A new cybersecurity law introduced in Zambia has triggered a firestorm of criticism, raising concerns over privacy, freedom of expression, and the creeping shadow of digital authoritarianism. The legislation, quietly signed into law by President Hakainde Hichilema on April 8, has prompted alarm not only among Zambians but also from the US government, which has issued a stark warning to its citizens living in or traveling to the southern African nation.

The US embassy in Zambia posted a public alert, cautioning that the law enables widespread surveillance of electronic communications—calls, texts, emails, and even streamed content. The key issue, it says, is the vague language of the law, especially the broad definition of “critical information,” which could “apply to almost any activity.”

The embassy advised Americans to “carefully assess the implications of this law and adjust accordingly,” calling the measure “intrusive” and unlike the privacy protections found in many democracies. Coming from a government often criticized for its own surveillance programs, the warning prompted a mixed reaction globally.

Zambia Defends the Law

In response to the embassy’s alert, Zambia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs released a defensive statement asserting that the law was not designed to “invade any person’s privacy” and does not permit “mass or random surveillance.” They emphasized that any interception of data requires a court-issued warrant and that the law is primarily intended to combat cybercrime, child pornography, and misinformation.

The government also stated that “critical information” refers specifically to national security, and any actions taken under the law must follow due process.

But for many in Zambia, the law represents a dangerous precedent. Critics argue that the vague terminology leaves too much room for interpretation and abuse, especially ahead of national elections scheduled for next year.

Silencing Dissent?

Civil society leaders are sounding the alarm. Joan Chirwa, a prominent journalist and founder of the Free Press Initiative Zambia, told the BBC it was a “sad day” for the country. “This law won’t just affect journalists or civil society organizations. It will affect everyone in Zambia.”

A new cybersecurity unit being established in the president’s office has only intensified suspicions. Activists fear that this law could be wielded as a weapon to silence critics and opposition voices.

Among its controversial powers, the law allows law enforcement officers to obtain warrants to search and seize any electronic devices suspected of storing data linked to crimes. It also mandates ICT companies to proactively intercept all electronic communications. Those found guilty under the law face steep fines or imprisonment of 5 to 15 years. Offenders can even be extradited, regardless of where the alleged offense occurred.

A Political U-Turn?

The backlash isn’t just coming from activists—politicians, too, are accusing President Hichilema of betrayal. While in opposition in 2021, Hichilema vocally opposed a similar bill, calling it a tool to “clamp down on freedom of expression and spy on citizens.”

Now, critics say, he has made a U-turn. Opposition MP Miles Sampa blasted the president on social media, writing: “You may as well also sign a martial law to discard democracy so we all stop talking and leave it to your good self to express alone.”

The sentiment was echoed by civil rights activist Laura Miti, who called the law “tyrannical.” She also criticized the US for what she called its hypocrisy, pointing out that the US itself has a long history of controversial surveillance programs, notably exposed by whistleblower Edward Snowden.

“Until Snowden revealed the matter, the US secretly surveilled its citizens for years,” Miti posted on Facebook. “That raises an eyebrow about this from the American embassy. Hypocritical, really.”

Still, she didn't hold back on her disapproval of the new Zambian law, saying it “only exists because the government feels insecure.”

Digital Dystopia or National Security?

While the Zambian government insists that the law is a necessary tool in the fight against cybercrime, the manner in which it was passed—quietly and without much public consultation—has only fueled fears. Many Zambians say they first learned about the law not from their own leaders, but from the US embassy’s Facebook post.

Now, with the lines between national security and civil liberty becoming increasingly blurred, Zambia faces a crucial test. Will this law safeguard its digital borders—or will it cross a line and trample the rights of its own citizens?

As the 2026 elections draw closer, all eyes are on how this law will be enforced—and who it will target.