It is better to have a corrupt and incompetent judiciary than one that is not independent

By Joseph Chirwa

Introduction

The events surrounding the judiciary since the set of the ‘New Dawn’ deserve a comment.

This is even when I know that my comments may not sit too well with the powers that be. However, I am comforted by the words of Desmond Tutu who warned that “if you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.” Thus, I will comment and state that “chondifika chindifike.”

Purge of judges

Since the set of the ‘New Dawn’ there have been administrative structural changes within the judiciary. One of the monumental moments was the appointment of a new Chief Justice. There was bipartisanship in support of the appointment of Justice Mumba Malila, SC as Chief Justice to fill the vacant position left by the late Ireen Mambilima. This is a score on the part of President Hakainde Hichilema for appointing a profound professional to replace another iconic figure. We supported and applaud the President for this. However, what followed is what many call the ‘purge’ of judges. In as much I do not subscribe to such thinking but the pronouncements from UPND cadres raise worry. To suggest that the judiciary was pro-PF and hence it must be disbanded is worrying. To accuse an independent judiciary and its judges of being partisan is shocking and undermines the rule of law and good governance. There is not even a shred of evidence to support the call for reforms that include disbanding specific courts because they may have ruled against the UPND whilst in opposition. To suggest that all judges appointed during the tenure of the PF and by president Edgar Lungu exercising his constitutional right to do so undermines the independence of the judiciary and is actually contemptuous. The UNPD government must rein in on its cadres and stop them from throwing malicious venoms on the judges as these are acts that undermine the rule of law. Judges must be judged by their conduct through set out mechanisms such as the Judicial Complaints Commission (JCC) and not at the altar of politics. I end here by quoting the great American Hugo Black who stated that “the layman’s constitutional view is that what he likes is constitutional and that which he doesn’t like is unconstitutional.”

Transfer of magistrates

The transfer of magistrates is in itself a normal administrative routine. Magistrates have been transferred by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) since its creation. However, two significant events lead to many of us question the timing of the mass transfers. The first followed a protest by UPND cadres at court grounds against magistrates performing their functions. To them, the failure by the state to secure convictions of people accused of corruption was the fault of magistrates. In the small minds of these cadres acting on impulse and fueled by mob psychology, the accused persons are guilty and they expect nothing more than a guilty verdict. In essence, the party and its government is asking the courts to play politics. The party and its government is asking the courts to discard the presumption of innocence and summarily convict the accused persons without due process so that it feeds public opinion that it is fighting corruption. The fight against corruption must be supported by all. However, it must not be used to settle political scores.

The second event of worry was a statement by the JSC that the transfers were a coincidence and had nothing to do with dealing with magistrates handling high profile corruption cases. This statement is alarming and dangerous. Its half-wittedness and the amateurish way it was made raises more questions than answers. It was better to keep quiet. That coincidence could have been avoided because the reckless transfers have far-reaching unintended consequences of the judiciary and the justice system. Many cases will have to be restarted. Many accused persons will spend more time in remand. It is a total disaster. In the interest of the rule of law and the respect for constitutionalism and key institutions like the judiciary the transfers must be reversed and a more intelligent way must be employed to effect those changes. The great American John F Kennedy, whose life was cut short by the brutality of a trigger and bullet once warned, “the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.”

Politicisation of the judiciary or judicialisation of politics?

The independence of the judiciary is guaranteed under the Constitution of Zambia. The supreme law of the land requires that the judiciary as an institution must have both financial and functional independence (Articles 122 and 123). This also extends to judges as a collective and judges as individuals. Thus, the judiciary as an institution, judges as a collective and judges as individuals must not be subject to the control of any person or body. This includes the President of the Republic of Zambia. This includes all institutions such as the JCC and JSC. To bring politics to the courts of law is alarming, unfortunate and dangerous. Caroline Kennedy wisely guided that “the bedrock of our democracy is the rule of law and that means that we have an independent judiciary, judges who can make decisions independent of the political winds that are blowing.”

This means that we allow magistrates and judges to apply the law as it is and not to satisfy the political agenda of a ruling political party. It is not the duty of the judges and magistrates to convict. Their job is to dispense justice regardless of the political winds and that is based on which party, being prosecution and defence, has a compelling case. The prosecution having a daunting task of presenting their case to the high threshold of “beyond reasonable doubt”. If that has not been met the judges and magistrates must acquit and acquit unapologetically. I end with the wise counsel of Nan Aaron who cautioned that “an independent judiciary is the crown jewel of our democracy” adding that “it is so vital to be used as a means of placating a political party’s base.”

Better to have a corrupt and incompetent judiciary.

It has always been the fundamental ethos of this jurisdiction that a corrupt judiciary is preferred to one that is not independent. We also believe that an incompetent judiciary is better than one that is not independent. In the case of Godfrey Miyanda v Matthew Chaila (judge of the High Court) (1985) it was held that “the public have a right to have the independence of the judiciary preserved; the absolute freedom and independence of judges is imperative and necessary for the better administration of justice.”

