Between Reputation and Free Speech: Understanding the Tort of Defamation in Zambia

On 31 October 2025, News Diggers reported that Gilbert Phiri, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), had instituted legal action against Lily Mutambo for defamation. Mutambo allegedly claimed that the DPP had deliberately reduced the charge against Maria Zaloumis from murder to manslaughter.

This article provides a brief overview of the law relating to defamation as a tort in Zambia. The Defamation Act, Chapter 68 of the Laws of Zambia, establishes the legal framework governing defamation claims — including their elements, available defences, and remedies.

A tort refers to a civil wrong that arises when one person’s conduct unlawfully causes harm or loss to another. Unlike criminal offences, which are prosecuted by the state, tort claims are brought by the injured party seeking compensation or another remedy. The tort of defamation seeks to balance two important rights: freedom of expression (Article 20 of the Constitution) and protection of reputation.

What Is Defamation?

Defamation is the publication of a statement that lowers a person’s reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society — exposing them to ridicule, contempt, or avoidance.

Defamation takes two forms:

• Slander – spoken defamatory words; generally actionable only upon proof of actual damage.
• Libel – written or published defamatory material; actionable without proof of specific damage.

Elements of Defamation

To succeed in a defamation claim, three key elements must be established:

      1. A Defamatory Statement

The statement must tend to lower the person’s reputation in the eyes of society.

      2. Reference to the Claimant

The statement must refer to the claimant, either directly or by implication. In Hulton & Co. v Jones, the court held that it is irrelevant whether the reference was intentional — what matters is whether a reasonable person would think it referred to the claimant.

      3. Publication of the Defamatory Statement

The statement must have been communicated to at least one person other than the claimant. In Phiri v The Programme Manager for Radio Maria, publication was defined as making the defamatory material known to a third party.

 

Who Can Sue for Defamation?

Any living individual may sue for defamation. Corporations, both trading and non-trading, may also bring claims where defamatory statements harm their business reputation or property interests, as recognized in Jameel v Wall Street Journal.

However, government bodies cannot sue for defamation. As noted by Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort, this restriction exists to preserve open criticism and accountability in a democratic society.

In the case at hand, the alleged statement by Lily Mutambo implies corruption and dishonesty on the part of the DPP, thereby affecting his personal reputation. While the office of the DPP, being a constitutional entity under Article 180 of the Constitution, cannot sue for defamation, the individual holding that office may sue if the statement targets their personal character rather than the institution itself.

Defences to a Defamation Claim

Defendants in defamation cases may rely on several defences, including:

• Truth (Justification): The statement was substantially true.
• Fair Comment (Honest Opinion): The statement was an opinion, not a factual claim, made on a matter of public interest.
• Privilege: Certain statements are protected when made in specific contexts, such as parliamentary or judicial proceedings, or in fair and accurate reporting of such.

These defences ensure that public debate, fair reporting, and honest opinion remain protected within the boundaries of the law.

Conclusion

While freedom of expression is a fundamental constitutional right, it must be exercised responsibly. The right to speak freely does not extend to making baseless or damaging statements about others. Citizens and media practitioners alike should therefore ensure that public commentary remains fact-based, fair, and respectful, upholding both truth and integrity in Zambia’s democratic discourse.

Disclaimer

This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should seek professional legal counsel for advice on specific situations or legal matters. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of any affiliated organization or institution.