Zambia

Published May 2025

Relevant legislation:

Summary

In 2010, the Republic of Zambia enacted the Public Interest Disclosure Act, also known as the Protection of Whistleblowers Act (the Act), in light of its unprecedented fight against corruption in recent years. The Act provides for the disclosure of conduct that is harmful to the public interest in both the public and private sectors. It also creates a framework for the reporting, investigating, and, ultimately, the prosecution of complaints of corrupt and irregular practices. The Act conforms with the requirements of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), which acknowledges the role whistleblowers play in the fight against corruption and their importance in advancing and enhancing transparent practices and moral conduct, which can stem the destabilising effects of corruption and fraud in Zambian society.

The Act, in its current form, does not include the protection of whistleblowers outside the employee-employer relationship. However, the Act encourages people who observe or come across any acts adverse to the interest of the public or any unlawful acts or any acts contrary to applicable procedures to blow the whistle or report such acts by getting in touch with Law Enforcement Agencies (LEA) to preserve the public interest.

Zambia enacted the Act in line with the provisions of Article 32 of UNCAC, which requires signatories to the convention to take measures by their domestic legal systems to protect persons who make disclosures of corruption from retaliation and reprisals as a result of their providing testimonies in corruption matters. The convention proposes that the relocation of witnesses and the non-disclosure of their identities and whereabouts are essential measures for allowing witnesses to feel secure in exposing corruption. Providing security is essential given that corruption undermines the growth of democracy and destabilises the social, political, and economic foundations of these often-vulnerable countries. Similarly, Article 5 of the African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption (AUCPCC) and Article 4 of the Southern African Development Community Protocol Against Corruption (SADC PAC), both of which Zambia is a signatory to, mandate state parties to adopt legislation and other measures to protect whistleblowers. Both conventions, therefore, recognise that protecting whistleblowers increases corruption reporting and thus creates a culture of accountability in government and corporate workplaces.

Whistleblower Laws And Policy

Zambia is compliant with international standards for whistleblower protection. The country’s Public Interest Disclosure Act (also known as the Protection of Whistleblowers Act), 2010 provides for the disclosure of conduct that is harmful to the public interest in both the public and private sectors. The Act conforms with the United Nations Convention Against Corruption or 2005.

The Public Interest Disclosures Act is the main legal framework for whistleblower protection in Zambia. It provides for the disclosure of conduct adverse to the public interest in the public and private sectors. Under the Act, any person, regardless of their employment relationship, can report disclosable conduct about any other person. This is a very broad scope, giving those who witness wrongdoing the latitude to make a report no matter who is committing the misconduct and what their relationship to them is.

The Act established several investigating authorities that have the power to hear public interest disclosures. These are:

The Office of the Auditor General
The Anti-Corruption Commission
The Anti-Corruption Commission in Zambia is the main body that deals with corrupt practices, abuse of office and other related official wrongdoing that borders on corruption. To guarantee further assurance of protection to whistleblowers, the Anti-Corruption Commission has developed an online anonymous whistleblower system that allows people to blow the whistle and remain anonymous.
The Drug Enforcement Commission
The Judicial Complaints Authority
The Office of the Public Protector (previously known as the Investigating Officer-General)
The Public Police Complaints Authority.

Overall, the Act provides for progressive provisions which have a bearing on the protection of informers. One such provision is the Tender of Pardon, which, nearing the closest to whistleblower protection, protects, by providing a ‘legal pardon’, to those involved in or aware of illicit gains or irregular crimes as long as they cooperate with the investigation and stand trial to testify.

Additionally, there are specific guidelines in the act dictating how and when these agencies can hear public interest reports. Depending on the nature of the misconduct at issue, different authorities are designated as the correct recipient of the disclosure. However, there are certain categories of impropriety, like health and safety issues and environmental issues, that do not have any appointed investigative authorities for disclosures.

It is noteworthy that the Public Interest Disclosure Act does not cover disclosures made to journalists. Currently, Zambia does not have legislation that speaks directly to the protection of journalistic sources or even requires them to reveal said sources. The Defamation Act provides guidance on types of publications that are privileged and not exempt from civil defamation. The Constitution of the Republic of Zambia, as amended by the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment Act No 2 of 2016 (the Constitution), does grant every person the right to freedom of expression. This extends to the rights to hold opinions, receive ideas, communicate ideas and information without interference.

The Public Interest Disclosure Act applies to disclosures to government agencies, public and private companies, institutions or organisations. It protects disclosures of information made by any employee, regarding the conduct of any person or employer relating to public wastage, danger to the environment or public health, a criminal offence, breach of an obligation or any other miscarriage of justice.

