.jpg)
By Ethel Mwambu
INTRODUCTION
This article critically examines the implications of Zambia’s cyber laws on freedom of expression, with particular focus on the Cyber Crimes Act No. 4 of 2025. It interrogates whether certain provisions of the Act unjustifiably limit constitutional rights and whether such limitations meet the constitutional threshold of legality, necessity, and proportionality in a democratic society.
Constitutional Protection of Freedom of Expression
Article 20 of the Constitution of Zambia guarantees every person the freedom of expression, which includes the freedom to hold opinions, receive ideas, and impart information without interference. This right is foundational to democracy, as it enables political participation, accountability of public officials, and open public discourse.
Although Article 20 allows for limitations in the interests of defence, public safety, public morality, or the protection of the rights and reputations of others, such limitations must be reasonable, justifiable, and proportionate. Any law that restricts expression must therefore strike a careful balance between societal interests and individual liberties.
Overview of the Cyber Crimes Act No. 4 of 2025
The Cyber Crimes Act seeks to regulate the use of computer systems and electronic communication by criminalizing conduct such as cyber harassment, dissemination of false information, identity theft, and online defamation. The Act builds upon earlier cyber legislation but expands both the scope of offences and enforcement powers. Of particular concern are provisions that criminalize the dissemination of information or statements deemed false and harmful to the reputation of others, especially where such provisions lack clear definitions and safeguards against abuse.
Cyber Laws and the Limitation of Freedom of Expression
One of the most contentious implications of the Cyber Crimes Act is its potential to curtail legitimate expression under the guise of preventing harm. Provisions that prohibit the dissemination of “false information” causing reputational damage risk conflating facts with opinions, thereby undermining the very essence of free expression.
An opinion, by its nature, is subjective and cannot always be verified as true or false. If citizens are only permitted to express views that are objectively “true,” freedom of expression becomes illusory. This raises the critical question: who determines what is true or false? In practice, such determinations may fall to law enforcement agencies or courts, creating room for arbitrary or politically motivated enforcement.
Chilling Effect on Public Discourse and Political Expression.
The vague and broad wording of cybercrime provisions may produce a chilling effect on free speech. Citizens, journalists, activists, and political commentators may resort to self-censorship out of fear of prosecution. This is particularly problematic in a democratic society where open criticism of government actions and public officials is essential.
Journalistic investigations into corruption or maladministration could be interpreted as damaging to reputations, thereby exposing journalists to criminal liability. Similarly, political satire, comedy, and digital activism—key forms of modern expression—may be unfairly targeted despite their social and democratic value.
Impact on Media, Comedy, and Digital Culture
Freedom of expression extends beyond formal political speech to include artistic and cultural expression. In the digital era, comedy skits, memes, and satire are powerful tools for social commentary. However, under the Cyber Crimes Act No. 4 of 2025, exaggerated or humorous portrayals of public figures may be misconstrued as harmful or humiliating speech.
The absence of explicit exemptions for satire, parody, or fair comment creates legal uncertainty. This threatens creative freedom and undermines the role of art and humour in holding power to account.
Justifiability of Limitations under Constitutional Standards
While the protection of reputation and prevention of cyber abuse are legitimate aims, criminal sanctions must be a measure of last resort. Less restrictive alternatives—such as civil remedies for defamation—already exist within Zambian law. The criminalization of speech-related conduct therefore raises concerns about proportionality.
A law that disproportionately restricts expression, especially political expression, may fail the constitutional test under Article 20. In this regard, the Cyber Crimes Act risks prioritizing state control over individual liberties, contrary to constitutional principles.
Conclusion.
The Cyber Crimes Act No. 4 of 2025 represents Zambia’s attempt to respond to emerging digital threats. However, its implications for freedom of expression under Article 20 of the Constitution are profound and troubling. While cyber regulation is necessary in a modern society, it must not come at the expense of democratic freedoms.
Vague and expansive provisions relating to false information and reputational harm risk suppressing legitimate criticism, political debate, journalism, and artistic expression. There is therefore an urgent need for legislative clarity, judicial oversight, and constitutional scrutiny to ensure that cyber laws serve their intended purpose without undermining fundamental rights.
Ultimately, a democratic society must ensure that the pursuit of cyber security does not erode the very freedoms it seeks to protect. Striking a careful balance between security and liberty remains essential for constitutionalism and the rule of law in Zambia.
About Author:
Ethel Mwambu is a Third year law Student at The Copperbelt University and a Researcher at Legal Aid Initiative. She writes this article in her personal capacity.
Constitution Chapter 1 of the Laws of Zambia
Cyber Crimes Act No. 4 of 2025
DISCLAIMER The views expressed
in this article are solely mine and do not represent any organisation with which I am affiliated.
The views and opinions presented in this article or multimedia content are solely those of the author(s) and may not represent the opinions or stance of Amulufeblog.com.