Blog – Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA)

28Aug

FIFAfrica26 Is One Month Away – It’s Time to Connect!

CIPESA August 28, 2026August 31, 2026

FIFAfrica26 |

In just one month, the Forum on Internet Freedom in Africa 2026 (FIFAfrica26) will convene in Mauritius from September 28 to October 1, 2026, bringing together hundreds of participants from across Africa and beyond for critical conversations on digital rights, inclusion, governance, and the future of the continent’s digital landscape. Now is the time to begin engaging with the vibrant community that makes FIFAfrica such a powerful space for exchange and collaboration.

Participants (in-person and remote) can already look forward to a rich agenda shaped by the digital rights community which reflects the pressing issues at the heart of Africa’s digital rights landscape. The Forum will spotlight themes including digital democracy and civic participation, data governance and sovereignty, artificial intelligence and emerging technologies, platform accountability, digital inclusion, digital economy and trade, movement building, and digital security and safety.

And the conversation does not have to wait until you arrive in Mauritius! You can start connecting and engaging with fellow participants and the wider community now by following @cipesaug and sharing your anticipation, insights, and reflections ahead of the Forum. Use #FIFAfrica26 and #InternetFreedomAfrica to join and amplify the conversations shaping a more open, inclusive, and secure digital future for the continent. Be sure to also join the engaging networks and communities within the event app too. You can start your own too!

As you prepare to attend or participate remotely, we encourage you to take a moment to read the FIFAfrica26 Code of Conduct. The Forum is built on dignity, respect, inclusion, and constructive engagement. The Code of Conduct applies to all Forum spaces including sessions, social events, and online platforms and is intended to ensure that every participant can engage free from intimidation, discrimination, harassment, or hostility. All attendees are expected to uphold these standards throughout the event.

For those traveling, be sure to review the official Travel Note and plan accordingly. FIFAfrica26 will be hosted at the InterContinental Resort, Mauritius in Balaclava.

We look forward to welcoming you online or in person at FIFAfrica26.

19Aug

CIPESA and UNESCO Partner on Project to Strengthen Climate Change Information Integrity in Africa

CIPESA August 19, 2026August 24, 2026

By Juliet Nanfuka |

The Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA), in partnership with UNESCO, is launching a new project to address the growing challenge of climate change disinformation and strengthen information integrity in the public sphere.

At a time when false and misleading narratives are weakening public trust and distorting public understanding of the climate crisis, the initiative will support fact-based public discourse and strengthen the ability of journalists and civil society actors to engage with climate issues using credible information.

Reliable climate information is essential to informed public debate and effective climate action. Yet journalists, content creators, and Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) working on climate and environmental issues often lack the resources and skills needed to verify information, identify disinformation and effectively communicate accurate findings to the public.

CIPESA’s research has documented some of these challenges. Journalists and activists working on climate-related issues, including environment, land and extractives, face significant information gaps and have to navigate disinformation and misinformation campaigns, often with limited avenues to independently verify information.

The initiative recognises that public communication relies on facts and the ability of credible voices to deliver information. The project is supported by the UNESCO-led Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change, which was established to investigate, expose, and dismantle disinformation related to climate change.

The project will respond to these challenges by combining research, capacity building, and public communication. Research will map how climate disinformation spreads across African digital ecosystems, who drives it, and what tactics they use. Findings will inform a Fact-checking Masterclass at the upcoming 2026 Forum on Internet Freedom in Africa, an online training for journalists and civil society actors, and a communications campaign aimed at strengthening public awareness of climate disinformation and promoting credible sources of information.

This approach builds on the Declaration on Information Integrity on Climate Change, which commits its signatories to protect information integrity on climate change at international, national, and local levels. It also reflects the broader United Nations Global Principles for Information Integrity, which envision “an information ecosystem that delivers choice, freedom, privacy and safety for all,” and support those working to share facts in the public interest.

Reporting on climate change in Africa is increasingly taking place in a difficult information environment. Journalists, activists and human rights defenders covering environmental, land and extractives issues face surveillance, censorship, online harassment and coordinated disinformation campaigns. CIPESA’s research has documented these risks, as well as the limited digital security resources available to many of those doing this work.

The project will focus on Uganda and Ethiopia, both of which are experiencing a rise in misleading narratives related to climate change in their digital ecosystems. These narratives frequently revolve around issues such as deforestation, dam and water system developments, droughts, landslides, oil and gas exploration.