Under the Act, the head of any government agency who receives a disclosure of misconduct is obligated to investigate the allegation and, where there is credible evidence that the misconduct is occurring, institute proceedings in line with the provisions of the Zambian Criminal Procedure Code and Part 1 of the Penal Code. Sections 195 &196 of the Penal Code notes that the publication of a defamatory matter is exempt from liability on condition that it was published in good faith. If there is proof that the publication was made with malice, a defamation charge will be accepted.

Section 19 of the Act provides guidelines for investigating authorities to provide progress reports to the person who made a public interest disclosure, ensuring that they are kept abreast of any steps taken as part of the investigation of the disclosure. Section 19(3) lays out what should be included in these progress reports, including requiring that an investigating authority provide a report when it decides not to act on a disclosure that explains the grounds on which they decided not to act. Section 58 further provides that the recipient of a disclosure must make a report to the person who made the disclosure within six months, laying out the steps that have been taken or which they plan to take.

Section 4 of the Act prohibits agreements in a contract of employment which go against the provisions of the Act. It states that such agreements, if included in a contract, will be null and void. It also forbids provisions that purport to preclude the employee, or has the effect of discouraging the employee, from making a protected disclosure.

The Act also includes provisions protecting employees against unlawful reprisal and occupational detriment. Section 2 defines occupational detriment at length and Section 10 ensures the protection of employees from occupational detriment on account, or partly on account, of the employee having made a protected disclosure or public interest disclosure. In Section 42, the Act further establishes reprisals as an offence, liable to a fine not exceeding two hundred thousand penalty units and/or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years.

Additionally, Part VI of the Act creates an obligation for employers to establish procedures to protect their officers against reprisals through the establishment of protective procedures (Section 45), prohibition of unlawful reprisal (Section 46), and a relocation option (Sections 47 and 48).

One important element of the Act is that it emphasises the importance of the non-disclosure of a whistleblower’s identity. Under Sections 44 and 54, there are certain circumstances where a whistleblower’s identity can be disclosed, such as if it is essential to the principles of natural justice; if it is of the opinion of the investigating authority, public authority, or public officer that the disclosure is necessary to investigate the matter effectively; or if it is otherwise in the public interest to disclose the identity. Otherwise, the whistleblower’s identity should be kept confidential.

Some sources are confidential and protected by the lawyer-client privilege. According to the Data Protection Act of 2021 (the DPA), consent is required where the information sought to be obtained contains data which relates to an individual who can be directly or indirectly identified. Consent is necessary if the processing of the data falls within the journalistic exemption, where it is necessary for or relevant to a journalistic purpose. Failure to obtain such consent can result in a fine up to ZMW 90,000 (approximately USD 5,625) or imprisonment for a term up to three years, or both. It is also possible to face legal action if a source is bribed, coerced, or threatened into giving information.

One of the Act’s greatest strengths is its inclusion of multiple provisions providing for whistleblowers to have access to the courts. These are included across Sections 5, 13, and 18. Part VII of the act also provides whistleblowers with opportunities to get a variety of remedies for retaliation.

The Anti-Corruption Act of 2012 is another key whistleblower law. It effectively repealed and replaced the previous Corrupt Practices Act of 1980, which did not contain some of the more progressive provisions found in the Public Disclosures Act of 2010.

Similarly, in 2023, Zambia launched the National Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Terrorism and Proliferation Financing Policy. The policy outlines the government’s policy direction for the effective combating of money laundering, terrorism financing and proliferation financing. The country also has a comprehensive legal framework and institutional framework, and established a Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC) in 2010 to receive and analyse Suspicious Transaction Reports (STRS) and Currency Transaction Reports. Through its annual trends and typology reports, the FIC has been consistent in carrying out its mandate and has also assisted in several joint investigations with other competent authorities, with some of these cases leading to arrests and forfeiture of assets.

Weaknesses And Needed Reforms

Corruption is closely aligned to political power in Africa. The extent to which laws are enforced and complied with is commensurate with the political will to abide by the statutes.

In the 2023 Corruption Perception Index report by Transparency International, which ranks 180 countries by their perceived levels of public sector corruption according to experts and business people, Zambia was listed as the 98th least corrupt nation. This is an improvement from 2020, when the country was ranked 117th, but it still leaves significant room for improvement.

One of the areas for improvement is the Anti-Corruption Act, which provides for the establishment of the Anti-Corruption Commission, the agency tasked with leading and implementing the anti-corruption strategy of the Zambian government.

