Myanmar Authorities Must drop the Case Against Ko Swe Win and Decriminalise Defamation

7 March 2019

By: 77 Civil Society Organisations

On the second anniversary of the defamation charges brought upon Ko Swe Win, editor at online newspaper Myanmar Now, we, the undersigned 77 civil society organisations, call on the relevant authorities to drop the case against him. Spurious defamation charges under Article 66(d) of the Telecommunications Law were filed against him on 7 March 2017 by ultranationalists intent on suppressing free speech. The Government of Myanmar must take concrete steps in parliament to decriminalise defamation, repeal Article 66(d) of the Telecommunications Law and drop the charges and release all activists and human rights defenders currently in prison and being charged under this repressive legislation.

Article 66(d) of the Telecommunications Law of 2013 was amended in 2017, but notably, defamation is still criminalised and carries a punishment of up to two years of imprisonment or a fine of up to one million kyat or both. The law is still frequently used to stifle free speech in Myanmar and silence critics. To date, a reported 173 cases have been filed under Article 66(d) since its enactment.

The UN Human Rights Committee has called on all states to decriminalise defamation, indicating that imprisonment for defamation is a penalty that can never be appropriate or compatible with the right to freedom of expression. In addition, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression has stated that defamation should be treated as a matter of civil rather than criminal law, stressing that criminal prosecution for defamation inevitably becomes a mechanism of political censorship, which contradicts freedom of expression and of the press. In the case of Article 66(d), Myanmar law allows for agents of the offended party to file charges for defamation and initiate criminal proceedings on their behalf. In effect, this means that powerful organisations and individuals can operate via proxies to target those that they consider disturbing, a form of judicial harassment with severe implications for the individuals who are accused.

Ko Swe Win was charged with defamation under Article 66(d) of the Telecommunications Law for sharing a story by Myanmar Now on Facebook. The story quoted a senior monk who said that well-known ultranationalist monk U Wirathu’s actions could be cause for him to be expelled from the monkhood as they violated the tenets of Buddhism. U Wirathu, notorious for using Facebook to agitate against Muslims, had previously expressed support for and thanked U Kyi Lin – the recently convicted gunman who shot and killed prominent lawyer U Ko Ni in January 2017. U Ko Ni was an expert on constitutional law and was working to change the military-drafted 2008 Constitution. The plaintiff, a follower of U Wirathu, brought the charges in March 2017 and the court proceedings started in July 2017.

Since then, Ko Swe Win has had to travel regularly to the courthouse in Mandalay, where the charge was filed, from his home in Yangon and back – a distance of over 1,200 kilometres. The court hearings, now totalling 55, have been ongoing for almost two years, but the court has still only heard the plaintiff’s side, which has consistently been stalling the process. On some occasions, Ko Swe Win has travelled from Yangon only to find that the plaintiff or witnesses have failed to appear in court and that the proceedings have been postponed. The plaintiff himself was arrested in August 2017 and has since been detained, which has caused significant delays to the process.

U Wirathu has been summoned twice but failed to appear. On the first occasion, his lawyer informed the court that U Wirathu could not make the hearing because he was attending a donation ceremony. On the second occasion, U Wirathu’s lawyer requested that the hearing be held at his monastery compound. That request was denied by the township court, but U Wirathu appealed to the higher district court, which also denied the request. While the district court considered the request, no hearings could be held in the township court. Ko Swe Win however, was still required to make an appearance every two weeks before the township court judge just to be informed of the next date he was due to appear in court. This procedure, which required him to travel from Yangon to Mandalay, was typically over in a matter of minutes.

The many irregularities of this case highlight the lack of independence of the Myanmar judiciary. It appears that the authorities are determined to target those that are working to expose troubling truths and terrible crimes, rather than those who commit them. Those responsible for spreading dangerous speech and inciting violence face no consequences, while those who criticise such dangerous actions continue to be prosecuted. In a recent parallel case, also fraught with controversies, two Reuters reporters – Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo – were convicted to seven years in prison for exposing a mass killing of Rohingya men and boys carried out by the Myanmar military in northern Rakhine State.

In Myanmar, high-ranking military commanders, some of whom are accused by UN investigators for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and even genocide, remain at large, while journalists who expose the truth and report on human rights violations in the country are charged under repressive laws. This inverted idea of justice needs to come to an end if Myanmar is to continue its path towards democracy.

As long as Article 66(d) remains, people in Myanmar, especially those who criticise powerful individuals, officials and government policies online, will be at risk of being imprisoned for their peaceful exercise of the right to freedom of expression.

In light of the above, we call on the Government of Myanmar and its relevant authorities to:

  • Drop the defamation charges under Article 66(d) of the Telecommunications Law against Ko Swe Win and other activists and human rights defenders and release those currently imprisoned under this repressive legislation;
  • Repeal Article 66(d) of the Telecommunications Law, or at a very minimum, amend it to ensure that:
    • defamation is no longer criminalised by deleting references to “defamation” as well as vague language such as “disturbing”;
    • only a government prosecutor can file a criminal complaint under Article 66(d);
    • where recognisably criminal acts such as “extortion” and “threats” occur in the law they are clearly and narrowly defined in line with international human rights law, to ensure it is not used to criminalise the peaceful expression of views.

