Africa-Press – Zambia. 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.
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.
For More News And Analysis About Zambia Follow Africa-Press
