Cyber Bill Debated Again

The government’s upcoming cyber security bill is being debated in parliament again after passing its second reading only last week.  

The Patriotic Front (PF) maintain that the Cyber Security and Cyber Crimes bill is to be put in place to promote “responsible use of social media platforms”, to protect individuals from cybercrime and to arrest those who abuse these platforms. 

Opening the debate today, Kabwe Central MP Tutwa Sandani Ngulube said that the information which government requires to protect its citizens is “kept by service providers” such as WhatsApp, adding that it is these providers who are able to see where the misuse of social media is occurring.  

Hon. Jack Mwiimbu subsequently took to the floor to reiterate the United Party for National Development’s (UPND) opposition to the bill. 

As its very nature is for the ‘protection of persons against cyber crime’, some serious questions have arisen over the apparent motives behind the bill. Hon. Mwiimbu cut through the PF position, arguing that “they [the government] want to listen to whatever you say and to be saved in the server of the provider…that is what the government is saying”. 

His comments referred to the bill’s controversial Clause 54, which enables government agencies to listen in to private conversations online under a worryingly wide range of circumstances. The full clause is as follows:  

“A person who with intent to compromise the safety and security of any other person publishes information or data presented in a picture, image, text, symbol, voice or any other form in a computer system whether such information or data is false, deceptive, misleading or inaccurate commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine of not less than five hundred thousand penalty units or to imprisonment for a term of not less than five years, or to both.”

Under current Zambian law this same imprisonment period is applied to a person who illegally hunts an elephant, prompting concerns over the proportionality of the government’s response. 

The voice of the UPDN here speaks up for the rights of its citizens and follows on from clear communication from the party voicing their opposition to the bill as well as criticism of the bill from several civil society organisations.