What type of ba pungwe
are we dealing with?
Today telling the President of this country that he is “chimbwi without a plan” as they did when they were in opposition will get you arrested and sent to some remote corner of Zambia for detention, charging and prosecution. It reminds us of the colonial cruelty where Simon Kapwepwe from Chinsali would be detained in Mongu, Sikota Wina from Mongu would be incarcerated in Luwingu, Kenneth Kaunda from Chinsali would be imprisoned in Kabompo and so on and so forth!
What has happened to the Golden Maxim: ‘Do onto others as you would want them to do unto you’?
What type of ba pungwe are we dealing with? Truly, ubucenjeshi bwa ababufi tatulingile ukusakamana – bwabanga ubucenjeshi bwa nkoko!
They seem to have very selective short memories for ba pungwe.
Calling leaders this and that are common practices in a democratic society. Even in our traditional society chiefs were subjects of satirical oration and ribaldry. Surely, the egos and intolerance of our so called modern leaders would look very primitive in the eyes of our ancestors.
But in today’s Zambia such utterances can lead to criminal charges and land you in police cells far away from your home, even if what you say is true.
Today criminal defamation laws remain potent weapons to be used by those in power to silence non-violent criticism and opposition.
We have enough civil remedies to protect the reputations of individuals, including the President. Defamation laws exist to protect individuals from having their reputations intentionally and falsely tarnished by others. Civil defamation laws allow an injured party to sue and seek remedies ranging from monetary compensation to an apology or retraction and exist in all or virtually all countries.
International human rights law allows for some restrictions on freedom of expression to protect the reputations of others, but such restrictions must be necessary and narrowly drawn. An increasing number of governments and international authorities believes that criminal penalties are always disproportionate punishments for reputational harm and should be abolished. As repeal of criminal defamation laws in an increasing number of countries shows, such laws are not necessary: civil defamation and criminal incitement laws are sufficient for the purpose of protecting people’s reputations and maintaining public order and can be written and implemented in ways that provide appropriate protections for freedom of expression.
Criminal defamation laws are open to manipulation by individuals with political or financial power, who can influence the behaviour of investigators, prosecutors and adjudicators. The application of criminal defamation laws in Zambia gives rise to a damaging, chilling effect on speech central to the effective functioning of a democratic society. It can seriously undermine the work of political and civil society activists.
Criminal defamation laws are also impermissible because they are more open to abuse than civil defamation provisions, and when such abuse occurs, victims can experience very harsh consequences, including detention and imprisonment. Although civil defamation laws can also be abused, their impact is not as devastating as criminal defamation laws can be.
And our criminal defamation laws contain extremely vague language. As a result, whether by design or as a result of poor drafting, those in power can use defamation laws to criminalise not only the intentional spreading of malicious lies but also citizen complaints or reports of corruption and other misconduct by public officials and critical reporting by the media.
We never expected the key leadership of the UPND to cling to criminal defamation or libel laws in the way they are today doing. We thought they would be a little bit more progressive on this score than their predecessors given how much they had suffered due to the abuse of such backward legislation. We are very disappointed.
Fred M’membe
President of the Socialist Party