For instance, Section 164 criminalises the sending of messages to any person, group or the public, with the intention to incite violence or damage to property. This was widely criticised by MISA Zimbabwe as an attempt to smuggle back criminal defamation which was struck off the statutes by the Constitutional Court. Among its other contentious provisions, is the proposed use of forensic tools such as the key stroke logger without being clear on how and under what circumstances the method would be applied, as well as the Bill’s failure to provide for judicial oversight or other accountability measures for monitoring and reviewing the potential abuse of the use of such intrusive technologies. It also does not have specific safeguards for whistleblowers which exposes individuals providing information in the public interest. The Bill should also be split into two separate laws, to deal with cybersecurity and data protection respectively. This will make it easy to strike a strategic balance between security concerns and digital rights. It is MISA Zimbabwe’s well-considered view that the Bill in its current state, entrenches a securocratic approach towards internet governance as opposed to a pro-human rights approach in the regulation of the Internet as provided for by the revised African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights’ Declaration of Freedom of Expression and Access to Information. In crafting this Bill, Zimbabwe should thus be guided by African regional and continental instruments that include the SADC Model Law on Computer Crime and Cybercrime, SADC Model Law on Data Protection, the African Convention on Cyber Security and Data Protection, and African Declaration on Internet Rights and Freedoms. Meanwhile, on 9 December 2020, consumers and internet users nationwide struggled to access internet services as one of the biggest internet services provider ZOL Zimbabwe’s system was not working, this coming at a time of rising data costs. 14