CYBER LAWS ARE JUST OKAY, ATTORNEY GENERAL TELLS COURT
THE State has urged the High Court to dismiss a case Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) is challenging the legality of the Cyber Crimes Act, which others complain infringes of freedom of expression.
In the lawsuit, LAZ contends that the cyber laws unjustifiably infringe upon constitutionally protected rights, including privacy, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom of conscience, and freedom of association.
LAZ seeks to have several provisions of the Cyber Security Act number 3 and the Cyber Crimes Act No. 4 of 2025 declared unconstitutional and struck off the statute books.
But in response, Attorney General Mulilo Kabesha has dismissed allegations that the piece of the law infringes of people’s rights, urging the court to throw out the lawsuit.
Mr Kabesha will submit at trial that rights to privacy, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom of conscience and freedom of association are not absolute.
“Articles 17, 20, and 21 of the Constitution, upon which the said rights are predicated have exceptions Sections 5,6,10,21,22 (2) ,24 (1)(b) ,24(2) ,27,30,31, and 32 of the Cybercrimes Act and sections 2,18,23(3),23(4) ,29,30 ,and 32 of the Cyber Security Act, are reasonably justifiable in a democratic society”.
Mr Kabesha, as respondent, said the cited legal provisions are within parameters set by the Constitution itself, in so far as exceptions are concerned.
“…provisions of the cyber laws do not offend the provisions of articles 17, 19 and 20(1), 20(2) and 21(1) of the Constitution and are reasonably justifiable in a democratic society and are therefore constitutional and within the provisos to the said articles,” Mr Kabesha said.
He said Article 11 of the Constitution provides for limitations designed to ensure that the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms by any individual does not prejudice the rights and freedoms of others or public interest.
Mr Kabesha added that LAZ has no loci standi in the matter.
“The petitioner has no locus standi as the alleged violations are not in relation to the petitioner’ as envisaged in article 28 of the Constitution of Zambia.
“…the respondent denies that the petitioner is entitled to any of the reliefs sought…the petitioner’s petition should be dismissed with costs,” he submits.
Mwebantu