelance Tamil journalist and secretary of the Batticaloa District Tamil Journalists Association, and demanded the details of his Facebook, Whatsapp, email, and bank accounts, as CPJ documented at the time.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

On August 7, officers with the Federal Investigation Agency arrested Mir, CEO of the privately owned news agency Googly News TV, and Shafqat, who hosts the YouTube news commentary channel Tellings with Imran Shafqat, according to news reports and both journalists, who spoke with CPJ in phone interviews.

Googly News TV publishes on a website and YouTube channel, which has about 360,000 subscribers; Tellings with Imran Shafqat is a YouTube channel with about 120,000 subscribers. Both outlets feature investigative reporting and political commentary on Pakistan’s domestic and foreign policy.

Officers arrested Mir at about 10:30 a.m. while he was on his way to Googly News TV’s office in the city of Lahore, held him for about 10 hours, and then released him on bail pending investigation, he told CPJ. Officers arrested Shafqat at about 12:30 p.m. at his home, also in Lahore, held him for about five hours, and then also released him on bail, he said.

Officers confiscated two phones and a laptop from Mir during his arrest and demanded his passwords, which he refused to divulge; officers also confiscated Shafqat’s phone, the journalists told CPJ. Shafqat said officers returned his SIM card upon his release, and Mir said his phones and laptop were still in official custody.

“Pakistan authorities’ arrests of journalists Amir Mir and Imran Shafqat are emblematic of the government’s ongoing campaign to chill critical reporting,” said Carlos Martinez de La Serna, CPJ’s program director. “The Federal Investigation Agency must immediately drop its investigations into the journalists, return their confiscated devices, and cease harassing members of the press in retaliation for their coverage.”

Authorities are investigating the journalists for alleged electronic forgery; making, obtaining, or supplying a device for an offense; and the transmission of malicious code, all crimes under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, according to a press release issued by the cybercrime wing of the Federal Investigation Agency.

Authorities are also investigating Mir and Shafqat under articles of the Pakistan penal code pertaining to forgery for the purpose of harming a reputation; defamation; issuing a statement with an intent to cause public mischief; and insulting modesty or causing sexual harassment, that press release said.

Each of those offenses can carry a prison sentence between six months and seven years, and a fine up to five million rupees (US$30,425), according to that law and the penal code.

Mir and Shafqat each issued statements denying the allegations against them, which CPJ reviewed.

Babar Bakht Qureshi, director of the Federal Investigation Agency’s cybercrime wing, said that Mir and Shafqat were arrested after posting “scandalous content” on social media following a complaint by Murad Saeed, the federal minister for communications and minister for postal services, according to reports.

CPJ called Saeed’s office at the Ministry of Communications for comment, but received a message that the line was unavailable; CPJ emailed the ministry but did not receive any reply.

Mir and Shafqat told CPJ that officials questioned them separately about the reasons behind their alleged criticism of Pakistan’s army and judiciary online, but did not cite specific reports during the interrogations. Officials also demanded that Mir and Shafqat issue affidavits stating that they will refrain from criticizing Pakistan’s army and judiciary, but they refused to comply, they said.

Mir told CPJ that he received a partial copy of the police report relating to him and Shafqat, but had not received a full copy. Shafqat told CPJ that he had not received a copy of the police report.

The partial copy of the police report, which CPJ reviewed, cites several videos posted to the YouTube channels of Googly News TV and Tellings with Imran Shafqat, including commentary on the Pakistan army’s role in governance, the judiciary, and the regional impact of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor.

Since July 2020, Mir has received two notices and a questionnaire from the Federal Investigation Agency in relation to Googly News TV’s commentary on YouTube about the army, judiciary, and Prime Minister Imran Khan, according to Mir and copies of the notices, which CPJ reviewed.

CPJ emailed Federal Investigation Agency Director-General Sanaullah Abbasi for comment, but did not receive any reply.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

On July 12, officers with the Batticaloa district’s Terrorism Investigation Division, a branch of the Sri Lankan police, interrogated Nilanthan, a freelance Tamil journalist and the secretary of the Batticaloa District Tamil Journalists Association, a local press freedom group, for about three hours, according to the Tamil Guardian, a copy of authorities’ July 10 summons to the journalist, and a tweet by Journalists for Democracy in Sri Lanka, a local human rights group.

