By Venus N Msyani
On April 8, 2025, President Hakainde Hichilema signed the Cyber Crime and Cyber Security bills into law. Yet, more than a week later, many Zambians remained unaware of the new legislation. Surprisingly, it was the United States Embassy in Zambia that first informed the public about the law’s implications.
On April 17, the U.S. Embassy in Lusaka advised American citizens in Zambia and those planning to visit about the Cyber Security Act, warning of its broad surveillance provisions. In a statement posted on its official Facebook page, the embassy highlighted the requirement for ICT companies to proactively intercept and assess electronic communications, including calls, emails, and text messages, to determine if they contain “critical information,” a term defined so vaguely that it could encompass nearly any activity. The embassy further cautioned that intercepted communications deemed significant must be transmitted to the Zambian government.
This announcement triggered widespread discussion. Local media outlets and citizens took to social platforms to share the embassy’s statement, making it the primary source through which most Zambians learned about the new cyber law.
The way the Cyber Security Act was signed into law stands in contrast to the approach taken for the Access to Information Bill (ATI) in December 2023. When President Hichilema signed the ATI Bill, he held a press conference, signaling its importance in Zambia’s political landscape. The signing of bills is often ceremonial, conducted in front of cameras, reinforcing their significance.
Yet, the Cyber Security Bill was signed without the same visibility. This raises questions, especially given President Hichilema’s previous opposition to similar legislation introduced by past administrations. His historical stance on cyber laws was clear: he had repeatedly criticized them as tools of government surveillance. In a February 21, 2021, Facebook post, he had warned that such laws would allow the government to “listen in on private conversations, especially from citizens with dissenting views.”
By signing the Cyber Security Act with even stricter surveillance provisions, Hichilema appears to contradict his earlier promises. Avoiding media coverage of the event could be seen as an attempt to dodge criticism.
There is also speculation that the media may have been instructed not to report on the signing of the law. This would not be an unprecedented occurrence. For instance, during Hichilema’s official six-day visit to China, local media coverage of his departure was notably absent, despite extensive reporting of the visit. On ZNBC’s 19-hour news, his full back home arrival ceremony was aired, showing the President disembarking from his plane and greeting officials, something that had not happened when the president was departing for the very trip. It led to theories that Hichilema had chartered a Turkish aircraft and wished to avoid scrutiny, given his previous criticism of his predecessor’s extravagant foreign travel expenses.
Such selective reporting raises concerns about government influence over state media. If critical moments such as the signing of the Cyber Security Act are omitted from coverage, it prompts further speculation about media control under the current administration.
The fact that most Zambians learned about a major law through a foreign embassy is telling. It reflects either a deliberate attempt to downplay the bill’s introduction or a broader issue of media control. Whether Hichilema intentionally signed the law away from public view or instructed media silence, the lack of transparency contradicts his previous promises of democratic governance. In the end, the passage of this law without public discourse sets a concerning precedent for the future of digital rights and government accountability in Zambia.