The project’s research will also track the information environment, including the public positions and communications of African governments ahead of the 31st Session of the Conference of Parties (COP31) scheduled for November 2026 in Ankara, Türkiye. The conference brings together nearly 200 nations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to negotiate climate action, set emission-reduction targets, and coordinate policies to limit global warming.

Looking further ahead, Ethiopia’s hosting of the 32nd session of the (COP32) in 2027, will bring the global climate conversation back to Africa for the fifth time after Kenya (2006), South Africa (2011), Morocco (2016), and Egypt (2022). This makes the CIPESA-UNESCO partnership particularly timely. As technology increasingly shapes how people access, interpret and contest information about the environment, there is a growing need to understand the evolving relationship between digital platforms, climate narratives, and the integrity of public debate.

14Aug

CIPESA Urges Kenya to Align and Strengthen Its Draft AI Policy

CIPESA August 14, 2026August 14, 2026

By Raylenne Kambua |

In August 2026, the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) submitted a detailed set of recommendations to the Committee on the Draft Kenya Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Other Emerging Technologies Policy, 2026. The submission calls for closer alignment of Kenya’s policy with regional and international AI frameworks, alongside stronger protections for fundamental human rights.

The submission emphasises the need for Kenya to strike a balance between its aspirations for AI governance and strong safeguards that protect human rights, people, and democratic values. Without these, the nation risks developing systems that are innovative but exclusive, unfair, and harmful.

CIPESA argues that since Kenya is simultaneously advancing multiple AI-related processes, including a national AI strategy, a proposed AI Bill, and this draft AI policy, there is a need to align and harmonise the different proposed frameworks to ensure coherence and mitigate the risks of duplication and contradictory provisions.

For example, under section 3.5.1, the Policy commits the government to develop a dedicated AI and other Emerging Technologies Governance Act to provide the legal framework for its governance in Kenya, including the establishment, powers, and functions of the Council, without acknowledging that a similar Bill is already before the Senate.

Kenya’s policy direction is influenced by constitutional obligations as well as wider regional and international commitments that underscore the importance of human rights, accountability, transparency, and inclusiveness. According to CIPESA’s submission, Kenya should incorporate these principles into legally binding policy measures rather than just mentioning them.

The submission further encourages collaboration within the East African region and across the African continent, pointing to the value of shared standards, combined knowledge, and coordinated advocacy in strengthening governance outcomes.

CIPESA’s Navigating the Implications of AI in Kenya report also highlights that AI is reshaping digital participation, information access, and democracy in Kenya. In the absence of explicit protections and clear safeguards, AI systems can perpetuate discrimination, facilitate surveillance, violate people’s right to privacy, restrict freedom of expression, and undermine livelihoods. A rights-based approach that includes mandatory human rights impact assessments will ensure that potential harms are identified and mitigated before systems are deployed.

While the draft policy outlines institutional structures and governance ambitions, CIPESA argues that effective oversight will depend on institutional independence, clear powers, and meaningful accountability. The submission raises concerns about the proposed AI Council’s institutional independence and recommends giving it explicit authority to audit, obtain information, enforce compliance, and report directly to Parliament.

In automated systems, decision-making processes are often opaque and distributed across multiple actors. CIPESA therefore recommends clearly defining responsibilities and liability so that individuals harmed by AI systems have effective redress mechanisms.

Effective AI governance requires technical expertise, resources, and coordination across multiple agencies, yet many institutions in Kenya remain under-resourced. Therefore, proposed governance frameworks should be realistic about the state’s ability to implement and enforce stronger oversight mechanisms by investing in institutional capacity and talent retention.

According to CIPESA’s research, AI content moderation on major platforms is built largely for the Global North, with low-resource African languages. Many AI systems deployed in African contexts are trained on datasets that do not reflect local realities, leading to biased outcomes with direct implications for fairness, inclusion, and accuracy. This necessitates strong local data ecosystems and locally relevant content moderation systems and languages.

Kenya’s 2025 High Court ruling on the Worldcoin iris-scanning project affirmed the need for stronger data protection measures and integration with AI-specific legislation. According to CIPESA, incorporating pre-deployment oversight would transform AI governance from a reactive to a proactive model, particularly regarding sensitive biometric data.

AI systems are resource-intensive, consuming a lot of energy and requiring large amounts of water for data centre cooling. They also emit carbon and ultimately contribute to electronic waste. The submission recommends environmentally sustainable approaches, including independent third-party verification of environmental disclosures and publication of verified information in the public Registry.

