Zambia and South Sudan tighten cybercrime laws amid free speech concerns
Authorities say the new laws combat cybercrime, while rights groups question their potential impact on internet freedoms.
Zambia and South Sudan have stepped up enforcement of cybercrime laws amid concerns over their potential effects on privacy, journalism and freedom of expression.
Zambia’s government has reminded citizens and public officials that the Cyber Crimes Act No. 4 of 2025 remains fully operational, warning against the unauthorised recording and circulation of private communications.
The law, which entered into force in May 2025, makes it an offence to record a private conversation without notifying the participants.
Exceptions include unintentional recordings, certain law-enforcement situations and cases where recording is reasonably necessary to protect the lawful interests of a party to the conversation.
The renewed enforcement focus follows the detention of a Zambian journalist accused of recording and publishing audio from a private meeting. Press freedom advocates argue that the material is a matter of public interest.
South Sudan has meanwhile begun coordinated implementation of its Cybercrime and Computer Misuse Act, 2026, after President Salva Kiir instructed government institutions to enforce the legislation.
Authorities say the law will strengthen cybersecurity, protect critical infrastructure and address offences including hacking, fraud, identity-related crimes and cyber harassment.
Civil society and media rights groups have raised concerns about provisions covering ‘undesirable content’ and ‘false or misleading information’.
Critics warn that broadly worded offences could be used against journalists, political opponents and people expressing legitimate criticism online, particularly without independent oversight and clear enforcement guidelines.
Why does it matter?
The two cases demonstrate the tension between tackling genuine cybercrime and protecting fundamental rights online. Broad offences covering private communications, reputational harm and vaguely defined harmful content may create legal uncertainty for journalists, whistleblowers and ordinary users, especially when enforcement powers lack clear public-interest safeguards and independent oversight.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our chatbot!