Officers questioned Nilanthan about his income sources, and demanded the login details of his Facebook, WhatsApp, email, and bank accounts, according to the Tamil Guardian. They also asked him if he supported the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, a banned group that the government considers a terrorist organization, according to that report and the human rights group.

Authorities told Nilanthan that he may be summoned for another interrogation, the Tamil Guardian reported. CPJ emailed the Terrorism Investigation Division for comment, but did not receive any reply.

“The interrogation of Sri Lankan journalist Selvakumar Nilanthan—including demands for access to his social media and bank accounts–adds to the pattern of harassment of Tamil members of the press and needs to stop immediately,” said Steven Butler, CPJ’s Asia program coordinator. “Authorities must cease trying to intimidate Nilanthan and allow him and all other Tamil journalists to report freely.”

Nilanthan frequently covers human rights in local news outlets, including Tamil Guardian, battinews.com, Tamilwin, Lankasri, Thamilthandhi, and Thinkakkural, according to CPJ’s review of print articles he has published.

In January 2020, authorities charged Nilanthan under sections of the Sri Lankan penal code pertaining to obstruction of a public officer in discharge of his public functions, defamation, publication of a false report with the intent to cause mutiny, and criminal intimidation in relation to his reporting on alleged government corruption, according to Tamil Guardian and a copy of that charge sheet, which CPJ reviewed.

Each of those charges can carry a prison sentence between three months and two years and a fine beginning at 100 rupees ($0.50), according to the penal code.

Authorities detained Nilanthan from about 10 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on January 8, 2020, before releasing him on bail in that case, according to news reports and a person familiar with the case, who asked not to be identified due to fear of reprisal by authorities. That case is ongoing and was referred to the attorney general’s office, that person told CPJ.

Also in January 2020, unidentified people circulated leaflets in Batticaloa that said Nilanthan and six other journalists would be “given death punishment” for writing critically about the Sri Lankan government, according to Tamil Guardian and Journalists for Democracy in Sri Lanka.

In November 2020, police in Batticaloa district questioned Nilanthan at his home after he reported on the concerns of Tamil dairy farmers following the growth of military-backed Sinhalese settlements in the district, according to news reports and Journalists for Democracy in Sri Lanka. Ethnic tensions persist between Sinhalese communities, the country’s majority ethnic group and the leaders of its ruling Sri Lankan People’s Front party, and Tamils, after a decades-long civil war that ended in 2009.

During that interrogation, police asked him to disclose the names of his colleagues who had been assigned to that story and the websites that publish his articles, according to those reports.

CPJ emailed U.P.A.D.K.P. Karunanayake, the Deputy Inspector General of the Batticaloa district police, but did not receive any response.

In May 2016, Batticaloa district police also summoned Nilanthan for questioning after he first reported on the Sinhalese settlements, according to a copy of the summons, which CPJ reviewed, and the person familiar with the case.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

On July 10, police in the northeast district of Thakurgaon opened Digital Security Act investigations into the three journalists, according to news reports and a police report, which CPJ reviewed.

Authorities are investigating Tanu, the Thakurgaon district correspondent for the news websites Jago News and Daily Ittefaq and the privately owned broadcaster Independent Television; Shuvo, a correspondent for the news website NewsBangla24.com; and Litu, a correspondent for the news websites Jugantor and Bangladesh Pratidin and the privately owned broadcaster News 24, according to those sources.

On the night of July 10, police arrested Tanu when he went to the local Sadar police station to inquire about the investigation; they then transferred him to the Sadar Hospital yesterday morning for treatment for respiratory issues, and released him on bail later that day, those reports said. Police handcuffed Tanu to a hospital bed while he received treatment, according to those reports. 

Shuvo told CPJ via messaging app that he and Litu have not been arrested as of today.

“Bangladesh authorities should drop their Digital Security Act investigations into journalists Tanvir Hasan Tanu, Rahim Shuvo, and Abdul Latif Litu immediately,” said Steven Butler, CPJ’s Asia program coordinator. “The Bangladesh government must repeal the act, cease harassing journalists, and allow them to do their jobs, which are a public service, not a crime.”