Signed by:

  1. Progressive Voice
  2. Athan – Freedom of Expression Activist Organization
  3. Swedish Burma Committee
  4. Protection Committee for Myanmar Journalists
  5. Youth Circle
  6. Halcyon
  7. Burma Monitor
  8. Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA)
  9. Citizen Action For Transparency
  10. The Seagull: Human Rights, Peace & Development
  11. Association of Human Rights Defenders and Promoters
  12. Human Rights Foundation of Monland
  13. ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights
  14. Info Birmanie
  15. PEN America
  16. Myanmar Cultural Research Society
  17. Minhla Youth Centre
  18. Burma Human Rights Network
  19. Karen Human Rights Group
  20. The Swedish Rohingya Association
  21. Odhikar
  22. Front Line Defenders
  23. SYNERGY (Social Harmony Organization)
  24. Civil Rights Defenders
  25. Society for Threatened Peoples – Germany
  26. Equality Myanmar
  27. Assistance Association for Political Prisoners
  28. Generation Wave
  29. Oway Education and Youths Institute
  30. Yangon Youth Network
  31. Future Light Center
  32. Nyan Lynn Thit Analytica
  33. အလင္းေစတမန္
  34. Karen Student Network Group
  35. Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
  36. Fortify Rights
  37. International Commission of Jurists
  38. Karenni Human Rights Group
  39. Action Committee for Democracy Development
  40. ေရ႔ႊၿခံေျမကြန္ရက္၊ ကြမ္းၿခံကုန္း ၊ ရန္ကုန္တုိင္းေဒသၾကီး။
  41. လူ ့အခြင့္အေရးကာကြယ္ျမွင့္တင္ေရးကြန္ရက္၊ ေခ်ာက္ၿမိဳ ့နယ္၊ မေကြးတုိင္းေဒသၾကီး။
  42. အလုပ္သမားအဖြဲ ့ဖြဲ ့စည္းေပၚေပါက္ေရးႏွင့္ အမ်ိဳးသမီးအခြင့္အေရးအသိပညာေပးေရး ပဲခူးကြန္ရက္၊ ပဲခူးတုိင္းေဒသၾကီး။
  43. ေတာင္သူလယ္သမားမ်ားႏွင့္ ေရလုပ္သားမ်ား အက်ိဳးစီးပြားကာကြယ္ေစာင့္ေရွာက္ေရးကြန္ရက္၊ ျမစ္က်ိဳးတုုိက္နယ္၊ ပဲခူးတုိင္းေဒသၾကီး။
  44. ဥသွ်စ္ပင္ လူငယ္ကြန္ရက္၊ ဥသွ်စ္ပင္ၿမိဳ ့၊ ပန္းေတာင္းၿမိဳ ့နယ္၊ ပဲခူးတုိင္းေဒသၾကီး။
  45. ေတာင္သူလယ္သမားမ်ားဥပေဒအေထာက္အကူၿပဳ ကြန္ရက္၊ ေၿမာက္ဦးၿမိဳ ့နယ္၊ ရခုိင္ၿပည္နယ္။
  46. မြန္လူငယ္ကြန္ရက္၊ ေရးလမုိင္း၊ မြန္ၿပည္နယ္။
  47. လူမူဖြံ ့ၿဖိဳးေရးႏွင့္ ၿငိမ္းခ်မ္းေရးကြန္ရက္၊ ေပါင္ၿမိဳ ့နယ္၊ မြန္ၿပည္နယ္။
  48. Ramkhye – ရမ္းေခး ၿမစ္ၾကီးနား ကြန္ရက္၊ ၿမစ္ၾကီးနား၊ ကခ်င္ၿပည္နယ္။
  49. Justice Drum ကြန္ရက္၊ ရွမ္းၿပည္နယ္ေတာင္ပိုင္း။
  50. ရပ္ရြာၿငိမ္းခ်မ္းေရးႏွင့္ဖြံ႕ၿဖဳိးေရးေရွ႕ေဆာင္အဖြဲ႕၊  ကေလး ၿမဳိ႕နယ္၊ ကေလး ခရုိင္၊ စစ္ကိုင္းတုိင္း။
  51. ဒို႕လယ္ယာကြန္ရက္၊ အဂၤပူၿမဳိ႕နယ္၊ ဟသၤာတခရုိင္၊ ဧရာ၀တီတုိင္း။
  52. Free Expression Myanmar
  53. Olive Organization
  54. Myanmar Media Lawyers’ Network
  55. The Students’ Era
  56. Metta Development Foundation
  57. Paung Ku
  58. Community Response Action Group (COMREG)
  59. University Teachers’ Association
  60. Dawei Development Association
  61. Burmese Women’s Union
  62. Cambodia Center for Independent Media
  63. National Union of Journalists in the Philippines
  64. Philippines Center for Investigative Journalism
  65. Women Peace Network
  66. Public Legal Aid Network
  67. The International Women’s Partnership for Peace and Justice
  68. Myanmar People Alliance (Shan State)
  69. Yangon Watch
  70. Human Rights Educators Network
  71. Burma Campaign UK
  72. Human Rights Watch
  73. Olof Palme International Center
  74. Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society
  75. The National Council of Swedish Youth Organisations
  76. The Swedish Foundation for Human Rights
  77. Christian Solidarity Worldwide

Download this joint statement in English HERE and Burmese HERE.

ပူးတြဲထုတ္ျပန္ခ်က္ကို ျမန္မာဘာသာျဖင့္ ဤေနရာ၌ ရယူပါ။