In his judgement, Ernest Linesi Sakala who later assumed the chair of Chief Justice opined that “it is better to take the chance of judicial incompetence, irritability, or irrelevance, than to run the risk of getting a Bench warped by apprehension of the consequences of judgments which ought to be given without fear or favour.”

Thus, all political players must allow the courts to operate independently. Both the party in government and the opposition must allow the courts to be independent as the independence of the judiciary is the only oxygen to our democracy. It is for this reason, at this defining hour and with so much promise that the UPND as a party in government must not repeat the mistakes of its predecessor parties. We must take heed to what the Burman dissident Aung San Suu Kyi said that “the judiciary must be strengthened and released from political interference.” This is so, as Andrew Jackson foretold, “all the rights secured under the Constitution are worth nothing, and a mere bubble, except guaranteed to them by an independent and virtuous judiciary.”



The author is a socio-political commentator and legal scholar. His main interests are constitutional law, criminal justice and politics. Email: counselchirwa@gmail.com./EC

MEDIA STATEMENT- FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Date: 22/04/2025
By: Dr. Larry Mweetwa

RE: THE LAW ASSOCIATION OF ZAMBIA’S DISINGENUOUS CHALLENGE TO THE CYBER SECURITY ACT NO. 3 OF 2025 AND CYBER CRIMES ACT NO. 4 OF 2025- A RESPONSE TO LAZ PRESIDENT LUNGISANI ZULU

1. Introduction
The Law Association of Zambia (LAZ), in what can only be characterized as an actio popularis masquerading as public interest litigation, has mounted a specious constitutional challenge against Zambia’s cybersecurity framework. This post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning constitutes nothing short of suppressio veri suggestio falsi – the suppression of truth to suggest falsehood. In the wake of Zambia’s enactment of the Cyber Security Act No. 3 of 2025 and Cyber Crimes Act No. 4 of 2025, the Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) has launched a vociferous opposition under the banner of constitutionalism and civil liberties. Yet a forensic legal examination reveals an egregious case of selective activism, intellectual dishonesty, and mala fide legal posturing. The association’s silence in 2021, when functionally identical provisions were passed under the previous administration, undermines its current critique and exposes a façade of legal neutrality.

2. RES JUDICATA IN PRINCIPLE: LAZ’S GLARING INCONSISTENCY
2.1 Unveiling a Strategic Contradiction
The Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) has launched a constitutional challenge against the Cyber Security Act No. 3 of 2025 and Cyber Crimes Act No. 4 of 2025, claiming they infringe upon civil liberties. However, LAZ’s approach reveals a troubling contradiction. It participated in the drafting process of both Bills, yet now disowns those very frameworks. This reversal, occurring only after a change in government, suggests a legal position driven more by politics than principle.

2.2 Identical Provisions, Different Reactions
A close examination shows that Section 21 of the 2025 Act is nearly identical to Section 67 of the Cyber Crimes Act No. 2 of 2021. Despite this, LAZ made no objections in 2021. It now calls the same provision unconstitutional, raising serious questions about consistency and credibility.

Key Observations:
 Section 21 (2025) and Section 67 (2021) contain the same restrictions on disclosing information related to ongoing investigations.
 LAZ raised no legal challenge in 2021 despite being consulted as a stakeholder.
 Its current opposition coincides with a change in administration, suggesting political motivation.

This inconsistency violates the expectation of consistency in constitutional litigation and suggests that LAZ’s objections are not rooted in constitutional fidelity, but rather in shifting political winds.

2.3 Legal Consequences of LAZ’s Inconsistency
Abuse of Process
LAZ’s challenge could be dismissed under the principle from Henderson v. Henderson (1843), which bars parties from raising in new proceedings issues they could have addressed in earlier ones. This principle supports judicial economy and prevents litigation from being used for strategic manipulation.

Estoppel by Acquiescence
By failing to challenge the 2021 law when it had the opportunity, LAZ may now be estopped from arguing that the identical provision in the 2025 law is unconstitutional. Its sudden reversal undermines the credibility of its current position.

2.4 A Politicised Legal Position
LAZ’s legal arguments appear less grounded in principle and more in expediency. The failure to object in 2021 and the sudden challenge in 2025 demonstrate a lack of consistency and transparency. Such selective outrage tarnishes the integrity of the legal profession and casts doubt on LAZ’s role as a neutral defender of the Constitution.

Recommendations:
 The courts should treat LAZ’s challenge as an abuse of process.
 LAZ must publicly explain its silence in 2021.
 Future constitutional litigation should uphold consistent, principled legal standards, not political maneuvering.
The legal fraternity must guard against the erosion of institutional integrity caused by such disingenuous litigation. The principle of finality in legal process (doctrina finalitatis) must be respected to preserve public confidence in the rule of law.

