Zambia Institute of Journalists Bill: a project by journalists, not govt (summary)

By Ernest Chanda

In January 2019, the PF government resumed threats to regulate the media if the media did not regulate themselves. In say ‘resumed’ because the MMD administration had also done the same several times.

In fact, government had already in 2019 drafted the Bill to regulate the media. But while these threats were being pronounced, journalists, under the auspices of the Media Liaison Committee (MLC), had been refining the Zambia Media Council (ZAMEC). And so, the MLC approached the then Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting Services, Mr Chanda Kasolo to explain its role in the welfare of journalists. The interaction helped his government understand the implications of government formulating a bill to regulate the media. This resulted in the government allowing the media fraternity to choose their own way of regulating themselves.

To help mitigate the process, the Swedish government, in collaboration with the leadership at one of its projects – the International Training Programme (ITP) – stepped in. The ITP initially approached the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Zambian Chapter to spearhead the process of engaging government. But the Swedish government opined that a local media body would be ideal to spearhead the process since MISA was certainly not a local body but just a regional chapter. That’s how the then ITP Coordinator Mr Oliver Kanene proposed to the Swedish government that the MLC led the process, seeing that it is a local and member driven organisation. Mr Kanene approached then MLC Chairperson Mr Enock Ngoma and explained the help the Swedish government wanted to render in the media regulation process. Prior to that, the Swedish government had invited different stakeholders  at different times ton get their views in view of government threats. It must be placed on record that during these engagements, the Swedish government and all affiliate NGOs were comfortable with statutory self-regulation.

Later, the MLC agreed to lead the process. The MLC was also tasked to form a Technical Working Group that would prepare for a general conference for journalists. The Swedish government was going to fund the process through BBC Media Action, while MISA Zambia became the secretariat. Hence, on May 9-10, 2019, the journalism fraternity held its first Conference or Indaba to decide how they wished to regulate themselves. About 250 journalists were invited from all media institutions, associations and trade union movements across the country. The Conference was held at Golden Peacock Hotel in Lusaka, Olympia Extension.

At this conference, the Technical Working Group on media regulation (TWG) invited two international media experts who each gave a presentation on the various forms of media regulation. One expert from Kenya, Professor Mwangi, presented on statutory self-regulation, while his South African counterpart, Professor Franz Kruger, presented on voluntary self-regulation. It must be noted that Kenya had just created a media regulatory body through an Act of Parliament, hence the rationale for inviting Prof Mwangi. The committee also invited four local experts to share on the history of media regulation in Zambia, challenges and the way forward.

It was at this gathering where journalists eventually resolved unanimously to regulate themselves through a statutory body created by the media fraternity itself. The MLC’s TWG was therefore tasked to engage stakeholders in drafting a layman’s ZAMEC Bill, which was later submitted to government. In May 2020, a second Conference was held at the same venue where the TWG reported the progress it had made on the task given to it b y the media fraternity. Again, journalists validated all the progress made, no one changed their mind, including MISA, BBC Media Action, and MOAZ. In June 2021, the TWG and government reached a stalemate during a virtual meeting where it was discovered that government had expanded the Bill and made it draconian.

In April 2022, stakeholders held a meeting under the auspices of the MLC at Cheetah Lodge in Kafue where it was resolved that media regulation be narrowed to journalists only, excluding media institutions. This meeting was also sponsored by the Swedish government through the Swedish International Development Corporation (SIDA). The rationale was that for the electronic media they were already being regulated by the Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA). It was therefore only prudent to isolate individual journalists from media institutions.

However, other stakeholders pulled out of the process, claiming that with the change of government it would be possible to proceed the voluntary way. These three stakeholders were MISA Zambia, Media Owners Association, and BBC Media Action. They have since proceeded to form a voluntary self-regulatory body. But the majority journalists have, through the MLC, still been pushing for a statutory self-regulatory mechanism.

In May 2024, the MLC sat with officials from the Ministry of Information and Media to validate the ZAMEC Bill that had been drafted by experts from the Ministry of Justice. This was done at Mika Lodge in Lusaka’s Jesmondine. And early this year, upon advice from the Ministry of Justice, the name was changed from ZAMEC to the Zambia Institute of Journalists (ZIJ). The rationale was that since this regulatory body will not be regulating media institutions but just individual journalists, it was necessary to change its name to ZIJ.

On Thursday, April 3, 2025, the MLC held a validation meeting with legal drafters from the Attorney General’s Chambers. The meeting was chaired by Attorney General Mulilo Kabesha, State Counsel. And this was not initiated by government b ut by journalists through the MLC. Other stakeholders were also invited, including media training institutions such as universities and colleges. There was no need of inviting MOAZ, BBC Media Action and MISA because they had already gone their way with voluntary regulation. We discussed this bill for over eight hours and later validated it with amendments.

With this brief summary, it is clear that the government has had no hand in this ZIJ Bill. It is purely a fulfillment of great demand from majority journalists who wanted respect for their profession as well as a stronger voice through a respected professional body. Besides, journalists wanted a body that would promote their welfare, including remunerations. Proponents of voluntary regulation are also aware that the voluntary process has failed the country three time before, hence the journalists’ resolve in 2019 to draft a law for themselves.

The big question is, are they really rejecting this bill in the interest of the journalism profession? Seeing that these colleagues have go0ne ahead with their process, why interfere with other people’s process? Anyway, time will tell.

The author is a journalist and immediate past Media Liaison Committee Chairperson.

EXPLAIN HOW $20 MILLION DONATED BY THE US WAS SPENT- MUNDUBILE TELLS UPND.

……..as he challenges Government to account for the undelivered maize that was paid for.

Lusaka ……..Monday, April 21, 2025

Tonse Alliance National Chairperson for Parliamentary Affairs Hon Brian Mundubile has challenged the government to account for the over 200,000 metric tons of undelivered maize that was paid for.