The African Union AI Strategy identifies disinformation as a distinct risk. AI can influence public discourse by deciding which information is promoted, suppressed, or amplified. Disinformation, manipulation, targeted harassment, technology-facilitated gender-based violence (TFGBV), and AI-generated deepfakes can create particular risks in civic and democratic spaces, with disproportionate effects on women and other vulnerable groups. CIPESA proposes explicit recognition of these threats, implementation of gender impact assessments for high-risk systems, and stronger oversight of AI use in elections, political advertising, and content moderation.

Another recommendation is the inclusion of civil society representation at the steering committee, which is the top decision-making level. This is to ensure meaningful participation and alignment with the African Union AI Strategy and the UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of AI, which call for inclusive, multi-stakeholder involvement in AI governance, especially where major decisions are made.

Inclusion and public participation also require accessible language and processes that enable broader public engagement with what are often complex and technical issues, through investments in digital literacy and public awareness.

The submission further underscores the importance of labour rights and the often invisible workforce behind AI systems, many of whom work in unfavourable conditions. By highlighting the need for fair labour standards, protections, and recognition of data work, CIPESA also recommends including the workforce that sustains AI ecosystems in high-level policy discussions.

Explainability and transparency are essential to accountable AI governance. For people to trust AI systems, they need to understand how AI-driven decisions are made and contest results they believe to be unfair. To prevent AI systems from being treated as black boxes beyond public scrutiny, there must be clear documentation, disclosure standards, and rights to explanation. This builds accountability and trust, especially in high-risk sectors like public services, healthcare, and finance.

Finally, CIPESA highlights the necessity of continuous policy review and adaptation, emphasising that governance frameworks must remain adaptable and responsive as AI technologies evolve quickly. This includes establishing mechanisms for periodic review, stakeholder feedback, and iterative policy development to ensure that regulations remain relevant and effective over time.

CIPESA’s recommendations provide a mechanism to close the gap between ambition and accountability as Kenya works to finalise its AI policy. The decisions made at this point will influence not only the development, deployment, and application of AI but also the distribution of its benefits and risks.

Key recommendations from CIPESA:

Align Kenya’s AI policy and legislation to avoid duplication and conflicting provisions.
Make human rights and gender impact assessments mandatory for high-risk AI systems.
Strengthen the independence and powers of AI oversight institutions, including audit, enforcement, and redress.
Protect workers across the AI value chain, including data annotators and content moderators.
Require environmental accountability for AI, including disclosure and independent verification of energy, water, emissions, and e-waste impacts.
Ensure transparency and meaningful participation, including stronger safeguards for AI-generated political content and a formal role for civil society in AI governance.

Read the full submission here: CIPESA Submission on Kenya’s Draft AI and Emerging Technologies Policy.

13Aug

Civil Society and the Fight for Big Tech Accountability in Africa

CIPESA August 13, 2026August 13, 2026

By CIPESA Writer |

As digital platforms become central to how Africans communicate, access information, conduct business, and participate in public life, the question of who holds these companies accountable has become increasingly urgent.

Technology companies exercise considerable influence over personal data, online visibility, advertising markets, content moderation, and, increasingly, artificial intelligence systems. Yet CIPESA’s work on platform governance shows that having laws and regulations does not always translate into effective oversight of multinational technology companies.

These concerns were at the centre of the Big Tech Accountability Summit on July 30, 2026, where CIPESA’s Policy and Advocacy Officer, Patricia Ainembabazi, spoke on the panel “How Civil Society and Public Interest Litigation Drive Big Tech Data Protection Accountability in Africa.”

The discussions focused on the role civil society can play in triggering enforcement, the barriers to holding multinational companies accountable across borders, and the institutional reforms and policies needed to strengthen accountability. A key point from the discussion was that adopting data protection laws and establishing regulators does not automatically guarantee enforcement.

Across Africa, many regulators operate with limited financial resources, insufficient specialised personnel, fragmented mandates, and varying levels of institutional independence. They are nevertheless expected to oversee companies with substantial financial, technical, and legal capacity. Much of the evidence required to establish violations, including information about algorithms, data flows, and internal risk assessments, also remains under the control of the companies themselves.

This imbalance means that civil society can play an important role. As Patricia Ainembabazi noted, civil society organisations document harms, aggregate the experiences of affected users, undertake legal and technical research, file regulatory complaints, support strategic litigation, and sustain public scrutiny.

Similar concerns regarding tech accountability had been raised earlier on July 7, 2026, during the Humanising Big Tech Accountability webinar, where panelists argued that holding platforms accountable requires concerted efforts and a multistakeholder approach, including through storytelling and narrative building.

