In a significant constitutional battle, the Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) has vowed to take the recently enacted Cyber Security and Cyber Crimes legislation to the High Court, arguing that several key provisions within the laws threaten fundamental rights and could undermine Zambia’s democratic institutions.
On April 21, 2025, LAZ President Lungisani Zulu issued a sharply critical statement, confirming that the Association will pursue judicial review of the Cyber Security Act No. 3 and Cyber Crimes Act No. 4 of 2025, which were passed earlier this year. LAZ contends that the laws are “overbroad and dangerous,” particularly in how they relate to civil liberties, with a focus on freedom of expression and press freedom, which are protected under Article 20 of the Zambian Constitution.
“Many provisions within these Acts not only undermine the freedom of the press but also pose a direct threat to Zambia’s democratic ethos,” Zulu stated. He emphasized that the legislation grants excessive powers that could be used to silence dissent and criminalize legitimate journalistic activities.
One of the central issues raised by LAZ is Section 19 of the Cyber Crimes Act, which criminalizes “misleading” digital headlines. This provision, according to LAZ, could potentially imprison journalists for editorial decisions, with a penalty of up to seven years in prison. The Association warned that this clause could be weaponized to stifle critical reporting and create a chilling effect on the media.
Further concerns were raised about Sections 5 and 6, which penalize the unauthorized possession or dissemination of computer data tied to national security or public safety. LAZ argues that these sections are too broad and could be used to target journalists, whistleblowers, and others engaged in reporting or exposing corruption and governmental misconduct. The provision could criminalize routine journalistic practices, undermining both press freedom and transparency.
Additionally, LAZ took issue with Section 24(1)(b), which defines incitement to ethnic division as an act of terrorism punishable by life imprisonment. While the Association remains firmly against tribalism, it cautioned that the provision could be misused to target opposition voices under the guise of preserving national unity. “The law could be selectively enforced, which may allow political opponents to be unfairly targeted,” the statement warned.
The location of the newly established Zambia Cyber Security Agency, placed under the Office of the President, has also drawn LAZ’s scrutiny. Zulu expressed concerns that this arrangement could erode institutional checks and balances. “Situating this agency within State House invites serious governance concerns and raises the specter of cybersecurity being manipulated for political purposes,” he said.
In its statement, LAZ called for a re-evaluation of the legal framework, emphasizing the need for proportionality and sufficient oversight. “National security cannot come at the expense of democratic accountability. Any legislative response must be anchored in constitutional safeguards,” the Association declared.
The planned court action marks a critical moment in Zambia’s evolving digital governance landscape. It has the potential to set a landmark legal precedent, determining the balance between state power and individual rights in the digital age. The outcome could influence the future of press freedom, whistleblower protection, and the overall relationship between the government and the media in Zambia.