Global Freedom of Expression

Chapter One Foundation v. Zambian Information and Communications Technology Authority

Order Handed Down Expands Expression

Key Details

  • Mode of Expression
    Electronic / Internet-based Communication
  • Date of Decision
    March 21, 2021
  • Outcome
    Order Only
  • Case Number
  • Region & Country
    Zambia, Africa
  • Judicial Body
    First Instance Court
  • Type of Law
    Civil Law
  • Themes
    Internet Shutdowns

Content Attribution Policy

Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:

  • Attribute Columbia Global Freedom of Expression as the source.
  • Link to the original URL of the specific case analysis, publication, update, blog or landing page of the down loadable content you are referencing.

Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.

Case Analysis

Case Summary and Outcome

On March 21, 2022, the High Court for Zambia at Lusaka issued a consent judgment, confirming that the Zambian Information and Communications Technology Authority (ZICTA) would not “do any act or make any omission outside of their legal regulatory powers and authority which may inhibit or interrupt the flow of and uninhibited access to information on all available telecommunication platforms under their control and/or regulation where the interest of consumers and their consumer and constitutional rights are threatened”. ZICTA also consented to informing the public within 36 hours of any disruptions of the reason for that interruption. 

Columbia Global Freedom of Expression notes that some of the information contained in this report was derived from secondary sources.


On August 12, 2021, Zambia held general elections. In the run-up to the election on August 12, local media reported that the incumbent president, Edgar Lungu, was planning on shutting down access to social media during voting “in an effort to maintain peace and order during the voting period”. Access to internet services was curtailed during the election.

The day after the election, Zambian non-govermental organisation, Chapter One Foundation, approached the High Court, seeking a review of the decision of the Zambian Information and Communications Technology Authority to interrupt internet access.

Decision Overview

Judge Charles Zulu signed the Court’s consent judgment. 

The Court confirmed the parties’ agreement that ZICTA would not act outside of their regulatory powers in a way that inhibited or interrupted access to information through telecommunication platforms, and if there was inhibition or interruption that ZICTA would provide an explanation within 36 hours. 

Decision Direction

Quick Info

Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.

Expands Expression

As president, Edgar Lungu oversaw a significant decline in democracy. He had obtained authority to run for an unlawful third term of office, and was pushing for constitutional amendments which further threatened the integrity of Zambia’s democracy. The 2021 election was therefore a crucial event in Lungu’s attempt to consolidate power. Although the consent order came after the election had been completed and Lungu’s successor, Hakainde Hichilema was in power, it is still a significant protection of democracy in the country. Commentators described this election as a “social media election” and the use of social media in the campaigns demonstrated the importance of a free media in Zambia’s democracy. 


Global Perspective

Quick Info

Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.

Case Significance

Quick Info

Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

Official Case Documents


Have comments?

Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.

Send Feedback