Uganda’s data protection case against Google LLC illustrates the importance of citizen-led accountability. The complaint was brought by four Ugandan data subjects, while CIPESA subsequently documented and amplified its wider significance. CIPESA highlighted how the case transformed an abstract privacy right into a concrete enforcement action against one of the world’s largest technology companies. The case also demonstrated the importance of testing the application of national data protection obligations to multinational companies operating across borders.

From western Africa, Nigeria offers another important example. A joint investigation by the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission and the Nigeria Data Protection Commission resulted in a USD 220 million penalty against Meta and WhatsApp, which was subsequently upheld by the Competition and Consumer Protection Tribunal. The case demonstrates that African regulators can build credible enforcement actions against multinational platforms. It also raises the broader question of whether such penalties ultimately lead to lasting compliance and changes in corporate behaviour.

CIPESA’s recent analysis, Who Holds Digital Power Accountable? Lessons from Platform Governance in Africa further show that countries are experimenting with different approaches to regulating platform power. South Africa’s Media and Digital Platforms Market Inquiry examined the influence of dominant platforms on local journalism and secured commitments from several major companies. Uganda’s prolonged restriction on Facebook presents a contrasting experience, where the social and economic costs were borne by users and businesses without clearly producing greater accountability from the platform.

These examples show that the ability of individual African countries to influence global technology companies depends not only on having laws but also on regulatory capacity, market size, and political leverage.

The challenge extends beyond data protection. CIPESA has documented how weaknesses in platform governance affect freedom of expression, access to information, civic participation, and gender equality. Inadequate local language content moderation, technology-facilitated gender-based violence (TFGBV), and rapidly spreading disinformation demonstrate how failures in platform accountability translate directly into harms for African users. Effective platform governance, therefore, needs to address not only content moderation but also pay attention to data governance, competition, algorithmic transparency, market concentration, and access to effective remedies.

For civil society and regulators, one of the major challenges is regulatory fragmentation. A technology company may collect data in one country, process or store it in another, and make key decisions elsewhere. Different national laws, procedures, and institutional capacities can allow companies to challenge jurisdiction or respond selectively across markets. Regulators and civil society organisations may also lack the resources to undertake sophisticated technical audits or sustain lengthy litigation.

As such, CIPESA has called for a shift beyond isolated national enforcement towards the domestication of the African Union-backed cross-border enforcement mechanism, bringing together data protection, competition, consumer protection, and communications regulators.

While regional approaches begin to emerge, the COMESA Competition Commission’s investigation into Meta across its member states illustrates the potential for collective oversight of platform power. CIPESA’s research similarly argues that no African country can effectively address systemic platform power in isolation and calls for stronger institutions, deeper regulatory cooperation, rights-respecting regulation, and greater transparency from technology companies.

Ultimately, civil society must be integral to this accountability architecture, not merely consulted after decisions have been taken, but as a source of complaints, research, community evidence, and independent oversight. Stronger Big Tech accountability in Africa will also depend on regulators that have the resources and independence to act, accessible remedies for affected users, coordinated regional enforcement, and sustained public interest advocacy.

During the Humanising Tech Accountability webinar, CIPESA emphasised the need for civil society actors to proactively engage in research and advocacy that centers and amplifies the impact of unchecked big tech companies’ practices on people’s lives. It is only when people understand the impact of practices and manifestations such as TFGBV or the spread of disinformation on their fundamental human rights, such as freedom of expression, access to information, civic participation, and gender equality, that they will aggressively demand platform reforms and accountability.

Through our research, policy engagement, and advocacy on data governance, privacy, platform governance, and digital rights, CIPESA continues to contribute to building an African digital ecosystem in which technological power is matched by meaningful accountability.

05Aug

Uganda and Zimbabwe’s Fourth-Cycle UPRs Must Turn Digital Progress into Stronger Rights Protections

CIPESA August 5, 2026August 5, 2026

By Patricia Ainembabazi |

As Uganda and Zimbabwe prepare for their fourth-cycle Universal Periodic Reviews (UPRs) at the United Nations Human Rights Council, stakeholder submissions by the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) and partners on the two countries reveal a common challenge: digital infrastructure and legislation are advancing, but the protection of human rights online is not keeping pace.

Both countries have made notable progress since their previous UPR reviews in January 2022, including advances in digital infrastructure, regulatory frameworks, and access to digital services. Uganda has expanded its communications infrastructure and digital public services, strengthened aspects of data protection enforcement, and registered important court decisions annulling provisions of the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Act, 2022, and criminal defamation offences.

