ZIMBABWE’S Cyber and Data Protection Act [Chapter 12:07] was not crafted as a theoretical statute for rare digital crimes.
It was designed for the kind of crisis now unfolding in the health sector: the weaponisation of social media to spread false, harmful and reputationally destructive messages.
Recent concerns raised by the Medical and Dental Private Practitioners Association of Zimbabwe (MDPPZA) reveal a troubling pattern.
Doctors are increasingly being named, shamed, accused and vilified online by patients or relatives, often before any internal hospital review, professional inquiry or regulatory process has taken place.
Names, photographs, workplaces and allegations are circulated on Facebook, WhatsApp and X, turning emotionally- charged posts into viral indictments.
This is not merely a professional grievance.
It is a legal issue addressed by sections 164A, 164B and 164C of the Criminal Law Code as amended by the Cyber and Data Protection Act.
These provisions criminalise the conduct now being normalised online.
- Govt orders Marondera to re-advertise TC post
- Residents take council head-on over spikes
- Zimbabwe’s new cyber law brought outlawed criminal defamation provisions back, say experts
- Council ordered to reinstate ‘Chamisa sympathisers’
Keep Reading
Section 164C makes it an offence to transmit data messages knowing they are false, with the intention to cause psychological, reputational or economic harm.
The law explicitly includes text, voice, images and videos — the very formats used in social media accusations.
Section 164B criminalises cyberbullying and harassment, including messages intended to cause emotional distress.
Posting repeated accusations, inciting others to attack a doctor, or mobilising online outrage can fall within this provision.
Section 164A addresses non-consensual image sharing, relevant where photographs of doctors are posted without consent to accompany allegations.
In short: what many people now consider “venting online” can constitute a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment.
The problem is not the absence of law.
The problem is the absence of enforcement and public awareness.
Trial by social media is replacing due process
Healthcare is a complex field.
Outcomes are influenced by disease severity, late presentation, limited resources, patient compliance and systemic constraints.
An adverse outcome does not automatically equal negligence.
That determination requires professional assessment, medical records, expert review and regulatory oversight.
Yet today, social media bypasses all that.
A single emotional post, written in grief or anger, can reach thousands before facts are verified.
Comments pile on. Strangers become jurors. A digital mob forms.
Reputations built over decades can be destroyed in hours.
This is precisely what the law anticipated: the psychological and economic harm that flows from false digital messaging.
Doctors report not only reputational damage but real fear for personal safety when their identities are circulated online.
This crosses from expression into intimidation.
This is not about shielding doctors from accountability
MDPPZA stresses that legitimate complaints must be pursued.
Zimbabwe has well-established complaint mechanisms: hospital management, medical superintendents and the Medical and Dental Practitioners Council of Zimbabwe.
These structures exist to ensure fairness for both patient and practitioner.
But when complaints are first aired on social media, investigations are prejudiced before they begin.
Public opinion is shaped without evidence.
The accused doctor is judged before being heard.
This undermines justice for everyone — including the patient.
Persistent online harassment has consequences beyond individual doctors.
It creates a hostile working environment, contributes to burnout and may push skilled practitioners away from public-facing roles.
In a country already grappling with health workforce challenges, this is dangerous.
A system where doctors fear that any adverse outcome may lead to viral online attacks is not a system that encourages transparency, innovation or commitment.
Patients, too, lose. Distrust grows. Communication deteriorates.
Defensive medicine replaces compassionate care.
The Cyber and Data Protection Act gives authorities the tools to act.
What is now required is visible enforcement.
A few well-publicised prosecutions under sections 164A–C for clearly false and harmful online accusations would quickly educate the public on the seriousness of these offences.
At the same time, digital literacy campaigns are needed to teach citizens that social media is not a consequence-free space.
Posting an allegation is not the same as filing a complaint.
It is publishing potentially defamatory, criminally actionable material.
Grief, anger and frustration are human responses to medical crises.
But in the digital age, those emotions can cause irreversible harm when converted into viral accusations.
Zimbabwe’s cyber laws recognise that harm.
The message to the public must be clear: if you have a complaint against a doctor, take it to the hospital, council or the courts — not Facebook.
The message to authorities must be equally clear: the law already exists. Use it.
Because when social media becomes a courtroom, justice is replaced by noise and everyone — patients, doctors and society — pays the price.
