Good afternoon. One of the men arrested this week for insulting President Daniel Chapo does not deny making the video that led to his detention. He apologised for what he said, and explained why he said it.
According to his account, the incident dates back to February, when flooding cut the EN1 in Gaza province. He and a group of friends were helping vehicles carry goods across the flooded section of road to earn a little money when riot police arrived and, he claims, opened fire, apparently mistaking them for thieves. Angry and frustrated, he recorded a video directing insults at the president. Five months later, he was arrested.
The full Daily Briefing continues below for Pro subscribers. Subscribers to the Zitamar News tier can read the top half, including the full leader article, here.
The latest from Zitamar News:
Zitamar News
The story emerging from Zambézia is different, but equally troubling. Five people have been detained over a Facebook page that regularly publishes allegations of corruption and criticism of the government. Yet the page itself remains online and continues to post new material. According to messages published by its administrators, some of those arrested were not responsible for running the page at all, but had merely commented on its posts. That claim has not been independently verified. But if it proves true, it raises uncomfortable questions about the scope of the investigation.
None of this is to suggest that everything posted on social media should be beyond the reach of the law. There is a legitimate distinction between political criticism and coordinated disinformation campaigns. States have a duty to investigate incitement to violence, organised attempts to spread false information or genuine threats against public officials.
But it is vital that the authorities respect that distinction. Criminal law should be used carefully and proportionately. Arresting citizens over an angry outburst recorded months earlier, or potentially over comments on a Facebook page, suggests that the law is being used less to protect public order than to protect the dignity of the presidency.
