Zimbabwe recently introduced a licensing mandate for WhatsApp group admins, requiring them to obtain permits from the Postal and Telecommunications Regulatory Authority of Zimbabwe (POTRAZ).
The move, announced by Information Minister Monica Mutsvangwa, is intended to help counter misinformation and track down sources of content deemed harmful or capable of inciting unrest. This regulation has generated debate, given its implications for data privacy and freedom of expression.
According to reports, the new regulation will charge a minimum of $50 for a basic license, with fees potentially increasing up to $2,500 depending on the group’s nature and number of members. Additionally, group admins will have to disclose personal details to POTRAZ, raising concerns about privacy, particularly in a context where Zimbabweans have increasingly relied on WhatsApp for both personal and business communication.
Supporters of the measure argue it’s necessary to address misinformation and maintain social stability. Zimbabwe’s government has pointed out that the regulation aligns with the country’s Data Protection Act, which views group admins as responsible for the personal data of group members, such as phone numbers. In fact, the law will also require WhatsApp groups to appoint Data Protection Officers certified by the government.
However, opposition groups and free speech advocates worry the law might be used to target dissenting voices. The concern is especially pertinent in Zimbabwe, where WhatsApp is a vital communication tool. Similar policies have emerged in other parts of the world but have generally focused on major social media companies rather than individual users. Zimbabwe’s approach appears unique in mandating personal responsibility and licensing for private group administrators on social media platforms.
The policy reflects Zimbabwe’s broader regulatory trend towards stringent digital surveillance. Despite its stated intentions, this regulatory approach has fueled concerns among civil society organisations about potential misuse, particularly in suppressing political opposition and public dissent.
