Mozambique
Mozambique currently has no specific legislation to counter disinformation. However, the Penal Code, the 1991 Press Law – which would be amended by a Proposed Social Communication Law – and the 2022 Law on the Prevention, Suppression and Countering Terrorism and Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction include restrictions on disinformation. These laws raise concerns from a human rights perspective. They are loosely-defined in scope, giving authorities discretion to restrict a wide range of speech; and both pursue aims which may not be considered “legitimate” according to international human rights standards. They also carry penalties which are potentially disproportionate in their severity, and may result in a chilling effect on freedom of expression.
No. Article 20(2) makes it a crime for any Mozambican or foreigner living in Mozambique to intentionally disseminate information according to which a terrorist act was or is likely to be committed, knowing that the information is false or grossly distorted, with the intention of creating public panic, disturbance, insecurity and disorder. It is not clear how to determine what constitutes “false or grossly distorted” statements and what is included in the scope of intention to create public panic, disturbance, insecurity and disorder. As such an individual cannot reasonably be expected to know what speech is prohibited under the law.
Unclear. Speech should only be restricted where some clear, objective public harm might be caused. Article 20(2) appears to be directed at the aims of protecting public order and public safety, which would constitute legitimate aims. However, it is broadly worded, including restrictions on information which merely “disturbs” the public and thus potentially introducing a lower threshold for restrictions on speech than would be legitimate under international human rights law.
Yes. Article 20(2) explicitly requires knowledge of the falsity of the information.
Yes. Article 20(2) is a criminal offence and would be decided by a court of law.
No. Article 20(2) is punishable by a prison sentence of between 2 and 8 years. Even the minimum penalty of two years in prison is severe, and prevents the court from administering more lenient penalties in cases where no actual harm was caused. Furthermore, if the maximum prison sentence of eight years were imposed without taking into account the circumstances of the offence or the actual harm caused, this would be deemed disproportionate.
N/A.
No. Article 398 provides for an offence of disturbing public order or attempting to do so. It covers the instigation or provocation of collective disobedience against the laws of public order, essential public functions, or any attempt to disturb public order or peace by any means. Article 398(2)(a) and (b) include in this publishing false or biased news which may cause alarm or unrest, or distributing or attempting to distribute written material which lead to the same result. It is unclear how to determine what is “false” or “biased” news, and what is included in the scope of any attempt to disturb public order or peace. Article 398 thus fails to provide clear guidance for individuals and provides an overly wide degree of discretion to those charged with the enforcement of this law.
No. Speech should only be restricted where some clear, objective public harm might be caused. The aims pursued by Article 398 may be targeted at legitimate aims of protecting public order and national security, in particular when the restrictions target speech which is likely to cause civil disobedience or violence. However, Article398(1) is broadly worded and could potentially cover any attempt to disturb public peace. The broad scope of this provision makes it likely that some restrictions would be outside what is normally considered “public order” and therefore be illegitimate.
No.
Yes, this is a criminal offence and will be decided by a court of law.
No. Violation of Article 398 will result in imprisonment for up to six months and a corresponding fine. Article 399 provides for additional punishments for accessories to the crime, which include prohibition or suspension of the exercise of certain functions, and confiscation of property or dissolution of business for legal entities. If the maximum penalties are imposed without taking into account the circumstances of the offence, then sanctions could be disproportionate. This is particularly the case where no harm actually occurs.
No. Article 48(4) states that media outlets and journalists can be punished for “publication of false news or unfounded rumours” with a penalty corresponding to that imposed for the crime of defamation, if such information impacts upon the public interest or law and order. It is not clear how to determine what constitutes “false news or unfounded rumours”, and as such an individual cannot reasonably be expected to know what speech is prohibited under the law.
Potentially. Article 48(4) penalises the sharing of false news if it jeopardises the public interest or law and order. While this may be legitimate in some circumstances, the terms “public interest” and “law and order” are overly broad and would capture aims outside those considered legitimate under international human rights law.
Yes. Article 48(4) specifies that only intentional publication of false news is prohibited, indicating that the individual must have known of the falsity of the information in order to be liable.
Unclear. The publication of false news is a criminal offence and will be decided by a court (Article 42(2)). However, the Superior Council for Social Communication, which is a state body, is also afforded certain powers under this law. Article 37(1)(b) states that the Superior Council may take “appropriate measures” with regard to violations of this law, and Article 37(5) states that the Council may initiate legal proceedings in cases of violations of this law “in the defence of public interest”. It is not clear in practice what such “appropriate measures” might include or whether the Council would conduct its own legal proceedings or simply refer violations to the appropriate court.
Potentially. Article 48(4) states that the punishment for the intentional sharing of false news is equal to that of sharing injurious or defamatory facts, which is a fine of up to 100,000 MT (1,566 USD) or up to 200,000 MT (3,133 USD) in case of recurrence. Whilst the law does not reference the actual harm that has occurred when determining such penalties, it does allow for discretion on behalf of the judge and limits the fine to a maximum amount. Furthermore, the media organisation and its editors can only be suspended or banned if they have been convicted of defamation or sharing false news three times within five years, and the suspension periods are proportionate to the frequency of the publication.
N/A
No. Article 52(4) states that media outlets and journalists can be punished for “publication of false news or unfounded rumours” with a penalty corresponding to that imposed for the crime of defamation, if such information impacts upon the public interest or law and order. It is not clear how to determine what constitutes “false news or unfounded rumours”, and as such an individual cannot reasonably be expected to know what speech is prohibited under the law.
Potentially. Article 52(4) penalises the sharing of false news if it jeopardises the public interest or law and order. While this may be legitimate in some circumstances, the terms “public interest” and “law and order” are overly broad and would capture aims outside those considered legitimate under international human rights law.
Yes. Article 52(4) specifies that only intentional publication of false news is prohibited, indicating that the individual must have known of the falsity of the information in order to be liable.
No. Article 8(1) would create a “regulatory entity for social communication”, which would have “legal personality and technical, administrative, financial and patrimonial autonomy.” However, Article 8(2) clarifies that it would be up to the government to define the powers, organisation and functioning of the regulator. It is not clear from this draft exactly what powers the regulatory entity would have, and how independent it would be from the government in practice.
Unclear. Article 52(4) states that the “publication of false news or unfounded rumours” is punishable with a penalty corresponding to that imposed for the crime of defamation. Yet the penalty for the crime of defamation is not clearly defined either; Article 52(3) states that those responsible for sharing injurious or defamatory facts will be punished “in accordance with the specific law”. It is not clear which “specific law” is being referred to here, and this is not clarified elsewhere in the text. In any case, heavy fines or long imprisonments for sharing disinformation are highly likely to be disproportionate, especially if penalties are imposed without due consideration for the particular circumstances of the offence or the actual harm caused.
No. Article 50 states that all distributors, sellers and those who have a merely technical or routine role in the publication or distribution of prohibited material are exempt from liability.