A major flaw in the legislation is the level of executive control exercised in the appointment of the Director-General of the Anti-Corruption Commission. The Director-General serves at the request of the president of Zambia. Whereas the provisions of the now-repealed Anti-Corruption Act, 1996 required a resolution of the National Assembly and a tribunal appointed by the Chief Justice for the for-cause removal of the Director-General from office, the current legislation places excessive control in the appointment and removal of the Director-General in the executive at the expense of parliamentary and judicial oversight.

A further problem is the requirement that the Anti-Corruption Commission consult with any “appropriate authority,” per section 47(4)(b) of the Act, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, on the decision to prosecute any offences. This leads to the spectre of political interference rearing its head in any prosecution decisions made by the ACC. The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has absolute discretionary power in terms of Section 59 to consent to the prosecution of offences under Part ii of the Act. Where a prosecution has been instituted without the DPP’s consent, the accused person so charged shall not be called upon to plead as per section 59(3), rendering the proceedings void. This is a hindrance that indicates the lack of political will to enforce the provisions of the law and illuminates the intent to politically control the actions of the Anti-Corruption Commission and the scope of its power.

The Public Disclosures Act also has numerous flaws. One of these is found in Section 13 of the Act. Disclosures deemed to be frivolous, malicious, vexatious, or in bad faith run the risk that the investigating authority, whether it is the Anti-Corruption Commission or any other institution as set out in the law, may decline to prosecute the subject of the disclosure. Further, Section 13(3) imposes criminal liability for disclosures that the individual knew or should have known were false, with sanctions of a fine and imprisonment up to seven years. Such provisions can have a serious chilling effect, serving to foster a culture of silence and prevent persons from disclosing information on corruption and malpractice out of fear that they may face criminal sanctions even if they are confident they are witnessing genuine misconduct.

The Act also does not currently provide for making disclosures to external parties, such as the media.

Secrecy Laws

The media in Zambia operates in a repressive environment due to draconian laws enacted by the colonial administration and retained by successive governments since independence. Laws such as the State Security Act, the Public Order Act, and the Emergency Powers Act are all laws that have a restrictive effect on how the media report, especially in matters involving alleged state corruption and misconduct.

The Cyber Crimes Act permits wiretapping or interception. Where a law enforcement officer has reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed or is likely to be committed, they can apply to the judge of the High Court for an ex parte (without the other party being heard) interception of communications order. Also, interception of communication without a court order is permitted where a law enforcement officer has reasonable grounds to believe that an emergency exists. In such an instance, the officer will only need to request, even orally, an electronic service provider to grant such interception.

Very often, party cadres are also deployed to intimidate the media, and authorities are not averse to suspending, cancelling, or revoking the operating licences of media institutions deemed to be critical of the State.

Freedom of Expression and Freedom of the Media

Zambia’s Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of expression and media freedom. However, in 2024, Zambia ranked 95th out of 180 countries on Reporters Without Borders’ World Press Freedom Index. While there have been some improvements in the situation since Hakainde Hichilema was elected president in August 2021, Zambia’s legislative framework still needs improvement, and the latest announcements from the government indicate shifts toward more, rather than less, repressive regimes.

Freedom of expression and the media are constitutionally guaranteed rights under the Constitution, but the Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation (ZNBC), Daily Mail, and Times of Zambia fall within the direct editorial control of the State. Additionally, the Independent Broadcasting Authority of Zambia (IBA) developed the Standard Operating Procedures for Broadcasting in Zambia (SOP).

Media outlets are prohibited from obtaining or seeking information, audio, pictures, doorstepping or engaging in clandestine filming or recording. However, media outlets may, without prior warning, interview, film, or record people in the news when in public places.

When it comes to the independent press, publications critical of government policies are prone to harassment. For example, in 2016, the independent newspaper The Post, which frequently criticised the government, was forced to close due to a demand by the state tax authorities that the newspaper settle arrears for 6.1 million USD. The demand for the taxes was seen as a politically motivated response to the paper’s government criticism.

Individual journalists are also targeted by Zambian authorities. In 2024, journalist Thomas Allan Zgambo, who writes for the Zambia Whistleblower website, was arrested following the publication of an article perceived to be critical of the government. This was the second time Zgambo was arrested in 2024, and it followed two arrests in 2023 in response to his critical reporting.

