The Future of Freedom of Speech and Online Civic Spaces: Developments in Southern Africa 

Introduction

In Southern Africa, several countries have long been recognised for their commitment to democratic processes and characterised by relative social stability and peace. However, similar to many of their African peers, the rapid adoption of digital technologies in recent decades is reshaping vital areas, such as 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 the digital evolution. One such challenge involves striking a balance between promoting the freedoms of speech and opinion, as well as civic engagement and public participation online, while ensuring the protection of citizens and national interests.

In 2025, certain developments have ostensibly undermined the preservation of freedom of speech within the region. This article will discuss recent developments in Southern Africa that are emerging as real-time measures of freedom of speech and inclusive civic spaces.  These include increased arrests of opposition leaders, journalists, and ordinary citizens for their online and public comments, as well as the development and enactment of cyber legislation in the region.

Arrests of journalists and opposition leaders

Freedom of speech and free media spaces are core pillars underpinning a democratic nation. However, despite many Southern African countries having statutory protections in national laws and their constitutions as well as being signatories to various international conventions that affirm rights and protection of the media,  the year under review also saw a ramping up of arrests of citizens, journalists, and opposition leaders as well for posts online, including those questioning the state or state-linked actors.  Such developments raise concerns as they risk infringing on individuals’ rights to freedom of expression and violating international human rights standards.

In September 2025, a Zambian newspaper, The Mast, condemned the arrest and detention of its journalist Thandizo Banda in the Copperbelt province. Banda had been on assignment on a story about the murder charge of Maria Zaloumis, daughter of Mwangala Zaloumis, who is the chairperson of the Electoral Commission of Zambia. The newspaper alleges that after Banda took pictures of Mwangala Zaloumis’ entourage, he was physically attacked by the latter and police officers, who also confiscated his cellphone. In the same month, police services assaulted and seized the cellphone of Christopher Bazilio Banda, a reporter for Prime TV Eastern Province, as he covered a joint operation between the Road Traffic and Safety Agency and the police for the impounding of unregistered motorbikes. The Eastern Province Police Command later apologised for this incident. In the same month, on 30 September, journalists Mark Ziligone of the Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation and Prince Malupande of Laka FM were attacked by security officers from the Zambia Security and Intelligence Service whilst reporting at the scene of a car accident in Lusaka, Zambia. 

In Lesotho, Tšepo Lipholo, the leader of the country’s opposition, the Basotho Covenant Movement, was arrested in July 2025 on charges including contravening the Sedition Proclamation No. 44 of 1938. The charge stems from comments he made about the royal family between April 2025 and June 2025, which were deemed disrespectful. Later, on 29 August 2025, Mohalenyane Phakela, editor of the Lesotho Times and Sunday Express, was arrested and detained overnight by the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Offences (DCEO) following his reporting on a corruption scandal involving the Lesotho Correctional Service Commissioner, Mating Nkakala. Phakela was “interrogated without charge, pressed to reveal sources, and had his phones seized and searched without a warrant.” The DCEO later admitted that there had been “no material evidence” to support this arrest. 

Cyber legislation and risks of a shrinking civic space

Southern African countries, such as Namibia, Lesotho, and Zambia, have engaged in the development of cyber legislation, focusing on the creation and implementation of laws that govern and regulate citizens’ activity within the online space, as well as promote national security. However, stakeholders such as the public and civil society continue to sound the alarm about the impacts of certain provisions within these laws, which could be used to enable mass surveillance, arbitrary arrests and harassment of citizens and those working in the public interest and lead to a stifling of free speech.  This would run counter to the commitment of, many nations, to adhere to Resolution 573 on the deployment of mass and unlawful targeted communication surveillance and its impact on human rights in Africa passed by the ACHPR in November 202,3 which stipulates that States must align approaches on the regulation of communication surveillance with relevant international human rights law and standards and consider adequate safeguard—additionally, the African Union Convention on Cyber Security and Personal Data Protection (Malabo Convention).

In Zambia, for example, the Cyber Security Act No. 3 2025 and the Cyber Crimes Act No. 4 of 2025, were assented to by President Hakainde Hichilema on 8 April 2025. These laws have raised questions around issues such as surveillance, as well as infringements on privacy, freedom of speech, and media freedom. Although the legislation makes great strides in protections, such as those for children, Paradigm Initiative notes challenges from factors including overly broad and vague definitions, as well as provisions that allow for ex parte applications for the interception of communications in the absence of a hearing with the other party regarding the communications being intercepted, for example.

In December 2025, Ethel Chisono Edwards, a long-standing critic of President 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, and if the sentence was highly punitive to ensure individuals’ self-censorship ahead of the country’s general elections (set for August 2026), as well as the long-term effect of this legal outcome on the public’s perception of voicing their opinions on online spaces. This case highlights the challenge the governments face in balancing the need to ensure safe online spaces, free from harassment, with the requirement to uphold freedom of speech and non-censorship. 

Notable progressive steps 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,criminalising defamation, 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 follows closely behind South Africa’s repeal of Criminal Defamation laws ,in April 2024, and poses upsides for further legislative reforms in the region. In Southern Africa, Criminal Defamation remains a legal offence in Angola, Botswana, Eswatini, and Mozambique. While in Zambia, 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 libel still remains under Section 191 of the Penal Code. 

Also in 2025, South Africa made strrides to clarify the limits of Freedom of Speech. In August 2025, the Supreme Court of Appeal ruled that the country’s Constitution, which entrenches the right to freedom of expression, cannot be relied upon to protect an individual who posts defamatory material about another individual on social media, leading to harassment or threats. 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: Paths towards striking a balance

Southern African governments are not unique in the challenge of balancing the safeguarding of citizens and national interests with legal protections for citizens’ freedom of speech and the use of online spaces. 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. 

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. 

Recommendations:

Freedom of Speech

• The Malawi judiciary is commended for demonstrating leadership with a landmark case on the repeal of Criminal Defamation. We encourage more governments within the region, namely Angola, Botswana, Eswatini, Mozambique, and Zambia, to adopt legislative reforms repealing Criminal Defamation Laws, reflecting a human rights-based approach to adjudicating such cases. 
• Governments are urged to refrain from harassing and arbitrarily arresting media personnel engaged in the ordinary pursuit of public interest work. Governments are also encouraged to repeal overly broad legislation that can be used to target journalists and media outlets.
• Governments should also refrain from utilising Sedition laws to curb political speech and criticism, which are protected by freedom of expression.

Cyber legislation

• Extensive consultations are necessary for the development of such crucial laws, which have the potential to significantly impact the fabric of society.  We call on governments developing and implementing these laws to adopt a more participatory approach that better accommodates the views of stakeholders involved in the process, including the public, civil society, and the private sector. Ensuring an equitable and thorough public participation process is a crucial tenet of democratic governance, which will enhance the impact and legitimacy of policy decisions going forward. 
• Provisions within cyber legislation should avoid broad, vague terms and instead provide clarity and precision. We recommend that the governments fine-tune their respective legislations to provide adequate safeguards which reflect rights-respecting best practices and standards.
• Ensure that laws that are passed do not adversely impact the protection of citizens and groups such as media practitioners and human rights defenders, exposing them to the risk of arbitrary arrests and detention, and unlawful surveillance.