3. The Protective Nature of Zambia’s Cyber Laws
Contrary to LAZ’s alarmist assertions, Zambia’s Cyber Security and Cyber Crimes legislative framework reflects a deliberate alignment with global legal norms and best practices in digital governance. Far from being sui generis or excessively punitive, the laws are rooted in the traditions of common law systems and inspired by analogous statutes in advanced democratic jurisdictions such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union.

The primary aim of these laws is to safeguard national security, preserve public order, and protect citizens from the growing threat of cybercrime, misinformation, data breaches, and online harassment. The legal architecture addresses the proliferation of cyber-enabled harms that undermine social cohesion, economic stability, and institutional integrity. It provides mechanisms for deterrence, accountability, and lawful surveillance while ensuring judicial oversight and procedural safeguards.

For instance, prohibitions against unauthorized access to critical infrastructure, deceptive digital communications, and online defamation are not novel legal concepts; they mirror statutory protections found in comparable democracies. Sections such as 5, 6, 19, 22, and 24 of the 2025 Acts share conceptual and structural similarity with laws like the U.S. Espionage Act, CAN-SPAM Act, and the UK’s Official Secrets and Malicious Communications Acts. These are not oppressive enactments but rather necessary legal tools in the modern information era.

In sum, Zambia’s cyber laws are designed to strike a delicate balance between freedom of expression and the need for public protection. The claim that they are draconian lacks merit when viewed through a comparative legal lens. The laws serve as a bulwark against emerging digital threats and position Zambia within the global consensus on cybersecurity, responsible data use, and protection of digital rights.

Comparative Legal Table:
Zambia Provision
U.S. Equivalent
U.K. Equivalent
Legal Rationale
Sec. 5 & 6 (Critical Data)
Espionage Act (18 U.S.C. § 793)
Official Secrets Act 1989
Protection of national security data.
Sec. 19(1)(d) (Deceptive Comms)
CAN-SPAM Act
Fraud Act 2006
Deterrence against phishing & misinformation.
Sec. 22 (Obscene Content)
CA Penal Code §653.2
Malicious Comms Act 1988
Protection against cyber harassment.
Sec. 24(1)(b) (Ethnic Incitement)
18 U.S.C. §2331
Terrorism Act 2006
Criminalization of incitement to violence.
The primary aim of these laws is to safeguard national security, preserve public order, and protect citizens from the growing threat of cybercrime, misinformation, data breaches, and online harassment. The legal architecture addresses the proliferation of cyber-enabled harms that undermine social cohesion, economic stability, and institutional integrity. It provides mechanisms for deterrence, accountability, and lawful surveillance while ensuring judicial oversight and procedural safeguards.

Key Safeguards Embedded in the 2025 Cyber Laws
1. Protection of Critical Infrastructure (Sections 5 & 6) These provisions criminalize the unauthorized access, interference, or disclosure of data related to national security systems, financial institutions, and public utilities. Their purpose is to shield the backbone of Zambia’s economy and public administration from sabotage and cyber espionage.

Comparable statutes include:
 The U.S. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)
 The UK’s Computer Misuse Act 1990
2. Anti-Fraud and Deceptive Communications (Section 19) This section targets the growing threat of phishing scams, deepfake technologies, and fake news campaigns by outlawing fraudulent and misleading digital communications. It is designed to curb financial cybercrime and safeguard online spaces from manipulation.

Comparable statutes include:
 The U.S. CAN-SPAM Act regulating deceptive email practices and other online communication.
 The UK’s Fraud Act 2006
3. Preventing Online Harassment (Section 22)
This provision criminalizes cyberbullying, revenge pornography, and the distribution of defamatory digital content. Contrary to LAZ’s claim of vagueness, the concept of obscenity and harassment is widely interpreted in context by courts across common law jurisdictions.
Comparable statutes include:
 U.S. state-level cyberstalking laws (e.g., California Penal Code § 653.2)
 The UK’s Malicious Communications Act 1988
4. Countering Incitement to Violence (Section 24)
This section addresses ethnic incitement and cyber-terrorism, treating digital hate speech and calls to violence as serious offences. Given the global rise of online radicalisation, this provision acts as a necessary deterrent.

Comparable statutes include:
 The U.S. Anti-Terrorism Act
 The UK’s Terrorism Act 2006
Why These Laws Are Necessary
Cyber threats are transnational and borderless, with Zambia increasingly vulnerable to ransomware attacks, financial scams, and foreign disinformation campaigns. The 2025 Acts are a timely intervention to bolster Zambia’s digital sovereignty and cyber resilience.
Importantly, the laws do not give unchecked powers to authorities. Provisions for judicial oversight, warrants, and clear thresholds for prosecution are embedded to prevent abuse—mirroring the due process standards of advanced legal systems. Moreover, these Acts reflect a broader global trend seen in frameworks such as:
 Germany’s Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG)
 Singapore’s Cybersecurity Act
 The EU’s Digital Services Act
Refuting LAZ’s Mischaracterisations
Section 22 (Obscenity): LAZ argues the law is overly subjective, but courts in the U.S. and UK have long applied a context-sensitive test for obscenity and online harassment. Judicial discretion serves as a safeguard against arbitrary application.
Section 21 (Investigation Gag Orders): LAZ claims this provision restricts transparency. However, similar rules exist under the U.S. Patriot Act and UK national security frameworks, allowing temporary confidentiality to protect investigations.
Section 24 (Ethnic Incitement): LAZ’s concern that this could be politicized ignores that incitement to violence and hate speech is criminalised in virtually all democratic jurisdictions, particularly when linked to terrorism or societal unrest.