The investigations stem from a complaint filed by Nadirul Aziz Chapal, the superintendent of the Thakurgaon Sadar Hospital, who alleged that the journalists published reports about the hospital intended to defame and spread enmity and hatred, according to a copy of his complaint, which CPJ reviewed. CPJ called and texted Chapal for comment, but he did not reply.

The complaint referenced a July 5 article by Tanu in Jago News; a July 8 article by Shuvo in NewsBangla24.com; and a July 7 article in Jugantor, published anonymously, which Chapal alleges Litu authored. All three articles detailed allegations that Thakurgaon Sadar Hospital provided sub-standard food to COVID-19 patients.

Police are investigating the three journalists under sections of the Digital Security Act pertaining to the publication of offensive, false, or threatening information; propaganda; defamatory information; information that creates enmity, hatred, or hostility among different classes or communities; and abetment of an offense, according to the police report.

Each of those counts can carry maximum prison sentences ranging from three years to five years and maximum fines ranging from 300,000 taka ($3,540) to 500,000 taka ($5,900).

CPJ called and texted Dalim Kumar, the Thakurgaon district police sub-inspector leading the investigations, but did not receive any reply.

CPJ has repeatedly documented how authorities abuse the Digital Security Act to harass journalists, and has called for its repeal.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

On May 12, the Rio de Janeiro Civil Police Unit for Repression of Cyber Crimes (DRCI) opened a criminal slander investigation into Demori, executive editor of the independent investigative outlet The Intercept Brasil, according to news reports, police documents reviewed by CPJ, and Demori and his lawyer Rafael Borges, both of whom spoke to CPJ in phone interviews.

Borges told CPJ that the investigation stems from a May 8 Intercept Brasil newsletter by Demori, later republished on The Intercept Brasil’s website, about a deadly police operation in Rio de Janeiro, as well as Demori’s tweets about that newsletter, which authorities allege slandered the police.

If charged and convicted of slander under Article 138 of the Brazilian penal code, Demori could face a fine and six months to two years in prison.

“Authorities in Rio de Janeiro should immediately drop their investigation into The Intercept Brasil Executive Editor Leandro Demori and refrain from using police investigations to intimidate journalists,” said CPJ’s Central and South America program coordinator, Natalie Southwick, in New York. “Investigative journalists play a crucial role in documenting police abuses in Brazil, and they should be able to do so without fear of reprisal from the same security forces they are investigating.”

On May 27, the DRCI issued a summons for Demori to appear for a deposition on May 31, according to a copy of the summons, which CPJ reviewed. Demori and Borges told CPJ that they postponed the deposition until June 10, but then decided not to attend, fearing that the questioning could endanger the confidentiality of Demori’s sources.

The summons states that failure to appear for questioning could constitute a crime under Article 330 of the penal code, which can carry penalties of 15 days to six months in prison.

“It looks like an investigation to intimidate me,” Demori told CPJ. “Instead of investigating what we denounced [about deadly policing operations], the state decides to investigate the person who reported on it, the journalist. It concerns us that this is becoming a pattern in Brazil.”

The Intercept Brasil published a statement on June 10 saying that “threats like this will not intimidate us,” and that Brazil’s “Constitution guarantees freedom of the press and protects confidentiality of the source.”

CPJ emailed the Rio de Janeiro state government and the Civil Police for comment, but did not receive any replies. On June 18, the press office of the Rio de Janeiro state public prosecutor’s office said it needed more time to respond to CPJ’s emailed queries; the office had not responded by the time of publication.

In December 2020, the DRCI summoned TV Globo journalists William Bonner and Renata Vasconcellos and accused them of the crime of “disobedience” in their reporting on alleged corruption, according to news reports.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

Yesterday, Uttar Pradesh police filed a criminal complaint stating that they were opening a investigation into The Wire as well as Ayyub, a Washington Post columnist; Naqvi, a freelance journalist; and Zubair, co-founder of the fact-checking website Alt News, according to various news reports and a copy of the complaint, which CPJ reviewed.

