Thirty years ago, Zambia witnessed a historic turning point in the fight for press freedom—a legal battle that continues to shape media rights and regulatory debates both locally and across Africa.
In 1995, on the eve of the General Elections, the Movement for Multi-Party Democracy (MMD) government under President Frederick Chiluba attempted to tighten its grip on the media by introducing the controversial “Media Council Bill.” The proposed law sought to regulate the media through an Act of Parliament and included draconian provisions such as the mandatory licensing of journalists.
Outraged by what they saw as an attack on freedom of expression and media independence, journalists responded with a wave of protests, issuing strong media statements and taking to the streets. Despite public outcry, the government, armed with a parliamentary majority, pushed forward with the Bill.
But the media didn’t back down.
Led by Professor Francis Kasoma and the Press Association of Zambia (PAZA), the media fraternity took the matter to court. In the landmark case Francis Kasoma v. Attorney General (No. 1995/HP/2959), the petitioners argued that the Bill was unconstitutional and that journalists had not been consulted in its drafting.
The government, meanwhile, defended its position, insisting that journalists in Zambia lacked professionalism and needed to be policed. Officials argued that those who violated ethical standards should be stripped of their right to practice journalism.
After deliberating on the matter, High Court Judge Anthony Nyangulu delivered a ruling that would become a cornerstone of press freedom jurisprudence.
“I do not in my view consider the decision to constitute the Media Council of Zambia to be in furtherance of the general objectives and purpose of the Constitutional powers, among them, to promote democracy and related democratic ideas,” Judge Nyangulu stated.
He further ruled that licensing journalists and imposing sanctions that could bar them from practicing amounted to a clear violation of press freedom.
“The decision to create the Media Council of Zambia is no doubt going to have an impact…on freedom of expression,” the judge added, before courageously quashing the government’s proposed Bill.
Following the ruling, the government dropped the Bill, marking a major victory for media practitioners and setting a legal precedent that would be cited in regional and international courts, including the African Court and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
Though successive administrations have occasionally floated the idea of reintroducing media regulation laws, none have succeeded in reviving the defunct Media Council Bill. Instead, governments have urged the media to develop and adhere to self-regulation mechanisms.
Media experts argue that the debate is settled not only by the 1995 ruling but also by global media practice. They stress that journalism cannot be policed, especially in today’s digital era where anyone, regardless of academic background, can publish content online.
“Globally, the concern has shifted to social media, anonymous publishers, and digital platforms beyond national jurisdictions,” noted one expert. “How do you license or regulate an online paper run anonymously from another country? It’s virtually impossible.”
Legal analysts maintain that existing laws such as civil defamation and criminal libel already provide remedies for misconduct by journalists. The call, they argue, should be for ethical practice, not statutory regulation.
Three decades later, the Kasoma case remains a powerful reminder: in Zambia, press freedom is not just a democratic ideal—it is protected by law.