By 
Lusaka Resident Magistrate, Mutinta Mwenya, has sentenced Facebook blogger, Elias Musyani, to six months imprisonment and fined him K70,000 for issuing threats of rape and abduction against Kidist Kifle, the wife of musician Yo Maps, and their daughter
Musyani was convicted on two counts under the Cyber Security and Cyber Crimes Act No. 2 of 2021.
During mitigation, his lawyer submitted two identity cards to support claims that Musyani was a student.
However, the court found both IDs had expired in 2010 and 2012, undermining the plea for leniency.
Delivering judgment, Magistrate Mwenya ruled that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that Musyani violated Section 69 of the Cyber Security and Cyber Crimes Act No. 2 of 2021.
The charges stemmed from threatening and offensive social media posts in which Musyani stated he would rape Kidist in the presence of her husband and abduct her child, citing her lack of bodyguards and revealing her location.
Magistrate Mwenya explained that the mental element—mens rea—required for the offence was that the act be committed willfully.
However, she observed that neither the Cyber Security and Cyber Crimes Act nor the Penal Code defines the term “willful,” nor is it clearly defined under Zambian law.
To address this legislative gap, the court turned to persuasive authorities. In R v. Senoir, “willfully” was defined as an act done deliberately and intentionally, not accidentally or inadvertently.
In Nabob Oil Co. v. United States, the U.S. court held that a willful act, while not necessarily malevolent, must be voluntary and intentional.
Similarly, Black’s Law Dictionary defines “willfully” as voluntary and intentional, and the Wex Legal Dictionary echoes this, describing it as an act done deliberately or by design.
Applying these interpretations, Magistrate Mwenya concluded that Musyani’s actions met the legal standard for willfulness.
“There can be no doubt in the instant case that the accused meant what he said when he threatened to rape the complainant in front of her husband and steal her child,” she ruled.
The court also referenced Roy Clarke v. The Attorney General (ZR 96 of 2004), in which Justice Chitengi affirmed that freedom of expression is not absolute and must be exercised within the bounds of other laws.
A further reference was made to the Indian case Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), which, though non-binding, emphasized that freedom of speech may be limited in the interest of public order.
Magistrate Mwenya ruled that Musyani had abused his rights under the guise of free speech by using language that incited fear and emotional distress.
“The accused overstepped his rights where his duties should have begun—by respecting others,” the court said.
In sentencing, the magistrate noted that Musyani was a first-time offender. However, she took judicial notice of the rising trend in cyber offences, cautioning that online character assaults are becoming increasingly common.
“The courts in Zambia will not hesitate to send a message through this case,” she said.
“Social media influencers do not own the right to speak carelessly on platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or TikTok without repercussions.”
Musyani was fined K70,000, payable within seven days, and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment.
WARNING! All rights reserved. This material, and other digital content on this website, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or in part without prior express permission from ZAMBIA MONITOR.
Comments