The complaint alleges that the three journalists and the news outlet, as well as several politicians from the opposition Congress Party, shared an unverified video that could cause social unrest.

“Indian authorities singling out journalists, some of whom are known for critical coverage of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, for sharing and commenting on a video looks suspiciously like selective law enforcement and amounts to a serious attack on press freedom,” said Steven Butler, CPJ’s Asia program coordinator, in Washington, D.C. “Uttar Pradesh police must withdraw their complaint immediately and stop harassing journalists and news outlets.”

On June 14, The Wire and many other leading news outlets reported on a widely shared video from Uttar Pradesh’s Ghaziabad district, which allegedly depicted a group of Hindu men beating an elderly Muslim man, cutting off his beard, and forcing him to chant a Hindu slogan. Ayyub, Naqvi, and Zubair tweeted about the video, according to those news reports and the complaint.

The complaint, filed by an inspector at the Loni Border police station in Ghaziabad, accuses Ayyub, Naqvi, and Zubair of posting tweets police alleged were misleading and unverified.

The complaint states that police are investigating the three journalists and The Wire for violating Sections 153 (provocation to cause a riot), 153A (promoting enmity between religious groups), 295A (insulting religious beliefs), 505 (public mischief), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian penal code.

Each of those sections carry prison penalties of up to one year for convictions, except for criminal conspiracy, which carries up to two years, according to the Indian penal code.

In posts on Twitter after the criminal complaint was filed, Ayyub, Naqvi, and Zubair noted that their descriptions of the video were based on initial news reports.

CPJ texted Uttar Pradesh Police Director-General Hitesh Awasthy for comment but did not receive any reply.

Last year, Uttar Pradesh police filed opened criminal investigations into The Wire’s Siddharth Vardarajan for allegedly “spreading discord” related to the COVID-19 lockdown, as CPJ documented at the time.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

On June 3, masked men in plain clothes grabbed Raghu, a reporter with the news website Tolivelugu, outside his home in Hyderabad, and forced him into an unmarked car with its license plates covered, according to news reports, CCTV footage of the abduction shared with CPJ by Tolivelugu senior reporter Magham Srinivas, and the journalist’s wife, Praveena, who spoke to CPJ over the phone.

Later that day, police announced that Raghu was in custody, and a local court ordered him to remain in detention for 14 days pending an investigation into allegations that he participated in a clash between a local tribe and the police in Telangana’s Suryapet district in February, according to those news reports.

Srinivas told CPJ that Raghu covered those clashes as a journalist for the local broadcaster Raj News, where he worked at the time.

On June 4, Raghu’s family filed a petition with the Telangana High Court for his release, according to The Hindu. The petition was transferred to a local district court, and a hearing for his bail is scheduled for June 10, Praveena told CPJ.

“Police in the Indian state of Telangana need to be reminded that covering civil clashes is not a crime, but a normal part of reporting,” said Steven Butler, CPJ’s Asia program coordinator, in Washington, D.C. “Police should immediately release Ganji Raghu, drop their investigation into his work, and apologize to him for the crude manner of his arrest.”

The February clashes with police stemmed from protests the tribe held in opposition to Saidi Reddy, a lawmaker in the state assembly with the ruling Telangana Rashtra Samithi party, who allegedly encroached on their land, Srinivas said.

He added that Reddy had threatened Raghu in the past over his reporting, but did not provide details about those threats.

CPJ was unable to find contact information for Saidi Reddy; CPJ contacted Telangana Rashtra Samithi spokesperson Abid Rasool Khan for comment via messaging app, but did not receive any reply.

If charged and convicted of rioting, Raghu could face a fine and up to three years in jail, according to the Indian penal code.

CPJ texted Mahendra Reddy, Telangana’s director-general of police, and Home Minister Mohammed Mahmood Ali, of the Telangana Rashtra Samithi party, for comment, but did not receive any responses.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

On May 31, the police Criminal Investigations Department summoned Tony Glencross, the managing director of the Daily Monitor’s parent company, Nation Media Group-Uganda, and Tabu Butagira, the group’s managing editor, to record statements as part of a police investigation into allegations of criminal libel, incitement to violence, and false news publication, according to reports by the newspaper and the BBC.