Recently, US Ambassador to Zambia Mike  Gonzalez disclosed that the Zambian Government had purchased Maize from Tanzania at 48% over the market value and much of the Maize was not even delivered.

It was a surprise that Zambia which was given $20 Million dollars in aid by the US Government to address the drought crisis could afford to buy maize 48% above the price.

[quads id=11]

And Hon Mundubile has called out the government to respond to these concerns by the US AMBASSADOR.

He said Government must also state how long it will take to deliver the maize that was paid for.

He said with regards to  the issues to do with $20 million dollars,  Government should also give a comprehensive statement on how that money was used.

Hon Mundubile has charged that the process of declaring disaster was not transparent.

He said there was no assessment done to ascertain the quantum of support Zambia needed before  the declaration was made.

“We had asked that let there be an assessment first, so that once the assessment is made,it was easier to know what assistance was needed. And today, the American Ambassador is wondering how that $20 Million was utilised.  We cannot ignore the call by cooperating partners. Cooperating partners are there to assist us. When they want accountability for the money they get from tax payers, Governnent shouod be quick to respond. We want to know where the 200,000 metric tonnes of maize has gone…….As members of Parliament, we had raised concerns when the President declared drought a national disaster. We wanted to know that based on empirical evidence, it was established that certain amount of money was going to be needed. 

There was no report to back the quantum of support they needed. There was need for a quick assessment, assemble a report and approach the cooperating partners for the quantum of support that was needed,” he said.

When Zambians Are Silent, It Doesn’t Mean They Can’t Speak: A Word to the UPND Government

By Thandiwe Ketis Ngoma

Silence is not always peace. Sometimes it is restraint. Sometimes it is the final moment of calm before a nation finds its voice — loud, unrelenting, and undeniable. In Zambia today, the silence of the people must not be misinterpreted as ignorance, fear, or acceptance. The United Party for National Development (UPND) government must be mindful of this reality: Zambians may be silent, but they are not powerless.

Zambians are a dignified and patient people. They value democracy. They believe in process. They have long been generous with their trust, offering their leaders the space and time to deliver. But that trust is not infinite, and silence is not a license for complacency.

When the UPND was ushered into office, it was not with a whisper. It was with a roar of hope. The Zambian people demanded change. They voted for accountability, for economic stability, for inclusive governance, and for leadership that listens. They did not vote for political arrogance. They did not vote for rising hardship. And they certainly did not vote to be forgotten.

Today, the cost of living continues to rise. Job opportunities remain scarce. Many feel unseen, unheard, and unrepresented. And yet, the people remain quiet. But that silence is not apathy. It is observation. It is watchfulness. It is quiet judgment forming beneath the surface.

[quads id=11]

Let the UPND government be warned: Zambians know how to speak. And when they do, it is decisive. They speak in communities. They speak through protest. They speak, most powerfully, at the ballot box. The same voices that elevated UPND to power are fully capable of reversing that decision when the time comes.

Leadership is not tested by how it responds to praise, but by how it listens to silence. Wise leaders act when the people whisper. Arrogant ones wait until the people shout. By then, it is often too late.

Zambians are not voiceless. They are simply waiting for the right moment, as they have done before. And when that moment comes, they will speak clearly and courageously, not with violence or chaos, but with conviction and unity.

This silence is not comfort. It is a warning. And for those in power, it must be treated as such.

Rising Cyber Threats in Zambia, How Laws Can Protect People and Businesses

By ; Hamunkoyo Tobbius -21/04/25

It was a warm afternoon in Kitwe when Mwewa received a message on Facebook from a well-dressed gentleman claiming to be an investment broker,Like many have observed many claiming to be ministers requesting for a friend request on Facebook, when in the actual sense they are scammers. His profile looked legitimate, with numerous posts showcasing happy clients and testimonials about lucrative returns. Eager to multiply his savings, Mwewa clicked on the link provided, filled out his details, and sent a small deposit to “secure” his investment. 

Days passed, and the broker promised exponential growth on Mwewa’s investment—but whenever Mwewa asked for proof, the excuses piled up. Soon, the broker vanished. His profile disappeared, his phone number was disconnected, and Mwewa realized the painful truth,he had been scammed.How many of you have been victims? I have been one,

Social Media, A Double-Edged Sword 

Mwewa was not alone. That same week, Natasha, a young university student from the University of Zambia, tried logging into her Whatsapp account only to find herself locked out, she could not access it, lost control of it. Someone had hijacked her account, changed her details, and was now messaging her contact pretending to be her, asking for money, selling counterfeit goods, and tarnishing her reputation. Friends who had known Natasha for years called her in confusion, asking why she was endorsing fraudulent businesses. With nowhere to turn, she felt powerless distressed and almost committing suicide .How many of you have found themselves in these situations? Have you been a victim?Then you have the right to support the cyber crime laws in Zambia.

[quads id=11]

Then there was Luyando, ( never mind about the name Luyando is a unisex name where I came from)an aspiring entrepreneur who had proudly launched his clothing brand online. He worked tirelessly to build his reputation, until one morning he woke up to find his name smeared across social media. Someone had fabricated stories about him being involved in illegal activities. The accusations spread like wildfire, costing him customers, business partnerships, and his dignity.The question I will ask you, should such a person go Scott Free?

Cybercrime is no longer a distant threat—it has become a daily struggle affecting Zambians of all backgrounds. 

The Importance of Cybercrime Laws 

The Zambia Computer Incidence Response Team (ZM-CIRT) reported over 10 million cyberattacks in 2021, ranging from mobile money reversal scams to account hijackings and false online promotions. Despite the dangers, many people remained unaware of how to protect themselves, and Zambia’s cybercrime laws had yet to catch up with the fast-moving digital landscape. 