LAZ’s portrayal of these laws as “oppressive” is both misleading and unsubstantiated. The Acts are neither aberrant nor excessive—they represent a thoughtful, measured, and internationally-aligned legislative approach. Zambia has chosen to modernize its digital governance framework in step with global democratic practices, reflecting the enduring doctrine: Salus populi suprema lex esto—the welfare of the people shall be the supreme law.
5. The Cybersecurity Agency Under the Presidency: A Global Norm
LAZ has criticized the structural positioning of Zambia’s Cybersecurity Agency under the Office of the President, describing it as an act of executive overreach and a harbinger of politicisation. However, this critique fails to consider established global administrative norms in cybersecurity governance. In fact, the placement of such agencies within the executive branch is not only common—it is strategically necessary.
In the United States, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) operates under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which is directly accountable to the President. This structure ensures high-level policy coordination and emergency responsiveness, particularly in the event of cyber threats that intersect with national defense, critical infrastructure, and public safety.
Similarly, the United Kingdom’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) is housed within the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), an intelligence agency that falls under the Cabinet Office and ultimately reports to the Prime Minister. This centralization facilitates real-time intelligence integration and rapid threat response.
Zambia’s decision to place its Cybersecurity Agency under the Office of the President mirrors these models mutatis mutandis. It reflects a desire to streamline decision-making, ensure national oversight, and position cybersecurity as a top-tier policy concern. In light of increasing global cyber threats, the need for direct executive coordination is not only justified but strategically sound.
Therefore, LAZ’s argument is a non sequitur—it fails to recognize that executive control over cybersecurity is a standard, not an exception, in modern governance frameworks.

6. Conclusion: Caveat Orator, LAZ
Final Legal Assessment:
The Law Association of Zambia’s current posture is undermined by its own historical inaction. In 2021, LAZ raised no formal objections to legislation that contained virtually identical provisions to those it now denounces. Its sudden and forceful opposition in 2025 smacks of political selectivity rather than principled legal advocacy.

The cybersecurity laws enacted by Zambia are constitutionally defensible, comparatively aligned, and jurisprudentially coherent. They reflect international standards, uphold judicial safeguards, and respond to contemporary cyber threats with proportional legal tools.
Unfortunately, LAZ’s rhetorical strategy appears to prioritize political theatre over substantive legal reasoning. This diminishes its standing as a neutral guardian of constitutionalism and exposes the association to accusations of partisanship and legal inconsistency.

Recommendations:
1. LAZ must issue a mea culpa—an acknowledgment of its failure to act in 2021 when these provisions first entered Zambia’s statute books.

2. Constructive engagement is essential. LAZ should provide amicus curiae support to the courts and participate in judicial review processes grounded in precedent, comparative law, and constitutional fidelity.

3. Abandon argumentum ad passiones—emotional appeals—and adopt argumentum ad judicium, a rational, principle-based approach to constitutional discourse.

In conclusion, until LAZ realigns its advocacy with consistent legal principles and transparent institutional conduct, its objections to Zambia’s cybersecurity framework will remain legally unsound and politically suspect.

The Author is a Cybersecurity & Comparative Law Analyst, A Law Student and a Zambian Concerned Citizen. Dr. Larry L Mweetwa BPharm (ZM), MSc ClinPharm (UK), MSc PM (UK), MSc PV (UK), DBA, PhD (UK)

FORMER Vice-President Enoch Kavindele says President Hakainde Hichilema is headed for re-election in August 2026 because of his evident commitment to national development.

Mr Kavindele says those in the governing UPND should not panic ahead of the general election next year because opposition political alliances will weaken further.

He said Government, under Mr Hichilema, is spearheading developmental programmes in all parts of Zambia.

“Previously this development was lop-sided,” he said.

“In North-Western Province, we provided all the money from the mines, but there is no development,” Mr Kavindele said in an interview yesterday.

Credit
-ZDM

How I made presidential decisions-Amos Chanda on Radio Phoenix

– I’m a consultant to the UPND media. This is part of the consultancy I do to private sector, NGOs and Embassies.

-I left because I had sharp differences with the President Lungu

– I supported a business rescue for KCM and not it’s liquidation. KCM was a bad investor, no salaries paid, no contractors were paid ,huge unpaid bills to utility companies.

