The Future of Civic Spaces, Freedom of Speech, and Public Participation: Lessons From Southern Africa 

Introduction

In Southern Africa, several countries have long been recognised as democratic nations, characterised by relative social stability and peace. However, like many African countries, the rapid adoption of digital technologies in recent decades, is reshaping vital areas such as the cultural landscapes, societal norms and traditional legal frameworks. 

This is as governments, policymakers, and communities increasingly grapple with complex ethical and legal considerations surrounding human rights and protections in the digital age. Arguably, the most topical discussion in currently centres on the balance between promoting freedoms of speech and opinion, civic engagement, and public participation, while ensuring the protection of citizens.

This article will discuss recent developments in Southern Africa that are emerging as real-time measures of freedom of speech and inclusive civic spaces, as well as public participation and access to information in the country.  

Government actions leading to a shrinking civic space

In 2025, there have arguably been developments which have had a deleterious effect on freedom of speech in the region. These include increased arrests of opposition leaders, journalists, and ordinary citizens for their online and public comments, as well as the enactment of cyber legislation in the region, which civil society cautioned has some drawbacks regarding its effectiveness and potential misuse. 

In Zambia, for example, the government introduced in 2025 a highly contentious set of cyber legislations which has weighed on the citizenry’s engagement around political discourse and debates, largely on the social media platforms Facebook, X and TikTok.  In the last two years, this tension has arguably been starkly evident in critical processes such as the government’s introduction of new cyber legislation.

In December 2025, Ethel Chisono Edwards, a long-standing critic of President Hakainde Hichilema, was sentenced to prison in Zambia under the country’s newly enacted Cybersecurity Act and the Cyber Crimes Act. The charges stemmed from a series of videos she posted online and comments she made about the President. After pleading guilty, Edwards was sentenced to 18 months in prison. 

The case has divided public opinion, with the discourse largely coalescing around topics including whether or not the cyber legislation infringes on Edwards’ right to free speech, whether the sentence was highly punitive in order to ensure individuals’ self-censorship ahead of the elections, as well as the long-term effect of this legal outcome on the public’s perception of voicing their opinions on social media. This case highlights the challenge the Zambian government faces in balancing the need to ensure safe online spaces, free from harassment, with the requirement to uphold freedom of speech and non-censorship. 

In Lesotho, meanwhile, in July 2025, Tšepo Lipholo, the leader of Lesotho’s opposition Basotho Covenant Movement, was arrested on charges including contravening the Sedition Proclamation No.44, 1938. The charge stems from comments he made about the royal family between April 2025 and June 2025. Such actions are concerning as they risk infringing on individuals’ rights to freedom of expression as well as violating international human rights standards.

Paths towards striking a balance

On the issue of freedom of speech, the government of Zambia and Lesotho is not unique in the challenge of balancing safeguarding and legal protections with its commitment to honouring citizens’ rights in this regard. However, one of the primary issues facing legislative approaches to regulating speech is policymakers’ increasing reliance on broad definitions and terms which open the door for potential misuse and suppression of legitimate expression, criticism and dissent. This poses challenges for distinguishing between harmful speech and protected free speech. It is crucial that laws not leave a vacuum, which, through overreach or unintended consequences, may result in the infringement of citizens’ rights. 

Progress in the region

In July 2025, Malawi’s High Court of Malawi, sitting as the Constitutional Court (ConCourt), declared Section 200 of the Penal Code of Malawi unconstitutional and infringing on the right to freedom of expression enshrined in the Constitution. Going further, it described the punishment of imprisonment as having a “chilling effect on public discourse and democratic participation.” This landmark decision poses upsides for legislative reforms in the region, particularly in countries which still have not outlawed criminal defamation. For example, in Zambia, although despite the enactment of the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill No. 25 of 2022, which abolishes Section 69 of the Penal Code that criminalised the defamation of the President of Zambia, the crime of defamation still remains under Section 191 of the Penal Code. In Botswana, too, Criminal Defamation is upheld by section 192 of the Penal Code. 

In South Africa, meanwhile, the Constitutional Court took steps to clarify the limits of Freedom of Speech. In August 2025, the South African Supreme Court of Appeal ruled that the country’s Constitution, which entrenches the right to freedom of expression, cannot be relied on to protect an individual who posts defamatory material about another individual on social media. This ruling came in the case of Francois Harman, who appealed a previous court ruling after the latter’s Facebook posts led to death threats against an individual.

Conclusion

While the various governments within Southern Africa are commended for their efforts to reform their country’s legal frameworks, and to promote safer online spaces. This must not be done at the expense of citizens’ human rights. We propose the following recommendations.

Recommendations:

• Governments are encouraged to ensure an equitable and thorough public participation process. Engaging citizens in decision-making processes around matters which impact them is an essential tenet of democratic governance and will bolster the impact and legitimacy of policy decisions going forward. 
• Within a national dialogue, barriers to equitable participation must be considered and mitigated. Equitable participation and transparency are essential for building trust, and this must be ensured through a methodical and equitable process that allows for a reasonable time for amending or introducing laws that will have a significant impact on the country’s social fabric. 
• The Malawi judiciary has demonstrated leadership with a landmark case that can lead to further legislative reforms in Malawi and inspire other Southern African judiciaries to adopt a human rights-based approach to adjudicating over such cases.