The investigation focuses on a May 31 report by the newspaper detailing the findings of a BBC documentary investigation into the deaths of civilians during election-related protests in November 2020, which the Daily Monitor said vindicated its reporting from early 2021, according to those sources. The BBC report included videos allegedly showing security personnel indiscriminately shooting and killing civilians.

Neither journalist attended the questioning, scheduled for June 2, because Glencross was in COVID-19 quarantine and Butagira was on a field assignment, according to the Daily Monitor’s report. Glencross told the Daily Monitor that they would “obviously comply” with the police summons. Butagira told CPJ via messaging app that they planned to respond to the summons at a later date.

“Instead of thoroughly investigating allegations that security forces killed civilians during protests last year, Ugandan police are targeting the messenger by summoning journalists who have covered such allegations,” said CPJ’s sub-Saharan Africa representative, Muthoki Mumo. “Authorities should drop their investigation into the Daily Monitor, which is a transparent attempt to intimidate the paper.”

In a 2000 ruling, Uganda’s Constitutional Court struck the penal code’s false news law; CPJ could not immediately determine how police intended to pursue an investigation under that annulled law. Butagira told CPJ that it was “strange” that police were relying on a “non-existent law” in their case.

Convictions for criminal libel are punishable by up to two years in prison, and incitement convictions can carry jail terms of up to three years, according to the Ugandan penal code.

Police spokesperson Fred Enanga asked CPJ to direct queries to the office of the Inspector General of Police. CPJ tried to reach Inspector General Martins Okoth-Ochola by calling the police headquarters in Kampala; an officer who answered referred CPJ to Ochola’s assistant, Fred Mirondo.

When contacted by CPJ, Mirondo asked that questions be sent over email. In a phone call today, Mirondo acknowledged receipt of that email but referred CPJ to the head of the Criminal Investigations Department, Grace Akullo, for comment.

CPJ repeatedly called Akullo and texted her for comment, but she did not respond.

Separately, Charles Twiine, the spokesperson of the Criminal Investigations Department, told CPJ via messaging application that “being a journalist does not give a ticket to immunity” but did not provide specific comment on the summonses and investigations into the Daily Monitor‘s work. 

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

Since May 20, prosecutors at the Directorate for Investigating Organized Crime and Terrorism, a judiciary agency tasked with investigating and prosecuting organized crime and terrorism-related offenses, have questioned four employees of the daily newspaper Libertatea and the weekly magazine Newsweek Romania over their outlets’ coverage of alleged corruption in public works contracting, according to reports by both outlets.

On May 20, prosecutors in Bucharest questioned Libertatea editorial coordinator Cătălin Tolontan and reporter MihaI Toma, and the following day questioned Newsweek Romania reporter Mircea Marian and office manager Andrei Sabin Orcan, according to those reports as well as Libertatea editor-in-chief Dan Duca and Newsweek Romania editor-in-chief Sabin Orcan, Andrei Sabin’s father, who both communicated with CPJ via email.

Duca and Orcan told CPJ that prosecutors interrogated the employees in relation to a criminal complaint filed by Daniel Băluță, the mayor of the Bucharest’s Section 4, who oversaw the public contract that the outlets alleged was corrupt.

According to Duca and Orcan, Băluță denied the allegations and accused the four of establishing an “organized criminal group” to blackmail him into changing that contracting decision in favor of a company that the journalist supported, with the promise of “financial gain.” Orcan denied that the journalists had any connection to that company.

According to the Romanian criminal code, blackmail and establishing an organized crime group are each punishable by up to five years in prison.

“It is essential for journalists to be able to freely report on the use of public funds without fear of being harassed by law enforcement agencies,” said Gulnoza Said, CPJ’s Europe and Central Asia program coordinator, in New York. “Romanian authorities should drop their investigation into employees of Libertatea and Newsweek Romania, and public officials should withstand scrutiny from the press rather than harass journalists for doing their jobs.”

Orcan told CPJ that the authorities’ summons related to an article Newsweek Romania published on March 15, which Libertatea summarized and quoted on March 16, alleging that the municipality was trying to fix a contract for a specific company that Băluță favored. The Newsweek Romania article was published by “Alexandru Pop,” a pseudonym.