Strong legislation could help victims like Mwewa, Natasha, and Luyando by ensuring that cybercriminals are tracked, prosecuted, and penalized. It could also help businesses secure their online operations and empower individuals to safeguard their digital identities. Digital literacy campaigns, strengthened cybersecurity measures, and international cooperation could collectively curb the devastating impact of cyber threats. 

As Zambia continues to embrace digital transformation, the battle against cybercrime must be fought on all fronts—through laws such as Cyber Crime Act of 2025, education, and vigilance. Citizens must learn how to recognize scams, protect their personal information, and report cybercriminals. With stronger cybercrime laws and stiffer penalties of 25 years ,life imprisonment and a more informed society, Zambia can create a safer, more trustworthy online space, one where Mwewa, Natasha, Luyando, and millions of others can thrive without fear of digital deception. 

Mindset Must Change

K434,500 WORTH OF CONTRACTS AWARDED TO YOUTH AND WOMEN COOPERATIVES TO SUPPLY DESKS IN LUMEZI

Lumezi Town Council has awarded two contracts costing a combined value of K434.500 to youth and women cooperatives in Lumezi for the supply and delivery of 310 desks in the district.

The desks have been procured using the 2025 Constituency Development Fund CDF as part of a consignment of 1,400 desks that are earmarked to be procured by the Local Authority this year.

The decision by the Local Authority to award contracts for the supply and delivery of desks to the cooperatives is intended to enhance CDF impact on the locals thereby contributing to long-term benefits to the community. The decision also empowers the cooperatives to generate income for sustainability.

The cooperatives awarded the contracts are Chiyanjano Women Multipurpose Cooperative Society Limited for the supply and delivery of 150 desks in Chamtowa and Wachitangachi Wards valued at K202,500.

The other supplier is Mphundwe Youth Multipurpose Cooperative Society Limited for the supply and delivery of 160 desks in Kamimba and Chibande Wards valued at K232,000.

The beneficiary schools are Fyalabike Primary School, Kavidilika Community School and Lumezi Primary School. Others are Kalingwizi Community School and Chasera Primary School. Both contracts have a delivery period of 12 weeks.

Lumezi Town Council Sectretary Mary Sinkala encouraged the cooperatives to work extra hard and deliver to the expectations of the Local Authority without disappointment, emphasizing on quality and timely delivery of the desks.

Lumezi Town Council has so far delivered more than 9,000 desks procured using the 2022, 2023 and 2024 Constituency Development Fund CDF to mitigate the desks deficit in schools and as a response to  the presidential directive that no pupil should sit on the floor during lessons.

HON MUNDUBILE URGES PRESIDENT HICHILEMA TO REPEAL AND REPLACE CYBER SECURITY ACT

Tonse Alliance National Chairperson for  Parliamentary Affairs Hon. Brian Mundubile has urged President Hakainde Hichilema to repeal and replace the Cyber Security law.

Speaking to the media today, Hon Mundubile said the process to which the Cyber bills were enacted into law is questionable.

He explained that the reactions from different stakeholders point to the fact that these are bad laws.

He is saddened that the bills have been enacted into law in the same manner that it was presented to the committee without consideration of stakeholders concerns.

Hon Mundubile has accused the UPND of using the  arrogance of numbers and ignore the recommendations that come from the committees.

“UPND have made leslative process academic because the bills that come on the floor of the house are in the original form without considering concerns from Stakeholders.  What is strange is that whenever the UPND is doing something, they are very quick to go to social media and traditional media whenever they think they are doing something good. But on these particular bills, the country came to learn about the bills when the Americans issued a notice to its citizens advising them on some of the concerns on the provisions,” he said.

[quads id=11]

Meanwhile, Hon Mundubile has dispelled assertions that the bills were agreed to unanimously by MPS.

He said these bills that are now law were objected to by members of parliament.

“The bills first came on the floor of the house in December, because of the objections…. the Minister in charge of the bills was forced to defer the bills. The reasons was that there was need for more consultation. The minister assured the Zambians that he was taking the pull back for further consultation. The report came with recommendations that there was need for further consultation because stakeholders that appeared before the committee objected to the clauses that were in those bills,” Hon Mundubile explained.

He said fundamental rights of citizens will be violated with the Cyber security Law and Cyber Crimes Bill.

Hon Mundubile said these two pieces of legislation are bad for the people of Zambia

“Remember Mr President that in your presentations to the youths, you contended that many youths who could not freely use TV, Radio had an opportunity to participate in the running of the country through social media. The bills are questionable in that the report that accompanied the bill from the committee guides parliament on the sentiments of other stakeholders.  Remember we are only 164 together with nominated members of us as representatives of the 20 million people. 

A wisdom of setting up committes is such that away from the members of parliament, stakeholders are able to project their views directly through the committees. Many stakeholders turned up because these were laws of interest given modern society.  A number of stakeholders appeared and expressed their concerns,” he said.

The ‘fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it’: Understanding Hichilema’s transition from a blue-eyed reformist to a despot

By Sishuwa Sishuwa

●Under his watch, corruption is thriving on a massive scale, the economy is a shambles, ethnic divisions are worsening, and the nation’s democracy is essentially non-existent…

The fear of losing power – and the economic and political benefits that come with it – after only one term in office is evident in President Hakainde Hichilema’s increasingly panicky and politically suicidal decisions.

At the heart of this clear expression of political insecurity is a realisation by Hichilema that he has failed to deliver many of his campaign promises and grown unpopular.

[quads id=11]

This situation has left the president susceptible to defeat in next year’s election, if the opposition can unite behind a strong candidate who is able to articulate an alternative national programme or vision that resonates with the concerns of majority voters.

It has also instilled fear in him and members of his inner circle. They are terrified of losing everything they have accumulated thus far and the foundations they have laid for further accumulation, as well as of the possibility of ending up in jail for possible corruption and criminal misuse of state power.

