People need protection from threats, persistent harassment, stalking and privacy violations. They also need room to criticise public decisions, report wrongdoing and disagree. Calling every unpleasant post “cyberbullying” obscures the legal and policy distinctions that matter.
This is a public-information article, not legal advice. It describes the text of Act 23 of 2025 published in the Official Gazette on 23 December 2025. That publication and its recorded assent date are verified; this article does not assert a separately verified commencement date or reach a conclusion about current enforceability. It does not decide whether a particular post, person or case meets a legal test.
Civil defamation is different from a cyber offence
In its 20 October 2021 announcement, State House said the Penal Code amendment repealed Chapter XVIII and “effectively decriminalises defamation”. It added: “The charge of defamation can only be pursued as a civil case.” This is the official explanation of that 2021 change, not a complete statement of every element, defence or remedy in a present-day civil claim.
A reputational complaint and a criminal allegation therefore should not be treated as interchangeable simply because the words appeared online. An insulting, critical or reputation-damaging statement is not automatically proof of a cyber offence. The relevant statutory conduct and intention still have to be considered.
The Constitution’s expression provision is Article 22, as the Constitution text hosted by the Council of Europe confirms. Protection of expression and protection from serious online harm belong in the same discussion. Neither should disappear behind a broad label.
What the Gazette actually confirms
The official Act 23 supplement is titled the Cybercrimes and Other Related Crimes (Amendment) Act, 2025. It records assent on 22 December 2025 and Gazette publication on 23 December 2025. It contains replacement wording for sections 14, 15 and 16 of the principal Act. The following quotations describe that published text, not a finding about a particular person’s liability.
Cyber-harassment: specified intention and repeated conduct
The replacement section 14(1), on printed pages 385–386, begins:
“A person who, with the intention to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause emotional distress to a person, uses a computer system for any of the following purposes —”
Its listed purposes are:
“(a) making in more than one occasion, any request, suggestion or proposal of sexual nature ; or”
“(b) threatening in more than one occasion, to inflict injury or physical harm to the person or property of any person; or”
“(c) sending, delivering or showing in more than one occasion, a message, visual or otherwise, including those of a sexual nature; threatening, causing alarm or distress to any person,”
The printed text then states liability, on conviction, to a level 4 fine on the standard scale, imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or both. Its syntax is reproduced here rather than silently rewritten into a broader offence. Applying it to actual communications requires legal interpretation and evidence, not just the word “bullying”.
Section 14(2) excludes an act that “was necessary for the purposes of preventing, detecting or investigating crime” or “was made in the course of court proceedings or any other judicial proceeding”.
Cyber-stalking: conduct, intent and a minor-victim proviso
The replacement section 15(1), on printed pages 386–387, opens:
“A person who without authorisation uses a computer system with the intent to torment, embarrass, coerce, intimidate or harass any person by —”
The listed conduct includes following or contacting someone to foster personal interaction more than once despite a clear indication of disinterest; monitoring someone’s internet or electronic communications; watching or spying in a way that results in fear of violence or serious alarm or distress; and displaying or distributing a message or visual without consent in a manner that harms a person. These are summaries of the listed paragraphs; the full Gazette wording and the amendment’s definition of “without authorisation” should be consulted for any legal question.
Section 15(2) states a general maximum of five years’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding level 4, or both. Its minor-victim proviso reads:
“Provided that, if the victim of the cyber stalking under subsection (1) is a minor, the penalty of imprisonment shall be extended by a further period not exceeding to seven years or with an additional fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or with both.”
This article quotes that proviso without offering a calculation of a sentence or an opinion on how it would apply in a case.
Section 15(3) describes an application by an aggrieved person, or a guardian where the person is a minor, to the relevant competent authority for removal, destruction or blocking of access to the information. It also describes reasonable action and securing information, including traffic data. That wording is not evidence, by itself, of a dedicated public online-reporting portal or its performance.
Section 15(4) excludes an act that “was necessary for the purpose of preventing, detecting or investigating a crime” or “was made in the course of court proceedings or any other judicial proceedings”.
Offensive electronic communications: the purpose language matters
The replacement section 16, on printed page 387, states:
“A person who maliciously uses electronic communication of an offensive nature to disturb or attempt to disturb the peace, quiet or privacy of any person with no purpose to legitimate communication, whether or not a conversation ensues, commits an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine of level 4 on the standard scale or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years, or to both.”
On printed page 382, the amendment defines “legitimate communication” as “communication which is lawful and intended for social or professional purposes”. The words about malice, purpose, peace, quiet and privacy must not be omitted when discussing this text. It should not be reduced to a claim that every rude remark or criticism is criminal.
Protection must be reachable—and rights-respecting
Minors can face repeated unwanted contact, coercion and harmful sharing. A higher penalty in published legislation is not the same as accessible support, timely evidence preservation or an effective complaint process. The National Cybersecurity Coordination Committee reports student activities on digital footprints, fake-account reporting, cyberbullying and online etiquette. The government’s 2021 announcement of the 116 child helpline describes a general child-distress and abuse-reporting channel; it does not establish a cyberbullying-specific takedown service.
Public officials and politicians may experience genuine threats and abuse, while their decisions remain legitimate subjects of scrutiny. Policy should protect people without assuming that satire, journalism, political disagreement or good-faith criticism is abuse by default.
The reviewed public sources did not supply a current national cyberbullying-prevalence series or separated police/prosecution and complaint-outcome datasets covering these categories. That is a gap in the evidence reviewed—not proof that incidents, investigations or services do not exist.
The Council of Europe treaty record records Seychelles’ accession to the Budapest Convention on 17 September 2026 and entry into force for Seychelles on 1 January 2027. As of 24 October 2026, that entry-into-force date is still ahead; it must not be described as an already completed step.
For the Development and Resilience Research Monitor (DRRM), the practical test is clear: distinguish civil reputational remedies from specific criminal-offence text; make reporting and child-sensitive support understandable; preserve evidence and due process; and publish privacy-protecting outcome data. Gazette wording provides a basis for informed discussion. It is not a substitute for qualified advice on commencement, enforceability or an individual case.
Image: original AI-generated editorial illustration for the Development and Resilience Research Monitor (DRRM). People and settings are illustrative, not a documentary photograph of a real household, institution or event.