Orcan told CPJ that Newsweek Romania stood by the reporting, which was based on public records. He called the mayor’s accusations “totally absurd” and “a form of intimidation against any investigative reporting about his administration.” Duca told CPJ that the mayor´s accusations constituted “a serious form of intimidation.”

Orcan said that his colleagues were accompanied by the magazine’s lawyers, and prosecutors questioned them in the presence of Băluță’s lawyer.

Prosecutors asked the Newsweek Romania employees about who had authored the article, why the newspaper published it, and the identities of the reporter’s sources, Orcan said. He added that his colleagues told the prosecutors that they had nothing to do with the decision to publish the article, and said he believed authorities had accidentally summoned his son, who has only administrative tasks in the office.

“My conclusion is that they have mixed up my name with my son’s name. So right now, I am expecting to be summoned as well,” Orcan told CPJ.

CPJ emailed Daniel Băluță’s office and the Directorate for Investigating Organized Crime and Terrorism for comment, but did not receive any responses.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

Since May 20, prosecutors at the Directorate for Investigating Organized Crime and Terrorism, a judiciary agency tasked with investigating and prosecuting organized crime and terrorism-related offenses, have questioned four employees of the daily newspaper Libertatea and the weekly magazine Newsweek Romania over their outlets’ coverage of alleged corruption in public works contracting, according to reports by both outlets.

On May 20, prosecutors in Bucharest questioned Libertatea editorial coordinator Cătălin Tolontan and reporter MihaI Toma, and the following day questioned Newsweek Romania reporter Mircea Marian and office manager Andrei Sabin Orcan, according to those reports as well as Libertatea editor-in-chief Dan Duca and Newsweek Romania editor-in-chief Sabin Orcan, Andrei Sabin’s father, who both communicated with CPJ via email.

Duca and Orcan told CPJ that prosecutors interrogated the employees in relation to a criminal complaint filed by Daniel Băluță, the mayor of the Bucharest’s Section 4, who oversaw the public contract that the outlets alleged was corrupt.

According to Duca and Orcan, Băluță denied the allegations and accused the four of establishing an “organized criminal group” to blackmail him into changing that contracting decision in favor of a company that the journalist supported, with the promise of “financial gain.” Orcan denied that the journalists had any connection to that company.

According to the Romanian criminal code, blackmail and establishing an organized crime group are each punishable by up to five years in prison.

“It is essential for journalists to be able to freely report on the use of public funds without fear of being harassed by law enforcement agencies,” said Gulnoza Said, CPJ’s Europe and Central Asia program coordinator, in New York. “Romanian authorities should drop their investigation into employees of Libertatea and Newsweek Romania, and public officials should withstand scrutiny from the press rather than harass journalists for doing their jobs.”

Orcan told CPJ that the authorities’ summons related to an article Newsweek Romania published on March 15, which Libertatea summarized and quoted on March 16, alleging that the municipality was trying to fix a contract for a specific company that Băluță favored. The Newsweek Romania article was published by “Alexandru Pop,” a pseudonym.

Orcan told CPJ that Newsweek Romania stood by the reporting, which was based on public records. He called the mayor’s accusations “totally absurd” and “a form of intimidation against any investigative reporting about his administration.” Duca told CPJ that the mayor´s accusations constituted “a serious form of intimidation.”

Orcan said that his colleagues were accompanied by the magazine’s lawyers, and prosecutors questioned them in the presence of Băluță’s lawyer.

Prosecutors asked the Newsweek Romania employees about who had authored the article, why the newspaper published it, and the identities of the reporter’s sources, Orcan said. He added that his colleagues told the prosecutors that they had nothing to do with the decision to publish the article, and said he believed authorities had accidentally summoned his son, who has only administrative tasks in the office.

“My conclusion is that they have mixed up my name with my son’s name. So right now, I am expecting to be summoned as well,” Orcan told CPJ.

CPJ emailed Daniel Băluță’s office and the Directorate for Investigating Organized Crime and Terrorism for comment, but did not receive any responses.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.