Hichilema came to power in August 2021. Years of economic mismanagement, grand corruption, and democratic erosion under his predecessor, Edgar Lungu, disappointed voters, and enabled Hichilema, who spent a decade and half in opposition politics, to position himself as the reformist leader Zambia needed to reclaim its democracy, eliminate corruption, and set itself on a possible path to economic recovery.

In power, Hichilema has turned out to be nearly everything he detested about his predecessor, and, in some cases, much worse.

After he commendably abolished the law on defamation of the president, he quickly turned to other repressive statutes to arrest critics and political opponents on a variety of charges such as sedition, criminal libel, hate speech, espionage, and unlawful assembly.

Under his watch, corruption is thriving on a massive scale, the economy is a shambles, ethnic divisions are worsening, and the nation’s democracy is essentially non-existent.

The man who was expected to lead a reformist drive has instead transitioned into an aspiring despot.

At the heart of this unwanted turnaround is fear – the fear of losing power. In her book, Freedom from Fear and Other Writings, the Burmese human rights activist Aung San Suu Kyi wrote that “It is not power that corrupts but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it.”

This anticipated loss of economic and political power is the fear that has engulfed Hichilema.

In a bid to prevent this real prospect of losing the 2026 election, his administration is enacting a series of repressive legislation that aim to undermine the constitution and stifle the freedoms of ordinary citizens, civil society, journalists, and opposition political parties.

Some of these anti-democratic laws are already in force while others are in the pipeline.

Below, I discuss a few of them and their intended victims.

Corrupting the constitution

The first victim of Hichilema’s creation of legal autocracy is Zambia’s constitution. Here, the goal of his announced changes to the constitution is the control of parliament.

After using the courts to block his main rival, former president Lungu, from contesting the 2026 election, Hichilema is relatively confident of winning the presidential election.

Furthermore, he has appointed loyalists to head the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ), the body that manages the election, and reconstituted the Constitutional Court (ConCourt), the institution that has the final say on all matters relating to the election of the president including petitions.

For instance, the president has appointed his former personal lawyer, Mwangala Zaloumis, to chair the electoral body.

Since its creation in 1996, the ECZ has benefited from having as chairpersons a series of former High Court or Supreme Court judges who commanded the respect of all political players and enhanced its credibility.

Zaloumis, who has never served in a judicial role, was nominated for a position that required a simple majority for confirmation.

The opposition in parliament opposed her nomination, but it was ultimately approved with the support of MPs from Hichilema’s party.

Hichilema has also appointed four new judges to the ConCourt (including a close personal friend), sacked three who had been appointed by Lungu, and promoted those seen as predisposed towards him to the court’s key leadership positions. Hichilema is worried that he could win the presidential election but lose control of parliament, where rigging is harder even with his supporters in charge of ECZ.

To avoid this situation, the president has proposed two constitutional amendments to secure his party’s majority in parliament.

One proposal is to reportedly increase the number of parliamentary constituencies by ninety seats, with most of them in the president’s strongholds, through delimitation.

Another proposal is to increase the number of nominations the president can make as MPs from the current limit of eight, as protected by the constitution, to a number determined by an Act of Parliament.

The Constitutional Amendment Bill containing these and other controversial proposals, none of which were agreed upon through broad consensus, will be released next month and brought before parliament in June.

Hichilema and his officials are already boasting that they have secured the two-thirds majority support needed in parliament to ensure the bill’s passage when it is tabled for voting in July this year.

Should these proposals pass, they will enable Hichilema to make further changes to the constitution after conducting either the by-elections that could be created by the passage of the bill, or the next general election.

If a sitting president can rig an election, control the ConCourt, and compose parliament, it is hard to see how they can ever be voted out of office. 

The danger here is that when people lose trust in formal institutions including the use of elections as the best mechanism of changing governments, the risk of violence and instability is greater.

This might explain why Hichilema recently bizarrely urged soldiers to be lethal when dealing with civilians, should a situation arise where they would be deployed to perform functions that are ordinarily reserved for the police such as containing possible civil unrest.

Policing social media

The second victim of Hichilema’s implementation of legal autocracy is freedom of expression. Here, the target are ordinary Zambians who use X, WhatsApp, Instagram, TikTok, and Facebook, to hold the government to account. A bit of context is essential to understanding this point.

In opposition, Hichilema defended citizens’ use of these social media platforms as an essential element of free speech especially whenever police arrested his predecessor’s critics for online-related offences.

When Lungu, under the guise of preventing and punishing cyber-crimes, signed the Cyber Security and Cyber Crimes Act ahead of the 2021 election, Hichilema made an accurate assessment of its dangers. He described the Act as a threat to democracy and vowed to repeal it, if elected. “That terrible law will die alongside the Public Order Act. Change is coming”, he wrote on X five months before he won power.

[quads id=11]

Hichilema later added: “They have temporarily taken away your freedom of speech and expression through the rushed Cyber Security bill to stop you questioning their incompetence and corruption. Our first task once you elect us this August will be to repeal this bad law! The Cyber Security and Crime Bill is not about preventing cyber-bullying. It is about clamping down on freedom of expression and spying on citizens.”

After Zambians voted for him, Hichilema changed his tune. Social media became a menace that “is challenging democracies around the issues of facts as we discharge information to the public”. In addition, the Cyber Security and Cyber Crimes Act became an acceptable law that his administration regularly used to arrest his critics and political opponents. When ordinary citizens turned the heat on Hichilema and produced social media posts of his unfulfilled campaign promises including the pledge to repeal the ‘spying’ law, the president accused them of spending “too much time on social media” and using the platform to promote hate speech, cybercrimes, bullying, and misleading information – the same justifications Lungu had provided when introducing the law.

Addressing parliament in March 2022, an agitated Hichilema described social media as “a vice [that] must not be celebrated or condoned”, vowed “to put a stop to irresponsible use of ICT as well as social media platforms”, and promised that “laws to protect citizens from this illegality will be enforced vigorously.”

