Promoting Effective and Inclusive ICT Policy in Africa

Blog

  HomeCollaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA)  /  Blog
12Nov

Localisation Des Donnees, Base De Donnee Biometrique Et Identite Numerique

Author CIPESA Writer Posted on

Par Astou Diouf |

L’étude de la gouvernance des données personnelles intervient dans un contexte où le Sénégal
dispose d’un centre national de données pour promouvoir la souveraineté des données
conformément à la Stratégie numérique 2025. A cet effet, les agences de l’État sont tenues
d’héberger toutes leurs données dans le centre de données de Diamniadio.

La gouvernance des données doit nécessairement promouvoir une politique et des pratiques
efficaces en matière de collette et traitement des données des citoyens, de l’administration
publique et du secteur privé d’une part et d’autre part, à tenir compte de l’impact de la
localisation des données, de la biométrique, du paysage de l’identification numérique et de tous
les droits numériques tels que la vie privée et les données personnelles.

À cela s’ajoute une croissance exponentielle d’acteurs non régulés comme les réseaux sociaux
ou moins régulés comme les prestataires de service d’information sur les comptes et la
prolifération des contenus haineux, racistes, antisémites, des atteintes à la vie privée, des
fausses nouvelles, de la désinformation et de la manipulation de l’information. L’ensemble de
ces facteurs incitent la société civile du secteur du numérique à s’interroger sur la gouvernance
des données personnelles au Sénégal.

La méthodologie qui a été adoptée pour cette étude comprend essentiellement la recherche
documentaire et de données disponibles auprès des bibliothèques, des centres de
documentation.

Ce travail scientifique est le résultat d’une étude sur : « la gouvernance des données personnelles
au Sénégal », afin de permettre un plaidoyer pour une gouvernance des données participative
et inclusive au Sénégal.

En outre, une étude sur la gouvernance des données personnelles nécessite une note introductive
de l’évolution des TIC et une bonne compréhension des concepts qui ne sont pas souvent
familiers aux lecteurs. C’est dans cette suite logique que des éléments de réponse
mériteraient d’être apportés à la problématique de la gouvernance des données personnelles au
Sénégal. L’Etat, acteur principal de la gouvernance des données intervient pour encadrer la
collette et le traitement des données dans un cadre normatif et institutionnel. Il est de coutume que le traitement et la collecte des données personnelles est souvent source d’atteinte
aux droits fondamentaux des personnes.

Des risques potentiels peuvent résulter des programmes de collecte de données biométriques
numériques, de localisation des données ainsi que des politiques d’institution d’identité
numérique (V). Pour se faire, on s’efforcera de conclure et de formuler des
recommandations à l’endroit des parties prenantes concernées (Administration, secteur privé,
société civile) pour une protection efficace des données à caractère personnel.

Localisation Des Donnees, Base De Donnee Biometrique Et Identite Numerique

10Nov

Countering Digital Authoritarianism in Africa

Author CIPESA Posted on

By Apolo Kakaire |

The Internet which is viewed as the panacea for democracy, participation and inclusion is increasingly becoming a tool of repression deployed by regimes across the world to stifle rights and voice.  Africa, a continent already replete with poor democratic credentials and practices seems to be rapidly catching up on the new ‘epidemic’- digital authoritarianism.

The use of technology tactics to advance repressive political interests has come to be  referred to as digital authoritarianism. However, the tactics employed by authoritarian regimes have also been deployed by democratic states for purposes of surveillance, spread of misinformation, disinformation, and the disruption of civic and political participation under the pretext of fighting cybercrime, and in the interest of protecting national security, and maintaining public order.

Big technology companies are key drivers of digital authoritarianism through the creation, innovation and supply of repressive technology and related support. Moreover, political parties, interest groups, and smaller private companies have lapped it up too, developing and using tools and strategies of digital authoritarianism.

Digital authoritarianism is a great case study in understanding and appreciating the impact of technology on human rights. While laws legalising surveillance and interception of communications, and widespread data collection and processing may not be a problem in themselves, it is the ambiguity often present within those laws that give governments wide latitude of interpretation to facilitate the rights abuse that is a growing challenge.

At the Forum on Internet Freedom in Africa 2022 (FIFAfrica22), Global Voices Advox, shared findings from the Unfreedom Monitor– a project exploring the political and social context that fuels the emergence of digital authoritarianism in 17 countries. They hosted a panel discussion in which project researchers from India, Nigeria, Sudan and Zimbabwe presented the project findings on the connections between political contexts, analogue rights, and the growing use of digital communications technology to advance authoritarian governance.

