ZAMBIA’S OBSESSION WITH REGULATION: A TOOL TO SUPPRESS CRITICAL VOICES
By Dingindaba Jonah Buyoya
It is almost as if political leaders all read from the same manual book. Unfortunately, the book is a bit silly. This situation is the reason people must always find a way of being led by people who identify with them and are not so far from the real world. Granted, this is difficult because once elected, the system automatically alienates leaders from people, making them live a lie.
It seems it is almost impossible for political leaders to tell when they are being unreasonable and that is the start of the rot.
The current discussion on the need for government to regulate online media and especially podcasts may be new, but to a large extent brings back memories of how successive Zambian governments always find “innovative” ways to shut down the people’s voices.
In 2015, the Post Newspaper was shut down in the most uncommon manner. At this point, ZRA was owed millions of Kwachas, but the Post was not the only business owing. In fact, ZRA was facing a big problem with tax compliance that led to them creating an amnesty. In that year the Authority collected K29bn against the Parliament target of K31bn. The tax revenue to GDP ratio stood at 16.3 percent in 2015 compared to 16.6 percent in 2014.
The problems ZRA was facing were clearly bigger. ZRA needed reform and to relook their broader strategy. The country’s biggest private newspaper didn’t have to be closed; but let’s have it. Remember that the Post Newspaper was incredibly critical of Edgar Lungu and it would benefit him most if this Newspaper was off the streets.
April 9th, 2020, we saw the very draconian closure of privately owned Prime TV. Sources close to State House fondly recall how the closure of the TV channel was at the call of a higher power. Nothing to do with the said expired license. Agreed, Prime TV was careless to be critical of government and not have their paperwork in order; but we shouldn’t blame the victim here. Government at this point should have exercised wisdom and preserved theirs and the integrity of the country.
This is as typical as it gets. The Zambian government is happy to sit at the negotiating table with a foreign owned mining firm that has been evading tax, underpaying workers and failing to meet contractual obligations. They will go as far as finding a solution to this problem, but they won’t do the same for a Zambian owned business?
The truth is, it is much harder to rescue a privately owned media house in Zambia because it is much better for it to be closed; much better for the government.
We all know that how we share and get information has changed a lot. This change happened mainly because of two types of media: old media and new media.
New media, thanks to the internet and smartphones, is now easy for everyone to use around the world. This makes it much simpler for us to find information and entertainment, which is a big step forward for freedom of expression and getting information.
The recent intention by government to meddle in the business of private citizens’ social media postings sits at the very core of suppressing freedom of expression. In 2021, President Edgar Lungu signed the Cyber Security and Cyber Crimes Bill into law. This law was widely criticized because it meant sensoring the media and online space and ultimately stifling the freedoms of the people.
The UPND themselves were so opposed to this law that they promised to get rid of it. Cornelius Mweetwa was UPND Spokesperson, and he made it quite clear what their intentions were.
“We want to tell the nation that HH has committed to repeal the Cyber Security. That’s one of the things he will do ever. He has committed to that. Look! The freedoms of the people of this country have been invaded.”
There is never a need to “regulate” the freedoms of the people. A country like Zambia needs no new laws. Should there be a law that is applied differently when people are in the living room of their home and another when in the bedroom? The laws of this country are sufficient enough to prosecute a person that commits a crime online without the need to establish any new legislation.
When Chellah Tukuta defamed Dora Siliya on his Facebook page in 2020, the State didn’t need a new law to send him to jail. They used the long-standing charge of libel.
As Professor Rakesh Kumar puts it, social media is just a platform for expression. Holding the platform responsible for content, even if it’s clearly illegal, is like holding a transporter, restaurant owner, or cellphone network provider accountable for every discussion that happens using their services.
The fear of a heavily regulated country is that it provides a loophole for governments to oppress dissenting views; and if there’s one area we can all agree has a traceable record is how consistent Zambian governments are with this.
Online discussions reflect what’s already happening in society. If government enforces the rule of law more, people will have more freedom online and we won’t need as much regulation.
What’s next? That people must seek permission from the State before they share an opinion?
As the French proverb goes, the more things change, the more they stay the same. You would think political leaders all read from the same handbook.