Instead of only repealing the Lungu-era Cyber Security and Cyber Crimes Act, as he had promised, Hichilema decided to divide it into two: the Cyber Security Act and the Cyber Crimes Act, both of which contain more punitive sections than the original law. Before they received presidential assent, the Acts were strongly opposed by civil society, ordinary Zambians, and opposition parties.

Even the United States Chamber of Commerce asked Hichilema “to consider the potential impact of this legislation on foreign investment and the technology sector”, fearing that they “could dissuade other American firms from entering the Zambian market due to the perceived risks associated with operating under such a regulatory framework.”

Hichilema, who has consistently shown little regard for public sentiment, ignored this combined opposition, used his party’s parliamentary majority to pass the bills, and signed them into law on 8 April.

The new Cyber Crimes Act contains dreadful sections that are both at variance with the principles of a constitutional democracy and much worse than the law that Hichilema had condemned when in opposition. As the US Embassy in Zambia wrote in a travel alert to its citizens, the legislation makes it a legal requirement for electronic communications service providers to enable real-time monitoring and interception of all communications such as emails, text messages, calls, and streamed content in search of “critical information”, a term the law defines so broadly that it could apply to almost any activity, and to transmit the intercepted communications to a unit in Hichilema’s office.

Some of the sections are terrifying. Here are a few random examples.

Section 5: It is an offence to communicate “critical information” to someone not authorised. (15 years imprisonment).

Section 6: It is an offence to possess “critical information” without authorisation (15 years imprisonment).

Section 20: It is an offence to use a computer or computer system for an activity which constitutes an offence under any written law.

Section 24: It is an act of cyber terrorism to incite or attempt to incite ethnic divisions among the people of the Republic (imprisonment for life)!

Critical information is defined in the Cyber Security Act as “computer data that relates to public safety, public health, economic stability, national security, international stability and the sustainability and restoration of critical cyberspace including — (a) personal data that is managed, stored or transmitted through critical information infrastructure or processed by a controller; (b) information relating to any research and development in relation to critical information infrastructure; (c) information needed to operate critical information infrastructure; or (d) information relating to risk management and business continuity in relation to critical information infrastructure”.

The vague definitions of terms used in the Cyber Security Act, the broad discretion given to law enforcement officers and the absence of judicial safeguards leave the two Acts open to abuse. This could lead to what Hichilema in opposition called the “clamping down on freedom of expression and spying on citizens.” With these new laws, there is limitless potential to crack down on any criticism of the government especially since this could happen in real time with the interception of all electronic communication.

The prohibition of use of computers or computer systems for offences, as section 20 does, places a burden on citizens to comb through not just the Cybercrimes Act but all written laws in Zambia to identify possible offences, effectively prohibiting the use of computers and bringing about self-censorship.

If I or anyone else criticised President Hichilema for promoting ethnic divisions through skewed distribution of appointments to public office, police are obliged to arrest us for the offence of cyber terrorism that carries a sentence of life imprisonment.

If I am, or anyone else is, sharing information deemed “critical” by the authorities, police are obliged to arrest us for the offence of unauthorised disclosure of data relating to critical information or critical information infrastructure that carries 15 years’ imprisonment.

The Cyber Crimes Act is thus likely to curtail free speech, undermine legitimate criticism of elected public leaders, and instil fear in citizens. As Aung San Suu Kyi noted, “Within a system which denies the existence of basic human rights, fear tends to be the order of the day. Fear of imprisonment, fear of torture, fear of death, fear of losing friends, family, property or means of livelihood, fear of poverty, fear of isolation, fear of failure. A most insidious form of fear is that which masquerades as common sense or even wisdom, condemning as foolish, reckless, insignificant, or futile the small, daily acts of courage which help to preserve man’s self-respect and inherent human dignity. It is not easy for a people conditioned by fear under the iron rule of the principle that might is right to free themselves from the enervating miasma of fear.”

Through the new cyber laws, Hichilema is testing our ability to defend our rights, to think, hold opinions and to freely publish such opinions. He is also effectively undermining media freedom without closing newspapers and imprisoning their workers by ensuring that they employ self-censorship. By using legal mechanisms to subvert, Hichilema is seeking, in the short-term, to wrongfoot his critics by pointing out that he is merely presiding according to the laws of the country and, in the long term, to consolidate and retain State power through the use of formal institutions to eliminate any serious political competition.

The most frightening part is that Hichilema’s bid to install legal autocracy in Zambia is not complete. In the offing are several even more repressive bills that will soon come to light. One is the Zambia Institute of Journalism Bill 2025 which is designed to provide for stringent conditions for the registration, licensing, and control of journalists and the print media. Another is the Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA) Bill which is set to muzzle and control the broadcast media even more strictly. Then, there is the Public Gatherings Bill which is intended to severely restrict the political activities of opposition parties. The final one is the Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) Bill which is meant to strictly regulate the activities of NGOs.

Owing to pressing work-related commitments, I cannot analyse each of these impending bills in detail today. In any case, there are other intellectuals, such as Muna Ndulo, O’Brien Kaaba, Munyonzwe Hamalengwa, and Privilege Hang’andu, who criticised Lungu-era autocratic tendencies and who, I suppose, are as outraged by Hichilema’s expression of similar tendencies. Unless their criticism of Lungu’s leadership was motivated by other considerations, I imagine they are about to condemn Hichilema’s actions and speak out in defence of the constitution and our democracy. Should they remain silent, I promise to continue the discussion at the earliest opportunity.

