From Critic to Clarifier: The Evolution of Dr. Elias Munshya’s Stance on Zambia’s Cyber Laws

From Critic to Clarifier: The Evolution of Dr. Elias Munshya’s Stance on Zambia’s Cyber Laws
By George N Mtonga

In the evolving debate around Zambia’s cyber legislation, few voices have been as prominent—or as changed—as that of Dr. Elias Munshya. A respected legal mind and former Canada-based attorney, Dr. Munshya made waves in 2021 with a detailed critique of the Patriotic Front’s (PF) Cyber Security and Cyber Crimes Act. At the time, he expressed strong concern over the law’s vague language, expansive powers, and its potential to muzzle freedom of speech.

Fast-forward to 2025, and Dr. Munshya, now serving in diplomatic service as Zambia’s High Commissioner, has emerged as a defender of the revised cyber laws enacted by the UPND government. The laws, which include provisions that arguably go further than those of the 2021 Act, have been described by Munshya as a “clarification” and improvement of the previous framework. He now argues they provide necessary legal structure for Zambia’s evolving digital landscape.

This shift invites important reflection. What has changed between 2021 and 2025? Is it the law—or the lens through which it is viewed?

In 2021, Dr. Munshya’s caution was grounded in democratic concern. The law’s potential for abuse in the hands of a politically dominant regime was obvious to many legal scholars and activists. His legal analysis helped citizens understand what was at stake: a digital space vulnerable to censorship, surveillance, and selective enforcement.

Yet in 2025, under a new government—one he previously supported as a reformist ally—Dr. Munshya’s tone has softened. The same legal tools once criticized as overly intrusive are now endorsed as necessary instruments of governance. Though he urges citizens to read the law for themselves, the shift from critique to endorsement suggests a deeper recalibration—one that seems more political than legal.

It is neither cynical nor unpatriotic to raise this question: have the legal defects of the 2021 Act truly been corrected, or have they simply been normalized under a different political banner?

This change matters not because Dr. Munshya’s opinion alone sways policy—but because it reflects a broader trend where legal interpretation bends too easily to political convenience. Zambia’s democracy deserves consistency in principle, not selective silence when familiar faces hold the reins of power.

Dr. Munshya’s intellect is not in question. His patriotism is also clear. But when the same statute that once threatened freedoms is now recast as a progressive tool—without substantial redrafting or enhanced protections for civil liberties—it compels all of us to be more vigilant.

The task of democracy is not to defend power, but to challenge it—regardless of who wields it.