Zimbabwe has expanded internet and broadband subscriptions, licensed satellite internet services, adopted regulations to support the Freedom of Information Act, 2020, and introduced a data protection framework through the Cyber and Data Protection Act, 2021.

However, these developments have not consistently translated into safe, affordable, and rights-respecting participation online. For instance, freedom of expression remains under pressure in both countries. Journalists, activists, opposition actors, artists, comedians, human rights defenders, and social media users continue to face arrest, prosecution, intimidation, and harassment over their expression.

While Uganda’s court decisions have provided important protections, broadly framed communication offences and online media licensing requirements continue to create uncertainty and encourage self-censorship. In Zimbabwe, offences relating to false information, cyberbullying, incitement, insulting the President, sovereignty, and national interest threaten journalism, political debate, satire, whistleblowing, and human rights advocacy.

The joint submission on Uganda by CIPESA, the Association for Progressive Communications (APC), and Women of Uganda Network (UWOGNET) underlines the growing relationship between internet access and democratic participation. A similar dynamic is seen in the joint submission on Zimbabwe by Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR), the University of Birmingham, Pan African Lawyers Union (PALU), the Digital Rights Alliance Africa (DRAA), and CIPESA.

During Uganda’s January 2026 general elections, the government imposed an internet shutdown lasting almost five days, disrupting communication, access to information, economic activity, digital financial services, and participation in public affairs. It marked the third consecutive election cycle in which the country disrupted digital communications, following similar measures in 2016 and 2021.

Zimbabwe experienced network degradation during its 2023 elections. Although internet connectivity has expanded in both countries, these network disruptions demonstrate the need for safeguards against shutdowns, throttling, and other forms of communication interference during elections and periods of political contestation.

Affordability and inequality also remain obstacles in both countries. While Uganda recorded 47.1 million active mobile subscriptions and 18.5 million active internet subscriptions by December 2025, taxes on data, airtime, devices, and digital services continue to make connectivity unaffordable to a large number of Ugandans.

In Zimbabwe, high data and device costs, unreliable electricity, rural infrastructure gaps, limited digital literacy, and inaccessible services prevent many people from fully participating online. Across both countries, women, rural communities, students, older persons, low-income households, and persons with disabilities face disproportionate barriers to affording and using digital technologies.

Privacy and surveillance are equally pressing challenges. Uganda’s expanding use of biometric identification, iris scans, closed-circuit television systems, digital number plates, and electoral technologies requires stronger safeguards, transparency, and independent oversight. Proposed social media monitoring tools raise additional concerns regarding privacy, freedom of expression, and accountability. The Personal Data Protection Office also needs adequate institutional capacity to effectively enforce the law.

In Zimbabwe, the designation of the Postal and Telecommunications Regulatory Authority of Zimbabwe as the Data Protection Authority raises concerns about institutional independence. Broad national security exemptions and limited judicial oversight of surveillance powers also expose individuals to possible violations of privacy.

Another shared concern is technology-facilitated gender-based violence. Women journalists, politicians, activists, and human rights defenders face cyberstalking, doxing, impersonation, sexualised disinformation, threats, coordinated harassment, and the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. Artificial intelligence is increasing these risks by enabling sexual deepfakes and other manipulated content intended to discredit women and exclude them from public life.

The fourth-cycle reviews should result in clear and measurable commitments. Accordingly, Uganda and Zimbabwe should:

Reform restrictive expression laws and repeal vague offences used against legitimate journalism, criticism, satire, and political participation.
Prohibit internet shutdowns, throttling, and arbitrary platform blocking, particularly during elections, protests, and other periods of heightened public interest.
Promote affordable and inclusive connectivity by reducing service costs, expanding rural infrastructure, improving accessibility, and supporting community-centred connectivity models.
Strengthen access to information through proactive disclosure, accessible request procedures, and effective implementation of existing laws.
Guarantee independent data protection and surveillance oversight, including judicial authorisation, transparency reporting, and remedies for unlawful surveillance or misuse of personal data.
Adopt survivor-centered responses to technology-facilitated gender-based violence, supported by accessible reporting systems, legal assistance, and stronger platform accountability.

The UPR provides both governments with an opportunity to show that digital transformation and human rights protection are mutually reinforcing. Progress must be measured not only through infrastructure, subscription numbers, and legislation, but by whether people can communicate, organise, access information, and participate online freely, safely, and without discrimination.

For the full reports as submitted, click here for Uganda and here for Zimbabwe.

1 2 3 … 205 Next page