I should end by noting that the grave mistake that Hichilema is making in pushing these repressive laws on Zambians is the failure to realise that authority cannot be exercised without legitimacy. Elite and popular legitimacy is the foundation of any political system especially a democratic one like Zambia’s. Unjust laws create illegitimate systems. Under an illegitimate system, people might obey the law because if they do not, they risk arrest. As well as depriving such laws of the moral force they require to enjoy legitimacy, this feeling of fear among the ordinary people is likely to only increase their desire to get rid of the source of their collective fear: the president. In introducing these repressive laws, Hichilema is seeking to prolong his stay in power. The irony is that these laws are likely to expedite his removal from office.

It is now clear that Hichilema fooled many Zambians, including me, into believing that he was what he is, in fact, not. The Hichilema we are seeing now is the real Hichilema. The one we were sold in opposition was a fraud. In opposition, Hichilema defended the use of social media, opposed his predecessor’s attempts to both regulate civil society or NGOs and introduce statutory regulation of journalists. He also vowed to repeal anti-democratic laws and enact in their place progressive legislation that would promote human rights and help strengthen accountable democratic governance. In power, he is doing the opposite of nearly everything he promised. Zambians have discovered the key to understanding Hichilema: believing what he does, not what he says, and knowing that he almost always means the opposite of what he says.

Any sane, objective, and keen observer can easily notice that Hichilema is determined to further destroy Zambia’s democracy. Sustaining this destruction might soon require those in power to start eliminating pro-democracy activists, critics, and political opponents. If I end up as one of the victims, so be it. I am convinced that liberty is the right of every person to be honest with others and with themselves, to think and to speak without hypocrisy or fear, to risk anything in order to live the dictates of their conscience and to give full expression to the courage of their convictions, and to hoist and proclaim virtue. I am consistent with my beliefs, many of which have taken root and become purified.

Let Hichilema and his supporters know one thing: like many ordinary Zambians, the only thing that will shut me up is the provision of competent and quality leadership that would restore our cherished democracy, get the best out of Zambia’s mineral wealth, respect the constitution and the rule of law, fight corruption beyond rhetoric, promote genuine national unity and equitable distribution of appointments to public service, sort out the cost-of-living crisis and the deplorable conditions of life for most Zambians, and at all times conduct itself in a manner that would inspire the highest expression of ethical values – courage, compassion and love for fellow human beings, moral force of character, integrity, genuine humility, honesty, a predilection for consultation, consensus-building, communication, co-operation, active listening, and the selfless pursuit of the public good, and not the selfish striving for personal gain.

Like many ordinary Zambians, I too will not be silenced by the unjust and repressive laws Hichilema is manufacturing. Using my pen and voice, I will keep fighting in my little corner for a better Zambia until victory or death, whichever comes first. For the love of the nation and in the service of

MEDIA FRATERNITY SAYS NO TO ZAMBIA INSTITUTE OF JOURNALISM BILL AND STATUTORY MEDIA REGULATION

Lusaka, April 20 – We the undersigned organisations are taken aback and surprised at the emergency of yet another Bill meant to curtail media freedom through statutory regulation.

[quads id=11]

As stakeholders in the media industry, we have not been aware of any process to draft the Zambia Institue of Journalism Bill and we would like to register our regret and strongest opposition to the proposed media regulation Bill.

This is the second Bill attempting to regulate the media after the ZAMEC Bill was halted by the Government some two years ago following a similar protest from several media stakeholders.

We would like to remind the nation that the Republican President Mr. Hakainde Hichilema as well as the Minister of Information and Media, Mr. Cornelius Mweetwa, are on record on numerous occasions where they gave assurances that Governance does not intend to regulate the media through any statutory mechanism.

Accordingly, through several engagements with journalists and other stakeholders at different levels, a media self regulatory mechanism framework was established with full endorsement and support from the government.

Today, journalists from across the country are currently subscribed to the code of ethics established by the Media Self Regulation Council of Zambia.

We therefore urge technocrats in the Ministry of Information and Media to stop misleading Government through schemes meant to create an impression that journalists in Zambia are in support of statutory regulation when in fact not.

No journalist worth their salt can accept to be used to rubber-stamp the statutory regulation process. The collective cry of journalists in Zambia has been for a repeal of the existing draconian laws that are prohibitive of independent and investigative journalism. Statutory regulation is, and will always be, inimical to media freedoms.

As media stakeholders, we are particularly concerned that this secretive Zambia Institute of Journalism Bill, is coming at such a critical time when many stakeholders are opposed to the proposed constitutional amendments as well as the recently enacted Cyber Crimes Laws.

We urge the Government to put aside the proposed Zambia Institute of Journalism Bill and instead support an already existing media self regulation mechanism.

Signed:
Media Owners Association of Zambia
Media Institute of Southern Africa
Catholic Media Services
BBC Media Action
Panos Institute of Southern Africa
Free Press Initiative
Media Self Regulation Council of Zambia

Hypocritical and Desperate Cry from the UPND

It is both laughable and insulting to the intelligence of Zambians for UPND National Youth Chairman Gilbert Liswaniso to claim that changing government is not the solution and that citizens must simply endure suffering. This is the height of hypocrisy.

Where was this gospel of endurance when UPND was in the opposition? Did they not champion street protests, press briefings, and public outrage under the Patriotic Front, condemning every policy they deemed anti-poor?

If endurance was their moral compass, why didn’t they quietly stomach the PF regime’s shortcomings? Instead, they promised change, economic transformation, jobs for the youth, and a new dawn. Today, the same UPND that rode into power on the backs of angry, frustrated citizens now demands that the people keep quiet, suffer silently, and wait indefinitely  all while they live lavishly, abuse state institutions, and suppress dissent with draconian tactics.

Let it be known endurance is not a substitute for accountability.

The Constitution of Zambia, under Article 45(c), promotes an accountable, responsive, and transparent democratic government. Article 60 further guarantees citizens the right to participate in governance and to challenge policies and actions that fail to meet public interest. Therefore, calling for a change of government is not only lawful  it is patriotic.

Ironically, President Hakainde Hichilema himself once said:
“If government fails to improve people’s lives, the people must change that government.”
Now that this government has clearly failed, why should Liswaniso preach the opposite?