The findings paint a grim picture for  freedom of the media, expression, and democracy in general. In Zimbabwe for instance, the Unfreedom Monitor report notes that; “the press walks a precarious line between national security and the professional obligation to report truthfully” on issues that happen in the country. It is an observation that is replicated in the mapping conducted in Morocco, Egypt, and Tanzania 

In Sudan, where internet censorship, bad laws and repressed liberties and network disruptions are commonplace, Khattab Hamad noted that the contours and motives of digital authoritarianism include fear of losing power, protecting the existence of regional or international alliances, and geopolitical motives protecting private and family interests. He added that terrorism and support for terrorist groups was another motive for authoritarianism in the country. 

In Tanzania, researchers found that often, laws are enacted as precursors to enable various methods of digital authoritarianism. For example, the Cybercrime Act which was hurriedly enacted just months before the October 2015 elections. “There were many other such laws, including the amendments to the Non-Governmental Orgnaisations (NGO) Act, that saw NGOs being deregistered and control on them tightened in the lead up to the 2020 elections”, they revealed.

In Uganda, network disruptions in the run up to and during recent elections is another example of digital authoritarianism. “Sometimes the internet is restored after elections. So, the question is what exactly is the purpose? What are you hiding? Why do you deny your people access to information? Internet shutdowns also question the credibility of elections”, said Felicia Anthonio of Access Now. She added that network disruptions affect engagement between voters and political candidates, in addition to limiting  electoral oversight and monitoring by human rights activists and election observers. 

As part of the Unfreedom Monitor project, Global Voices Advox has established a publicly available database on digital authoritarianism to support advocacy in light of the “urgency of a fast deteriorating situation”, said Sindhuri Nandhakumar, a researcher  with the project. 

While applauding the research and database in supporting evidence-based advocacy, digital rights activists at FIFAfrica22 noted that given the behaviour of authoritarian regimes, advocacy at the national level may be met with a lot of resistance. As such, more engagement was called for  through special mandates and periodic human rights review mechanisms at the African Union (AU) and the United Nations Human Rights Council.   

“Advocacy [against digital authoritarianism] at national level will be difficult. Positive results could be registered through Special rapporteurs at the AU and states through the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), towards securing accountability”, said Arsene Tungali from the Democratic Republic of Congo.

For African digital rights activists, the Global Voices Advox research and database unravels new  avenues for collaborative advocacy and transnational opportunities for interventions to stem this spread of digital authoritarianism. The findings however also point at the need for a concerted and robust response to its growing traction.

As elections in Africa remain a major flashing point for digital authoritarianism as all manner of manipulation of voters, narratives, even results abound, it remains a key area of transnational cooperation. Ahead of the elections in Zimbabwe, slated for July-August 2023, Advox will come up with tips on awareness raising on voter rights and the role of technology in elections. Zimbabwe provides a good opportunity to pilot, learn and perhaps adopt some interventions to counter this behemoth.

04Nov

Key Takeaways From the 2022 African Union Data Policy Framework

Author CIPESA Posted on

By CIPESA Writer |

The Africa Union Data Policy Framework published in July 2022 is one of the most significant documents on data governance on the continent. The Policy Framework is an extensive blueprint to guide African countries’ efforts to establish effective data governance regimes to leverage the data and digital revolution the continent is currently experiencing.

The Policy Framework draws from 30 years worth of experience in attempts to harmonise official statistics in Africa. Compared to the previous initiatives by the African Union (AU), the Policy Framework interrogates the key contextual and capacity challenges inherent in most African countries. It also demonstrates that, in spite of some hiccups, countries can still come up with reasonable and enforceable digital data governance policies and legislative frameworks.

Indeed, as a brief by the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) shows, the Policy Framework is beneficial  to data governance, data rights and privacy in Africa. However, its implementation is likely to come up against notable challenges.

The Policy Framework seeks to become a major reference point and blueprint for governments in Africa on data protection legislation, cross-border sharing of critical data and information to facilitate trade and development. Further, it seeks to calibrate the normally complicated balancing act between enforcing data protection and promoting privacy on one hand, while not curtailing data rights, access to information, open data and open government, and promoting cross-border sharing of data without limitations of sovereignty and protectionism by Member States.

It also emphasises the importance of data interoperability and recommends harmonised national data systems that aggregate different and disparate data systems into singular ones accessible to all parties.

However, the brief notes that the implementation plan of the Policy Framework will need actionable and practical guidelines that countries can follow in ensuring that interests in national security, public order and national economic sovereignty do not unnecessarily stand in the way of the immense benefits of data privacy, open data sharing, intercountry digital collaboration on trade and commerce, and the power of harmonisation of data systems.