The Telecommunications Act of 1964 is another piece of legislation that hampers the freedom of the media extensively. It established an authority to regulate the radio frequency spectrum and gave the Minister of Information and Broadcasting Services the authority to approve licences. This means that any radio stations deemed to be critical of the government operate under threat of having their licences revoked and effectively seeing the institution cease operations, thereby placing the livelihood of staff at risk. The collateral effect of this is that journalists then practise a form of self-censorship, effectively restricting the free flow of information and thereby slowing the disclosure of corruption and misconduct and preventing any culture of whistleblowing from taking root.

More recent laws do little to offer a more promising media landscape. The Cyber Security and Cyber Crimes Act, adopted in March 2021 with the official aim of protecting Zambian citizens from online abuse, is seen by many journalists and bloggers as a tool to muzzle the online press. In May 2024, Zambia’s government announced plans to revise the Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA) Act to add regulation of online broadcasting and podcasts. Like with the Cyber Crimes Act, Zambia’s government claims that licencing online media is simply meant to protect citizens from cybercrimes. However, activists warn that this move will infringe on freedom of expression and speech in the country.

In December 2023, however, the Access to Information Act was finally signed into law, providing both rights and limits to the ability to access information. Although it took nearly two decades for the law to be passed, it is now crucial that Zambia follow through with effective enforcement of the Act.

Whistleblower Cases

The Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) recently underwent a corruption scandal after whistleblower O’Brien Kaaba, a former board member of the ACC, disclosed that ACC officials had been taking bribes in exchange for amnesty from former government officials targeted by a graft probe organised by the current administration. Kaaba wrote that these types of “immunity deals” were common under the previous Patriotic Front government, and were now being used under the current government in a way that demonstrated no commitment to fighting corruption.

While four members of the ACC were fired in response to the allegations, Kaaba alleges that the corruption goes far beyond those individuals, affecting the entire institution.

The commitment to transparent governance free from corruption must be activated in the way in which whistleblowers and other reporters of malpractice are protected from reprisals and this will assist in the fight to eradicate the culture of corruption.

Way Forward

It is clear that Zambia’s whistleblower legal framework, as well as its media and speech laws, are in need of improvement. When it comes to whistleblower laws, there needs to be a de-emphasis on the criminalising aspects of the legislation as it relates to the persons making disclosures.

Punitive provisions, such as section 116(1)(d) of the Zambian Penal Code, that make it an offence to speak out or report in a manner deemed to be critical or “could prejudice opinion regarding ongoing judicial proceedings”, need to be removed from the statute books. Any credible anti-corruption efforts should take into account the enactment of laws that seek to protect employees who blow the whistle on wrongdoings. It is Important to note that whistleblower protection laws can only succeed if implemented in conjunction with cultural changes.

People will only be predisposed to report misconduct if there is a feeling that their disclosure will be accepted, investigated, and acted upon with the necessary objectivity and discretion enunciated in the law. The protections set out in the legislation must be widely publicised and reported to foster a culture of transparency and security, thereby enabling an environment within which public activism in the form of whistleblowing becomes the norm rather than the exception. With these laws on the books, the danger of chilling whistleblowers’ willingness to come forward remains present.

The commitment to transparent governance free from corruption must be activated in the way in which whistleblowers and other reporters of malpractice are protected from reprisals, and this will assist in the fight to eradicate the culture of corruption.

It is also critical that Zambia cease arresting journalists and punishing publications that are critical of the government. Without true free speech and a true free media, it is difficult for misconduct to gain the attention necessary to effect change.

Knowledge, support and action centers

Transparency International Zambia (TIZ)

Transparency International is a global movement based in over 100 countries fighting against corruption and the effects thereof. The organisation focusses on exposing systems and networks that enable corruption and seeks greater transparency, accountability and integrity at all levels and across all sectors of society.

Address: Stand no 3880 Kwacha Road, Olympia Park, PO Box 37475, Lusaka, Zambia
Tel: +260 211 2900080
Fax: +260 211 293649
Email: tizambia@zamnet.zm
Website: http://www.tizambia.org.zm

Anti-Corruption Commission of Zambia

The Ant-Corruption Commission of Zambia is the agency mandated under the Anti-Corruption Act no.3 of 2012 to spearhead the fight against corruption in Zambia. Its main function is to investigate and prosecute cases of suspected corruption, conduct campaigns to raise public awareness of the dangers of corruption and building public support in the fight against corruption; and putting mechanisms in place preventing corruption. It has 9 provincial offices throughout the country tasked with carrying out its mandate.

Address: Anti-Corruption House, Cha Cha Cha Road, PO Box 50486, Lusaka, Zambia
Tel: 5980 Toll free
Email: info@10.51.11.113