Let us be clear there is no shame in changing a failed government. What is shameful is clinging to power through lies, intimidation, and manipulation. If there is a party that has perfected the art of deception, it is the UPND. You promised the people hope, but you have delivered despair. You spoke of the rule of law, but you enforce tyranny. You are not a new dawn  you are a recycled nightmare.

If Zambians could change PF for failing them in same ways, they can and must change UPND for betraying them. The country cannot afford five more years of empty promises, economic sabotage, and political gaslighting.

We will not endure oppression. We will confront it.
We will not submit to lies. We will reject them at the ballot.
Zambia belongs to the people not to Liswaniso and his cartel of political hypocrites.

Abraham Simpamba
Together We Can
Ichalo Bantu.

The Constitutional Tension Between Zambia’s Cyber Laws and the Bill of Rights

By Brian Matambo – A citizen of Africa!

Abstract: This article explores the legal inconsistencies, lacunas, and constitutional conflicts introduced by Zambia’s Cyber Security Act (No. 3 of 2025) and the Cyber Crimes Act (No. 4 of 2025) in light of the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment Act No. 2 of 2016) and the Bill of Rights. While the cyber laws aim to secure digital infrastructure and combat crime, they at times infringe upon or operate in tension with constitutionally enshrined rights and liberties.

I. Introduction Zambia’s recent enactment of the Cyber Security and Cyber Crimes Acts of 2025 reflect the State’s desire to protect its citizens and infrastructure from digital threats. However, the noble ends do not always justify the legal means. A thorough review of these statutes reveals that certain provisions not only suffer from legislative overreach but also directly breach the sacrosanct Bill of Rights.

[quads id=11]

II. Discrepancies and Breaches

A. The Right to Privacy vs. Broad Interception Powers Article 32 of the Bill of Rights protects citizens from unwarranted searches and seizures and guarantees privacy of communications. However, Section 29 of the Cyber Security Act empowers the Central Monitoring and Coordination Centre to intercept communications without transparent safeguards or independent judicial oversight. This violates the spirit and letter of constitutional privacy protections and opens the door to abuse and surveillance overreach.

B. Freedom of Expression and Information Suppression The Bill of Rights (Art. 34) affirms every citizen’s right to freedom of expression, including receiving and imparting information. Yet, the Cyber Crimes Act criminalizes “transmission of deceptive electronic communication” (Section 19) and broadly defines cyber harassment and humiliation (Section 22), terms that are not rigorously defined. These vague standards risk being used to stifle dissent and suppress unpopular or critical speech, thereby violating Article 34 and 35 of the Bill of Rights.

C. Arbitrary Administrative Authority vs. Supremacy of Constitution Section 3 of the Constitution declares it the supreme law, rendering any inconsistent statutory provision void. Yet, the Cyber Security Act creates powerful administrative bodies like the Zambia Cyber Security Agency (Section 3) and grants them powers (e.g., cyber audits under Section 14) that can interfere with private enterprise and individual freedoms without judicial authorization. This discretionary power, without adequate checks and balances, poses a constitutional threat to the principle of legality and due process under Article 44 of the Bill of Rights.

III. Legal Lacunae

A. Lack of Independent Oversight Neither Act provides for a fully independent regulatory body or oversight mechanism to review complaints of abuse, particularly concerning surveillance or data interception. This is a crucial omission given the risk of constitutional violations in digital space.

B. No Explicit Protection of Journalistic Activity The laws are silent on protecting journalists and whistleblowers who might use digital platforms to expose corruption or public wrongs. Such omission threatens freedom of media under Article 36 and access to information under Article 35.

IV. Conflicts and Constitutional Challenges

A. Offences vs. Presumption of Innocence Sections 3 to 8 of the Cyber Crimes Act criminalize various digital acts without always requiring mens rea (criminal intent), and enforcement can rely on metadata or vague cyber behavior. This undermines the presumption of innocence enshrined under Article 48 of the Bill of Rights.

B. Potential for Abuse Under Interception Clauses Sections 21 to 40 of the Cyber Security Act empower surveillance that can be conducted without warrant or parliamentary oversight. This contradicts Article 1(1) of the Constitution, which voids any law inconsistent with the Constitution.

C. The Supremacy Clause Violated By designating government agencies to be both enforcers and adjudicators (e.g., Cyber Security Agency), the Acts contravene Article 1(3) and (5), which vest interpretation and constitutional review power exclusively in the Constitutional Court.

V. Conclusion The intention behind Zambia’s cyber legislation is laudable. However, the methods adopted betray a lack of constitutional fidelity and institutional restraint. For the Republic to remain a constitutional democracy, its laws—no matter how modern or well-meaning—must kneel before the altar of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The current state of cyber law in Zambia demands urgent judicial review and legislative amendment. The future of Zambia’s democracy depends not only on secure networks, but on safeguarding the sacred network of rights that define its people’s dignity, liberty, and justice.

Citations:

Constitution of Zambia (Amendment), Act No. 2 of 2016

Bill of Rights, Part V

Cyber Security Act, No. 3 of 2025

Cyber Crimes Act, No. 4 of 2025

M’MEMBE’S PARTY WANTS ONE STRONG OPPOSITION TO FACE HICHILEMA
…Writes To UKA

As we reported yesterday there are serious maneuvers to have one strong opposition face Hakainde Hichilema in 2026 elections.

Hichilema the incumbent President of Zambia has vowed to remain in office saying the opposition has to be strong to get him out the seat.

He says we mean Hichilema cannot easily be pushed out having spent all the years in opposition. He had five unsuccessful attempts at the presidency. He adds that his party UPND suffered the most brutality under the PF.

[quads id=11]

It looks Hichilema would use all tricks which he calls imingalato to remain on the seat where he says he has put African glue.

