ON December 23, 2022, President Hakainde Hichilema, in good will, took a significant step towards enhancing democratic freedoms in Zambia by assenting to the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill No. 25 of 2022, which repealed Section 69 of the Penal Code—effectively abolishing the archaic and controversial crime of defaming the President. This law, which dated back to the Kenneth Kaunda era, had been weaponised by successive governments to stifle dissent and silence criticism of the head of state. Its repeal was lauded as a victory for freedom of expression and a move towards modern governance.

But surprisingly, while the law itself has been removed from the statute books, the arrests of individuals who criticise President Hichilema continue, casting serious doubt on the efficacy and sincerity of this reform. The case of Suzgo Mbale, a Lusaka resident arrested for allegedly “insulting the President,” highlights a glaring contradiction between the promise of free speech and the reality of state-sanctioned repression.

Mbale’s remarks, made in frustration over Zambia’s ongoing energy crisis, were undeniably harsh and disrespectful, but they were far from unique. Citizens across the country are grappling with prolonged blackouts, lack of water, and other economic hardships. Mbale simply expressed his anger—albeit in crude terms—over what he perceives to be a failure to address these issues. He went so far as to call the President a liar and a crook, expressing disappointment in those who voted for Hichilema. He also suggested that the UPND government be voted out in the 2026 elections.

While some may find Mbale’s language distasteful or disrespectful, his remarks fall squarely within the realm of free speech, especially in the absence of “Defamation of the President”. In a democracy, citizens must have the right to criticise their leaders, even if that criticism is harsh. If the abolition of the defamation of the president law was meant to foster an environment where Zambians could speak freely, why are people still being arrested for the very same offence? The question must be asked: What was the point of repealing Section 69 if the state still resorts to arresting critics under similar pretexts?

Zambians have behaved fairly well under this energy crisis. We said they should not resort to street demonstrations because that is not the solution, and they have NOT done that. They have been quite understanding of the situation. The least we can do is to allow people to express their anger. Mbale is not the only one suffering this fate. Another citizen in Chingola, Jonathan Chibwe has been arrested over a TikTok video which authorities claim that it defames the UPND and the President. We cannot afford to arrest every frustrated citizen or every member of the opposition who condemns those in power.

The abolishment of the defamation law was supposed to be a milestone, signalling a shift away from the autocratic tendencies of past regimes. Instead, it increasingly appears that this move was designed to appease international observers, civil society, and human rights groups while maintaining the government’s ability to quash dissent in practice. The substance of the law may be gone, but its spirit remains very much alive, evidenced by the continued arrests of citizens who dare to express discontent with the President.

The irony of this situation is hard to ignore. By repealing the law but continuing to arrest individuals like Mbale and Chibwe, the government has shown that the UPND administration values democracy and free speech, provided that the speech is favourable to those in power. Any dissent, especially that directed toward the President, is still being met with repression—whether under the guise of “insulting the President” or some other nebulous charge.

It’s important to note that Mbale’s criticism was not an incitement to violence, nor was it a call for insurrection. It was the rant of an angry citizen, a voter who feels let down by a government that promised better and has yet to deliver. While his words were harsh, they did not pose a threat to national security or public order. There is no valid justification for arresting someone merely for expressing their opinion, however disrespectful it may be. In a truly democratic society, respect for the presidency cannot and should not be enforced by the threat of arrest. Respect for public officials is earned through competent governance, transparency, and accountability.

Democracy thrives on the open exchange of ideas, including those that challenge or criticise those in power. In fact, criticism is a vital component of democratic governance—it forces leaders to be accountable and responsive to the needs of the people. Leaders who are insulated from criticism lose touch with the reality on the ground and are more likely to make decisions that serve their interests rather than those of the citizens.

As Zambia continues to face economic and social challenges, the government must ensure that it does not stifle the very freedoms that it claims to uphold. The UPND administration has the opportunity to demonstrate that it is truly committed to democratic principles by not only refraining from arresting critics but by actively encouraging open and honest dialogue between the government and its citizens.