Guest Op-Ed: Sam Moseti
Originally, for World Press Freedom Day, I intended to write about the nexus between media viability and press freedom, as a follow-up to my April guest op-ed on why AI transparency matters for media freedom. But with RightsCon’s de facto cancellation and compulsory government accreditation that technically lock(s/ed) many media outlets out of UNESCO’s Press Freedom Day celebrations, I find myself needing to rage, just a little, about the current state of press freedom.
I write this knowing that you, dear reader, are probably already convinced that press freedom is under threat. Perhaps I am just preaching to the choir but, the fact that in 2026 this feels too familiar, almost a ‘new normal’ is a problem.
I do not understand yet understand why the Zambian government would obstruct an assembly so vital to digital rights and media freedom under what feels like a disguise, i.e. lack of “disclosure of topics” or “alignment with national values.” Even at an economic level, Zambia had hit a jackpot – the boost in global positioning, foreign exchange and tourism had to count for something. What is clear for me, however, is that this is part of a troubling trend of governments invoking “national values” while deploying repressive laws that undermine the very rights and freedoms they claim to protect.
The space for media and digital rights in Zambia has always been uneven and contested. Despite initial steps to deregulate the media in the post-1991 democratic era, successive governments have increasingly favored regulation over independence. Recent developments continue to evidence this constraint. Since coming into power in 2021, President Hichilema who is seeking reelection in 2026, has enacted cyber laws that experts say function as tools of surveillance and speech repression.
RNW Media observes similar trends across East Africa in its research on media viability in Uganda, Kenya, and Ethiopia. Across these countries, while governments establish legal frameworks ostensibly to safeguard media freedom, in practice these laws are often applied in ways that leave media actors on legally precarious ground.
In Kenya, Baraza Media Lab notes how the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act is emerging as a “legal mechanism of choice” in a phase characterised by arrests and intimidation, often operating within legal grey zones that affect creatives and media professionals. Civil society organisations argue that the law’s broad and ambiguously defined provisions enable selective enforcement and often encouraging self-censorship.
In Ethiopia, the Ethiopia Media Authority (EMA) appears to have a long leash in revoking licenses, in moves widely described as reflective of growing repression of press freedom in the country. In 2025, for instance, the EMA suspended nine local correspondents for Deutsche Welle (DW) Amharic, accusing them of violating media laws, spreading misinformation, and unethical reporting. While seven were later cleared, two remain permanently suspended, amid repeated requests for the authority to provide evidence of the alleged violations.
More recently, Addis Standard, a trilingual independent digital media outlet known for its investigative journalism, had its license revoked. The regulator cited repeated violations of media ethics, national laws, and what it described as the country’s “national interests.” The outlet, however, maintains that it was never formally notified of any prior violations or enforcement actions, raising key concerns about due process and regulatory overreach.
In January, Ugandan authorities imposed a nationwide internet blackout days before the presidential elections, citing the need to “curb misinformation, disinformation, electoral fraud and related risks.” Framed as a necessary safeguard, the shutdown reflects how appeals to public order and national interest can be used to justify sweeping restrictions on access to information. Amnesty International warned that the move would create an information vacuum and a digital darkness, potentially providing cover for serious human rights violations.
Further, at the moment, Ugandan legistlator are considering a ‘Protection of Sovereignty Bill’ which seeks to regulate foreign influence by requiring individuals and organisations deemed to be “agents of foreigners” to register, disclose funding, and operate under increased state oversight. If passed into law, this bill will constrain the civic space and independent journalism, significantly curtailing freedom of expression under the guise of protecting national sovereignty. The bill also mirrors existing legislation, raising concerns about redundancy as a tool of enforcement. As Ugandan satirist and comedian Uncle Mo puts it: “This law sounds like it is going to do things that too many other laws are doing.” It definitely increases the chances to ‘get you’ when they need to.
I’m sure you have more examples. Perhaps such laws have even affected you. The erosion of press freedom is now being cleverly embedded in laws, regulations, and administrative decisions that carry the appearance of legitimacy, and are applied selectively and strategically to constrain independent media. Language and tactics may differ, but the effect on journalism is the same.
This World Press Freedom Day, we must reckon with how press freedom is being reshaped in practice.
***ENDS***
AI-edditing support was used in the finalisation of the essay.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this guest essay are those of the author. RNW Media is not responsible for the opinions shared.