New Cyber Law will Kill Journalism
WHEN President Hakainde Hichilema scrapped the death penalty in December 2022, he provided a lot of hope in the country’s troubled law reform agenda meant to strengthen democracy.
Later, he followed that up by scrapping defamation of the president law. Chapter One Foundation, a civil society group which promotes and protects human rights and constitutionalism, the rule of law and social justice in Zambia, hailed the move noting that Zambia had made significant steps towards consolidating democracy through law reforms.
“Despite these notable legal reforms, the struggle against draconian laws is, unfortunately, not yet over,” observed the foundation.
However, more voices hailed the President’s move, including Amnesty International, Zambian citizens and some political figures. By abolishing the death penalty, Zambia became the 25th in Africa out of the 170 in the world that have outlawed the death penalty, according to the news site Africa Blogging.
But while the country is celebrating the above score, the government has enacted the Cyber Security and Cyber Crimes law. What a contradiction! in the face of the initiators the new law is meant to curb online communication excesses while in reality the legislation is a slap in the face of many Zambians and a greater threat to journalism.
The Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) says the provisions in the new law infringe upon the rights and freedoms of citizens, hinder a free press and have the potential to undermine the country’s cherished democracy.
Even without the enactment of the new cyber law, there are a lot others that have dealt with what are termed “excesses”. The Penal Code has a litany of them.
Use of social media will be risky, especially that in some cases the law has not stipulated the excesses it intends to cure.
What is, however, clear is that journalism practice in Zambia will be hit the hardest. Since the advent of the internet in Zambia much of the communication and journalism are done on online.
The provisions in the act can be frightening; section 19, for instance, says it is an offence to publish “misleading information” for which you can be jailed for two years. But who will determine what is misleading? What if the politicians themselves deem such information misleading? Under Section 5, it is an offence to communicate “critical information”. Again, what constitutes ‘critical information’, and who determines it? Similarly, it is an offence to posses critical information. Which one? You can be jailed for 15 years just for that. Another dangerous and vague provision is section 24, which declares as “domestic terrorism” to attempt to incite ethnic divisions among the people of the republic of Zambia. You cam be jailed for life.
The above also means that much of the language used in news reports will have to be moderated or changed completely. Since much of the transmission is online, many reports will have to be guarded. I hope I am not committing a breach by making these observations since many of the breaches remain vague and, in the least, not specific.
LAZ Further observes:
“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 and sustainability.
This omission effectively criminalises the dissemination of critical information without the authorisation by the State. 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.”
What, however, is clear is that journalism, with the new law, will be under pressure if not completely obliterated. Since the attainment of democracy in 1991 subsequent governments have attempted to make a lot of reforms in line with democracy.
In the media, for instance, the major cry among the practitioners is that legally, Zambia cannot boast of having press freedom. While article 20 of the Constitution provides for free expression, there are a lot of craw-back laws that water down the main constitutional provision, the cyber law making a new addition.
The Penal Code, for instance, has provisions that make journalism practice in Zambia very difficult. What is puzzling is that in some cases acts of Parliament appear to override the main law. For instance, what becomes to the enshrined constitutional guarantees such as the right to privacy if people can peep in your WhatsApp transmission, monitor internet message flow or listen to telephone conversations?
You can not blame citizens who say that the new law is not meant to curb online excesses but deal with dissent and political opponents. It is critical to note that the UPND largely won the 2021 elections because of the effective social media campaign they undertook.
Why, then, is this law which the party opposed while in opposing being introduced a year before elections. Are you going to accuse those claiming that perhaps the move is to impede social media campaigns by those in opposition?
Generally, other than not guaranteeing acceptable freedom of the press, Zambia has done well in other media reforms. Before 1990 there were only few media outlets, the Times of Zambia, the Zambia Daily Mail, ZANIS and ZNBC, all of which are government organisations. At the time the National Mirror, then run by the Catholic Church, was the only surviving private media outlet.
After 1990 Zambia has seen unprecedented media diversity. There are more newspapers, radio stations, television broadcasting organisations than more than 30 years ago. Media diversity is a critical component in a successful democracy in that citizens would not depend on selected media organisations. The competition among them would lead to more voices being heard.
Free flow of information is another critical component in a thriving democracy. But if Zambia is going to continue unleashing political laws such as the current one what the country has achieved in media and other reforms will blow up into dust.
It is unfair to continue squeezing Zambia’s fragile media, because the landscape is extremely lean. Other than the government media organisations, those in private hands are really struggling, not because they want to, but the conditions and circumstances are unfavourable.
They have to contend with poor cash flow, operational problems arising from limited to none resources. Zambia’s economy, which is import-oriented, possess great challenges in sourcing equipment and other resources.
Running a hard copy newspaper requires that you import newsprint, inks and other materials. With the unstbale foreign exchange rate an organisation needs a lot of money in kwacha cover. So introducing laws which injure journalism practice will kill Zambia’s private media, especially, which has been playing a crucial complementary role.
Should many media organisations get squeezed out of business through unfriendly laws, hundreds of young men and women working in these outlets will be out of employment. Does the government which promised a new dawn want to see these kids working for newspapers, television and radio stations as well as online outlets get relegated into junkies? Unless the government continues with reforms such as the removal of the death penalty and defamation of the president, laws like the one on cyber space use will achieve just that.
Hicks Sikazwe is author of Zambia’s Fallback Presidents, Wasted Years, and Voters in Shadows. He is former Deputy editor in Chief of Times of Zambia, now Communications and Media Affairs Advocate.
Comments 0955/0966929611 or hpsikazwe@gmail.com