-Zumani Zimba must shut up. He led President Edgar Lungu to a crashing defeat. He presided over the worst campaign that resulted in humiliating defeat for President Lungu.The defeat was humiliating and he must just shut up.

– On making presidential decisions. Zambia had a one-day supply of fuel. The President was airborne.Tanzania State House called. If delay was made,the ship would not have docked. So I made a judgement call. And briefed the President later when he landed.

– the environment at State House was toxic. There was a queue of liars lined up.
–

Resign Now, PSs Eyeing 2026 Told

By Mark Ziligone

Secretary to the Cabinet PATRICK KANGWA has directed Permanent Secretaries with political ambitions ahead of the 2026 general election to immediately resign.

Mr. KANGWA says while having political aspirations is a constitutional right, it is imperative for public servants to uphold principles of neutrality, professionalism, and ethical conduct.

He has warned that failure to voluntarily step down could result in disciplinary action as public offices must not be used as platforms for personal political gain.

Mr. KANGWA made the directive during the official opening of the First Senior Public Service Management meeting for 2025 in Lusaka today.

He said the meeting is a critical moment to reflect on the first quarter of the year and re-align efforts towards achieving national development objectives.

Mr. KANGWA further urged senior public service officials to reaffirm their commitment to discipline, accountability, and reform.

OPPOSITION SLAMS CYBER SECURITY LAW AS “THREAT TO DEMOCRACY”

Lusaka… Tuesday April 22, 2025 — The recently enacted Cyber Security law has sparked fierce criticism from opposition leaders, who have described it as a direct attack on free speech and democratic freedoms in Zambia.

Speaking on behalf of the Socialist Party (SP) youths in Lusaka, provincial Youth Secretary Bartholomew Phiri voiced strong concerns over the legislation, contending that it was designed to silence dissent and tighten government control over online platforms.

According to Phiri, the law gives the state sweeping powers to monitor and regulate digital communications, an act he believes undermines the fundamental rights of Zambian citizens.

Mr. Phiri also highlighted a striking case of political irony, noting that President Hakainde Hichilema, who had previously condemned similar laws during his 2021 election campaign, is now using the same legal framework against his critics.

He argued that the President’s change of stance raises serious questions about the government’s commitment to upholding democratic principles.

The Socialist Party youth leader stressed that the opposition would not be intimidated by what he sees as an attempt to muzzle alternative voices.

He pledged that his party would continue to hold those in power accountable and remain dedicated to defending the rights and freedoms of all Zambians.

Mr. Phiri urged citizens to remain vigilant and warned that those in leadership should remember that power is never permanent.

He pointed out that history has repeatedly shown how political tides can shift, leaving former rulers subject to the same laws they once used to suppress others.

Concluding his remarks, Phiri called the Cyber Security law a dangerous step backward for the country.

He asserted that good governance must allow room for free expression, while oppressive regimes thrive on silencing opposing voices.

In his view, the new law signals a worrying drift toward authoritarianism.

ECZ HANDS OVER ELECTORAL REFORM REPORT TO GOVERNMENT

By Nelson Zulu

The Electoral Commission of Zambia-ECZ has handed over the Electoral Reform Technical Committee report for 2025 to government, with some key highlights bordering on mixed member representation electoral system, delimitation, cancellation of elections upon resignation and appointment of Cabinet Ministers among others.

Speaking during the handover ceremony in Lusaka this morning, ECZ Chairperson Mwangala Zaloumis says the report is key in deepening Zambia’s electoral process and democracy.

Ms. Zaloumis disclosed that the committee made some recommendations comprising delimitation of larger constituencies necessitating the need to review article 68 of the constitution.

She also revealed that some recommendations include the introduction of pre-nomination period for candidature document authentication and reduction of nomination fees to promote inclusivity.

Meanwhile, Justice Minister Princess Kasune has thanked the committee for the report and explains that it will be key in the constitution review process currently underway.

PHOENIX NEWS

M’MEMBE URGES UNITED FRONT AGAINST UPND GOVERNMENT

…says the task of rescuing the nation was too big for any one group to tackle alone

Lusaka… Tuesday April 21, 2025 — Socialist Party (SP) President Dr. Fred M’membe has reechoed a rallying call for unity among opposition forces and civil society in what he describes as a critical moment for Zambia’s future.

Addressing fellow citizens in a statement, Dr. M’membe warned that the country stands at a crossroads, with the hopes and promises that brought the UPND into government now deeply betrayed.

Dr. M’membe stated that under the current administration, Zambians have been left struggling with deepening poverty, rising inequality, and unmet expectations.

He cited the government for mismanaging the economy, allowing the cost of living to spiral out of control, and presiding over the deterioration of public services.

He further contended that the leadership style of the UPND had shifted from servant leadership to what he termed “the arrogance of power.”

According to Dr. M’membe, this has left many citizens disillusioned and desperate.

The Socialist Party leader emphasized that Zambia deserves better and reiterated his party’s longstanding belief that true liberation — economic, social, and political — can only be achieved through genuine, people-centered leadership.