It seems this message is now sinking in the opposition. It is now dawning that they equally need to leave no room but face Hichilema as one strong opposition.

Fred M’membe who heads the opposition Socialist Party which is a Socialist by ideology is going to bed with the capitalists in order to have one strong opposition.

His Close Ally Cosmas Musumali who is the Socialist Party Secretary General has written to another three member opposition grouping, United Kwacha Alliance for a collaboration.

Dr Musumali in his letter seen by Zambian Eye says the Socialist Party is ready to meet the UKA leadership at the earliest convenient time.

UKA comprises of basically Hary Kalaba a former Minister under PF who heads an opposition party called Citizens First, Sakwiba Sikota who leads a little known political party called United Liberal Party which he formed after breaking away from UPND in 2006 and other small individually political parties.

This development comes two days after the Edgar Lungu opposition grouping Tonse Alliance disclosed that Dr M’membe and his Socialist Party had applied to join the Alliance.

Insiders say Dr M’membe a Veteran Journalist turned politician has seen it through that a fragmented opposition cannot face Hichilema.

You have a very strong and brave President, Hichilema told his Supporters recently when he visited the party offices. He assured them that the party would continue but urged them to start mobilizing ahead of 2026 elections.

Lungu Zambia’s sixth president says he would work and ensure that the opposition come together and wins 2026 elections.

What remains to be seen is whether they would agree on who heads the opposition with Lungu having been barred by Constitutional Court to contest any future elections.

Here is what Fred M’membe wrote about the opposition uniting;

LET’S UNITE AND DEFEAT THIS CRUEL REGIME

The unity of our diverse political and civic organisations and the unity of our people –  these are the basic guarantees of the sure triumph of our struggle against this tyrannical, cruel, corrupt, divisive regime of Mr Hakainde Hichilema and the UPND.

It is only through the unity of our political and civic organisations  that the unity of the whole nation can be achieved, and it is only through the unity of  the whole nation that the many challenges facing our people can be overcome.

It is imperative to overcome anything that impairs this unity.

Let’s unite and defeat this cruel regime.
If we unite and work hard, the masses of our people will soon rise like a mighty storm, a force so swift that no power will be able to hold it back.
Let’s be courageous, dare to struggle, and defy difficulties. Every night has its morning.

It gets dark sometimes, but the morning comes.
Historically, all tyrannical forces on the verge of extinction invariably conduct a last desperate struggle against the forces of progress, and some progressive people are apt to be deluded for a time by this phenomenon of outward strength but inner weakness failing to grasp the essential fact that tyranny is nearing extinction while they themselves are approaching victory.

Zambia’s problems are complicated, and our brains must also be a little complicated. If they resort to violence, they start fighting, we fight back, fight to win peace. If anyone attacks us and if the conditions are favourable, we should certainly act in self-defense. We must never be cowed by the bluster of these tyrants, cruel, and violent elements.

As far as our own desire is concerned, we do not want violence; we do not want to fight even for a single moment. However, if circumstances force us to defend ourselves, we should defend ourselves to the finish.

We are for peace. But so long as this tyrannical regime refuses to give up its arrogant,  unreasonable, and intolerant attitude and its scheme of violence, the only course for us is to defend ourselves. Not that we are violent.

We should rid our ranks of all impotent thinking. All views that overestimate the strength of this tyrannical regime and underestimate the strength of the people are wrong.

We shouldn’t pin our hopes for victory in next year’s elections on the “sensibleness” of this tyrannical regime. We will only win by strengthening our unity and persevering in our struggles.

In short, we must be prepared. Being prepared, we shall be able to deal properly with all kinds of complicated situations.

Fred M’membe
President of the Socialist Party.

Zambian Eye. 19th April 2025

LET’S UNITE AND DEFEAT THIS CRUEL REGIME

The unity of our diverse political and civic organisations and the unity of our people –  these are the basic guarantees of the sure triumph of our struggle against this tyrannical, cruel, corrupt, divisive regime of Mr Hakainde Hichilema and the UPND.

[quads id=11]

It is only through the unity of our political and civic organisations  that the unity of the whole nation can be achieved, and it is only through the unity of  the whole nation that the many challenges facing our people can be overcome.

It is imperative to overcome anything that impairs this unity.

Let’s unite and defeat this cruel regime.
If we unite and work hard, the masses of our people will soon rise like a mighty storm, a force so swift that no power will be able to hold it back.
Let’s be courageous, dare to struggle, and defy difficulties. Every night has its morning.

It gets dark sometimes, but the morning comes.
Historically, all tyrannical forces on the verge of extinction invariably conduct a last desperate struggle against the forces of progress, and some progressive people are apt to be deluded for a time by this phenomenon of outward strength but inner weakness failing to grasp the essential fact that tyranny is nearing extinction while they themselves are approaching victory.

Zambia’s problems are complicated, and our brains must also be a little complicated. If they resort to violence, they start fighting, we fight back, fight to win peace. If anyone attacks us and if the conditions are favourable, we should certainly act in self-defense. We must never be cowed by the bluster of these tyrants, cruel, and violent elements.

As far as our own desire is concerned, we do not want violence; we do not want to fight even for a single moment. However, if circumstances force us to defend ourselves, we should defend ourselves to the finish.

We are for peace. But so long as this tyrannical regime refuses to give up its arrogant,  unreasonable, and intolerant attitude and its scheme of violence, the only course for us is to defend ourselves. Not that we are violent.

We should rid our ranks of all impotent thinking. All views that overestimate the strength of this tyrannical regime and underestimate the strength of the people are wrong.

We shouldn’t pin our hopes for victory in next year’s elections on the “sensibleness” of this tyrannical regime. We will only win by strengthening our unity and persevering in our struggles.

In short, we must be prepared. Being prepared, we shall be able to deal properly with all kinds of complicated situations.

Fred M’membe
President of the Socialist Party