BY TAWANDA TAFIRENYIKA The Cyber Security and Data Protection Bill, which is government’s response to global technological upheavals, has been described as gravely flawed and an illustration of the Zanu PF administration’s insincerity in protecting fundamental rights. The Bill has gone through public hearings, but is yet to be debated in Parliament. Legal experts say it is a deeply flawed and defective piece of legislation widely seen as a political instrument by the ruling Zanu PF government to persecute dissenting voices. Among other contentious provisions of the law is its failure to guarantee the protection of whistleblowers, which pales in comparison to efforts in neighbouring South Africa in the protection of the same. This is despite Zimbabwe being among countries where corruption is entrenched and institutionalised. The government has, through the Home Affairs ministry, desperately tried to market the narrative that the Bill seeks to protect citizens from cyber bullying, when in fact they are under attack from the same government that is supposed to be the custodians of the people. Chris Mhike, a lawyer, who specialises in media and human rights law, said there was a sinister agenda behind the Bill. “The pervasive nature of computers, information communication technology, and other internet-based modes of communication in the modern world make the promulgation of cyber security laws imperative,” he said. “Regrettably though, Zimbabwe’s Cyber Security and Data Protection Bill is gravely flawed, in numerous ways. The shortcomings of that proposed law generally boil down to the government’s lack of sincerity as far as the protection of fundamental rights is concerned.” The lawyer said the conduct of the State towards citizens in general and journalists in particular betrayed a sinister agenda behind the Bill. He said the harassment and brutality opposition politicians and journalists had been subjected to demonstrated the government was more concerned with power retention at the expense of civil liberties. “Although the Bill states, in its memorandum, that it is designed ‘to consolidate cyber-related offences and provide for data protection with due regard to the Declaration of Rights under the Constitution and the public and national interests,’ in reality the contents of that draft law, and the conduct of the State towards citizens in general and journalists in particular in recent days, betray a sinister motive behind the introduction of the Bill,” Mhike said. “From the various deficits of the Bill vis-à-vis the Bill of Rights, as read with the brutality with which opposition politicians and journalists have been treated lately, the State appears to be more concerned about power retention, at the expense of civil liberties. The public, whose rights-related interests are poorly protected in the Bill, has been short-changed. Freedom of expression is the most prominent casualty of the Bill, and of the State’s lamentable recent repressive conduct.” Mhike said the arrest and persecution of journalist Hopewell Chin