He criticized what he described as elitist policies and deception by the ruling party, which he said had worsened the lives of ordinary Zambians.

Dr. M’membe stressed that the task of rescuing the nation was too big for any one group to tackle alone.

He called on opposition political leaders, civil society organizations, the labor movement, students, the Church, traditional leaders, farmers, and ordinary citizens to close ranks and build a united front against an “incompetent and uncaring regime.”

He warned that political and social divisions would only prolong the suffering of the Zambian people, and insisted that unity was no longer optional but a national necessity.

The Socialist Party, Dr. M’membe declared, remains fully committed to the struggle for a better Zambia and is prepared to stand hand in hand with all progressive forces.

He urged Zambians to rise to the occasion, reminding them that both the public and history would judge leaders based on their actions during this defining moment.

Dr. M’membe concluded by affirming his belief that a better Zambia is possible — but only through collective effort and solidarity.

THE PROVISIONS OF THE NEWLY ENACTED CYBER SECURITY AND CYBER CRIMES ACTS 2025, INFRINGE ON THE RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS OF CITIZENS, HINDER A FREE PRESS AND POTENTIALLY UNDERMINE DEMOCRACY 

On 5th December, 2024, the Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) issued its position on the proposed legislation; the Cyber Security and Cyber Crimes Bills then under consideration by the National Assembly. In our statement, we expressed serious concern that certain provisions of the proposed legislation risked undermining fundamental rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and were not aligned with our national values and principles of good governance, democracy and constitutionalism enshrined in Article 8 of the Constitution.

At the time, it was our considered view that the proposed legislation had the potential to contravene fundamental rights, such as the right to privacy and freedom of expression.

We then called on the Government to withdraw the Bills from the National Assembly and to allow for a transparent and meaningful consultative process with all stakeholders, before their re-introduction on the floor of the House. Although the Government commendably heeded the calls from various stakeholders and deferred the Bills to facilitate consultations, the resultant consultative process fell short of meaningfully addressing the numerous concerns of stakeholders, including those expressed by LAZ. The Government decided to re-introduce the Cybersecurity and Cyber Crimes Bills which were then hurriedly passed through the floor of the National Assembly and have since been assented into law.

As LAZ, our position is that numerous provisions of the newly enacted Cyber Security Act No. 3 of 2025 and the Cyber Crimes Act No. 4 of 2025(the “new cyber laws”), infringe upon the rights and freedoms of citizens, hinder a free press and have the potential to undermine the cherished democracy in our country, Zambia, which our founding leaders fought so hard to preserve.

It is important to appreciate that under Article 20 of the Bill of Rights, Part 3 of the Constitution, freedom of expression and free press is guaranteed. Article 20 provides that except with his or her own consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of the freedom of expression, that is to say, freedom to hold opinions without interference, freedom to receive ideas and information without interference, freedom to impart and communicate ideas and information without interference, whether the communication be to the public generally or to any person or class of persons, and freedom from interference with his or her correspondence. Furthermore, under Article 20 (2) of the Constitution, a free press is guaranteed by an express enactment that no law shall make any provision that derogates from freedom of the press.

However, various provisions of the new Cyber laws infringe upon these provisions. For instance, the Cyber Crimes Act, in particular:

(i) Section 5 prohibits the unauthorised disclosure of data relating to critical information or critical information infrastructure, which critical information is expansively defined to include computer data that relates to public safety, public health, economic stability, national security, international stability and sustainability, essentially making it illegal to receive ideas, impart and communicate ideas without authorization by the State.

(ii) Section 6 prohibits the unauthorised possession of data relating to critical information or critical information infrastructure, thereby making it illegal to hold opinions or information relating to computer data that relates to public safety, public health, economic stability, national security, international stability and sustainability without authorization by the State.

(iii) Section 19 Prohibits transmission of unsolicited deceptive electronic communication, and in particular 19(1) (d) criminalizes falsifying headers of information in an electronic communication and initiate the transmission of such electronic communication to deceive or mislead users. Potentially, Journalists who publish stories under a headline which is considered misleading to users by the State can be prosecuted on the charge of falsifying headers with intent to mislead or deceive readers, and would be liable, on conviction, to imprisonment up to seven years.

(iv) Section 21 prohibits the unlawful disclosure of details of investigation under the Act, making it illegal to communicate information relating to an investigation without authorization by the State, despite the fact that the Investigation is itself instigated by the State, and notwithstanding the merits of the said investigation. Citizens can potentially be jailed up to five years for failure to get permission from the State to disclose that they are being investigated, even when the investigation lacks merit and may in fact be malicious.

(v) Section 22 prohibits transmission of electronic data which the State considers to be obscene, vulgar, lewd, lascivious or indecent with intent to humiliate, harass or cause substantial emotional distress to another person. Further, disseminating information which is false which causes embarrassment or defames another, is criminalized with a punishment up to 2 years. The inherent danger with these provisions is the subjective nature of the offences, with huge potential by the State to use the provisions to stifle dissent or opposing views, under the guise that the communication is false. 

(vi) Section 24(1) (b) elevates the offence of inciting or attempting to incite ethnic divisions among the people of Zambia to terrorism, punishable by imprisonment for life. While LAZ does not support, and in fact condemns, any form of tribalism or inciting ethnic divisions, the potential danger lies in the weaponization of such a provision by prosecuting only political opponents. Through this provision, the State can conveniently send all those with dissenting views to life imprisonment in the name of cyber terrorism.

Additionally, there is no exemption made for the press to freely disseminate computer data relating to matters of public safety, public health, economic stability, national security, international stability and sustainability. This omission effectively criminalizes the dissemination of critical information without the authorization by the State by journalists. A free press is critical in informing the public so as to assure good governance, democracy and constitutionalism, which form the bedrock of our Society. Even the business community which disseminates critical information affecting economic stability without permission of the State may be prosecuted, an eventuality which has the potential of undermining the much-needed economic development of the country.

Furthermore, the localization of the Zambia Cyber Security Agency in the Office of the President, operating at the general direction of the President, as opposed to an independent institution, raises serious governance issues. This, coupled with the expansive definition of critical information under the Cyber Security Act, significantly heightens the risk of cyber security being used as a tool for political control rather than national protection. Such a framework undermines public trust and poses a danger to the objective and impartial enforcement of cyber laws in Zambia.
 
It is LAZ’s view that effective laws must strike a careful balance, ensuring that security measures are proportionate, necessary, and subject to robust oversight mechanisms that protect constitutional freedoms. Laws must also not hinder the citizens’ rights to hold accountable, those given the mantle to govern, as there can be no democracy without people’s effective participation in Governance. As a result of the enactment of the new Cyber laws, LAZ has resolved to petition the High Court to review the constitutionality of the provisions which infringe on the rights and freedoms of citizens and a free press. 

Dated this 21st day of April 2025.
________________________________  
         
Lungisani Zulu  –  PRESIDENT

HH WILL BE HUMILIATED LIKE KK IF HE PROCEEDS WITH CONSTITUTION AMENDMENTS – WYNTER

ECONOMIC Front leader Wynter Kabimba says if President Hakainde Hichilema proceeds with constitutional amendments without citizens’ consent, the results will be like those of Kenneth Kaunda, who suffered humiliation beyond his tenure of office.

He adds that the UPND is digging its own grave with the proposed constitutional amendments. And Kabimba says he did not sign any document while joining an alliance with the UPND to agree with whatever President Hichilema says.

Speaking during Prime Television’s ‘Matters Arising’, Saturday, Kabimba said no one has ever won against the people. “One of the causes of the failures of the past constitutional review processes was when the general public thought that this is being done in bad faith, not in our interest”.

News Diggers

ZAMBIA EMBRACES DEMOCRATIC RENEWAL AS JUSTICE MINISTER RECEIVES ELECTORAL REFORM REPORT

Lusaka, Zambia — Zambia is poised to take a bold step forward in its democratic journey as the Minister of Justice, Hon. Princess Kasune, officially receives the landmark Electoral Reform Technical Committee (ERTC) report from the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ). The historic handover ceremony will be held at the prestigious Mulungushi International Conference Centre—an emblematic stage for what promises to be a defining moment in the nation’s governance.

More than a ceremonial exchange, this event signals a renewed and collective commitment to advancing Zambia’s democratic principles. The ERTC report, developed through inclusive consultations and rigorous expert analysis, presents a blueprint for transformative electoral reform.

Key Recommendations Include:

Delimiting Oversized Constituencies: To ensure fair and equitable representation across all regions.

Enhancing By-Election Management: Focused on reducing disputes and promoting transparency in the electoral process.

Introducing Inclusive Quotas: Aiming to boost the political participation of women, youth, and persons with disabilities.

These proposed reforms go beyond procedural changes—they represent a strategic shift towards a more just, inclusive, and accountable democratic system.

As this new chapter unfolds, the responsibility of nurturing and protecting our democracy extends beyond government. It calls upon civil society, political actors, and everyday citizens to engage, advocate, and uphold the principles that unite us as a nation.

A stronger Zambia begins with a fairer system. The road ahead requires unity, vigilance, and an unwavering belief in the power of the people.

FRATERNITY WELCOMES PRESIDENT HICHILEMA’S SUPPORT FOR MEDIA SELF REGULATION

Lusaka, April 21- The Media Self Regulation Council of Zambia (MSCZ) acknowledges and welcomes a statement by Republican President His Excellency Mr Hakainde Hichilema who says he is totally and unequivocally opposed to the obnoxious Zambia Institute of Journalism Bill.

We commend the Head of State for swiftly weighing in and stating a very clear Government position that we believe brings finality to the media regulation debate.

As MSCZ, we remain committed to the promotion of ethical and professional journalism in Zambia. To this effect, we wish to mention that hundreds of journalists across the country as well as media houses, are currently subscribed to a professional Code of Ethics.

Furthermore, a self regulatory mechanism is fully operational with the Media Ethics and Complaints Committee comprising eminent professionals headed by Legal Counsel Sam Mujuda, currently ajudicating on public complaints against any media misconduct.

We wish to assure the Government and President Hichilema in particular, of our utmost and unwavering commitment to the promotion of the highest standard and ethical journalism in Zambia.

We also salute all media houses, private journalists, media associations and stakeholders who joined us expressing concern over the said bill and acted swiftly to draw the President’s attention on the matter.

Issued by:
Media Self Regulation Council of Zambia Chairperson
Kennedy Mambwe

ZR

LAZ Warns New Cyber Laws Threaten Rights, Press Freedom, and Business Environment

The Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) has voiced strong opposition to the newly enacted Cyber Security Act No. 3 of 2025 and Cyber Crimes Act No. 4 of 2025, warning that several provisions pose a serious threat to constitutional freedoms, press freedom, and economic growth.

In an official statement released on Monday, LAZ President Lungisani Zulu condemned the legislation, stating that it infringes on citizens’ rights, undermines democratic values, and exposes journalists, businesses, and citizens to criminal liability for sharing or possessing information deemed “critical” by the State.

“Our position is that numerous provisions of the newly enacted cyber laws infringe upon the rights and freedoms of citizens, hinder a free press, and have the potential to undermine the cherished democracy in our country, Zambia, which our founding leaders fought so hard to preserve,” said Zulu.

According to LAZ, key sections of the Cyber Crimes Act criminalize the unauthorized sharing or possession of data related to public health, safety, or the economy, even by the media or business community. Zulu warned that this could result in criminal penalties for individuals or institutions reporting or commenting on important national issues.

“Even the business community which disseminates critical information affecting economic stability without permission of the State may be prosecuted,” he said. “This has the potential to undermine the much-needed economic development of the country.”

LAZ also expressed deep concern over the localization of the Zambia Cyber Security Agency in the Office of the President, rather than establishing it as an independent institution. This, the Association argues, poses a risk of politicizing cyber security oversight.

“Such a framework undermines public trust and poses a danger to the objective and impartial enforcement of cyber laws in Zambia,” Zulu added.

The Association further highlighted the contradiction between the new laws and Article 20 of the Zambian Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression and press freedom. Among the contentious provisions are laws that criminalize so-called “false information,” vague definitions of indecent content, and a lack of protection for journalists reporting on sensitive national issues.

In response, LAZ has resolved to petition the High Court to review the constitutionality of the laws.

“Effective laws must strike a careful balance, ensuring that security measures are proportionate, necessary, and subject to robust oversight mechanisms that protect constitutional freedoms,” said Zulu.

The Cyber Security and Cyber Crimes Acts were passed in early 2025 despite initial public resistance and calls for broader stakeholder consultation. While government officials argue the laws are necessary to combat cybercrime and misinformation, legal experts, journalists, and civil society groups fear the laws could be used to suppress dissent.

The legal challenge by LAZ sets the stage for a landmark constitutional test and a broader national debate on security, privacy, and freedom in Zambia’s digital age.

April 21, 2025
©️ KUMWESU

*Chipata Central MP Calls for Unity in Support of President Hakainde Hichilema and the UPND Government*

21st April,2025

Chipata Central Member of Parliament and Minister of Agriculture, Hon. Mtolo Phiri, has called on members of the United Party for National Development (UPND) and its alliance partners to remain united and work together in full support of President Hakainde Hichilema and his transformative government.

Speaking during a meeting with UPND and MDC,RPP ,ADD( alliance members), Hon. Phiri stressed that unity is the foundation for continued progress under President Hichilema’s leadership. He urged members not to see each other as rivals but as teammates working toward a common goal—delivering victory for the President and securing Zambia’s future.

“There is power in numbers,” Hon. Phiri said. “Let us not reject one another. We need every member and every alliance partner on board to ensure President Hakainde Hichilema wins again. When the President wins, love and development follow.”

Hon. Phiri praised President Hichilema’s leadership, describing him as unmatched in wisdom and vision. He warned that losing such a leader would be disastrous for the country.

“We cannot afford to let President Hakainde Hichilema lose. He has shown leadership like no other, and his works speak for themselves. No one can match his wisdom and dedication to the people,” he said.

The Agriculture Minister emphasized the importance of welcoming alliance partners and encouraging them to bring in more members to grow the UPND family.

He urged party members to consistently remind the public of the achievements under President Hichilema’s government, including the implementation of free education, increased Constituency Development Fund (CDF), provision of police vehicles, supply of school desks, and the creation of thousands of jobs for young people.

“These are tangible results of President Hakainde Hichilema’s leadership. Let us unite, amplify these successes, and ensure we protect and build on this progress,” Hon. Phiri said.

ENDS///

EASTERN PROVINCE UPND MEDIA TEAM