Benefits the Data Policy Framework Can Deliver to Data Governance and Data Rights in Africa

    • The Policy Framework provides a key reference resource for governments that are currently designing or reviewing their data governance policy and legal instruments. It is well researched and was collaboratively developed by key institutions of the AU and associate organisations.
    • Countries that will draw from the Policy Framework into their data policy making will receive enormous goodwill from Member States on collaboration and cross-border data sharing efforts, goodwill that emanates from the authority and goodwill that the African Union enjoys among Member States.
    • The Policy Framework acknowledges the unique and complex contexts of each country. It is not prescriptive, as it gives countries wiggle room to preserve their national and sovereign interests while designing policies that are in tune with continental best practice that the Policy Framework offers.
    • Private institutions, civil society and development partners will also find the Policy Framework to be an important resource to guide efforts to collaborate and harmonise their strategies on supporting data and digital ecosystems in Africa, without unnecessary duplication.  
    • The Policy Framework has potential to provide the all-important middle between data rights and privacy while not compromising easy access to key development data and information. Advocates in these arenas will find the Policy Framework an important guiding tool for their data advocacy strategies.

According to the CIPESA brief, the challenges which implementation of the Policy Framework is likely to face include limited financing both at country and at AU levels. Others are the inherent integration problems within the continent, such as the culture of secrecy among African nations, inward-looking and sovereignty concerns that have already delayed AU initiatives like the continental passport and visa-free travel, and the challenges Regional Economic Communities (RECs) still face in realising free movement of goods and people, common markets and political federation.

Further, the brief notes that many AU Member States have challenges with political democracy, with some routinely shutting down the internet during elections and others weaponising technology use, with cybercrime and surveillance laws being used to crack down on critics and political opponents. “Such nations might find some of the progressive pronouncements and recommendations of the Policy Framework a bit too much of an ask,” notes the brief, arguing that this complex political economy of individual African states could be the biggest challenge for implementing the Policy Framework at country level.

In this brief, CIPESA highlights five key takeaways from the 2022 African Union Data Policy Framework.

02Nov

Are Tech Companies Skirting their Responsibilities to Journalists’ Safety?

Author CIPESA Writer Posted on

By CIPESA Writer |

The proliferation of technology has created new opportunities but also threats to journalists and journalism in Africa. Online harassment, criminalisation of aspects of journalism, disinformation and misinformation, surveillance, and trolling, are among the common threats. Often, these threats translate into physical violence, and they are undermining the safety and independence of journalists, and  are leading to the erosion of freedom of expression.

A report by the International Press Institute (IPI) and Konrad Adenauer Stiftung (KAS) on safety of journalists in Africa reveals that media freedom is under assault amidst an increase in attempts to stifle independent media and spiralling attacks on journalists. According to this report, “in a bid to control the public narrative and maintain their hold on power, authoritarian regimes and, in some cases, even democratically elected governments, have been brazenly silencing critical voices and undermining freedom of expression.”

In the lead up to the 10th anniversary of the United Nations (UN) Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists, the UNESCO Section of Freedom of Expression and Safety of Journalists and the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) organised a dialogue on tech platform responsibilities for safety of journalists in Africa. The last 10 years have witnessed various social, economic and technological processes that have introduced new dimensions to democracy, governance and human rights. The exponential growth of digital technologies, for example, has given rise to new concerns about the use and misuse of digital platforms, as well as the role of internet companies in mediating freedom of expression.

In his address at the dialogue, which was held as part of the ninth edition of the Forum on Internet Freedom in Africa (FIFAfrica22), Guilherme Canela, Chief, Section of Freedom of Expression and Safety of Journalists at UNESCO, said the evolving digital ecosystem not only offers enormous opportunities for fostering human rights but also increases risks that compromise fundamental rights like freedom of expression. “Journalists are also part of this equation, benefitting a lot from these opportunities but also suffering from the problems of the digital ecosystem including the viability of the news media sector and the online violence against journalism, journalists, and in particular women journalists,” he said. “Our job therefore is to enhance the opportunities to mitigate the risks and to prosecute the harms.” , Zoe Titus, Director at Namibia Media Trust, stated that authoritarian governments  are closing democratic space and targeting journalists, especially their personal integrity, through laws and policies that are against international norms.

But it is not only governments stifling journalists, as politicians and their supporters are unleashing targeted disinformation to undermine the credibility of independent media. For instance, the August 2022 general election in Kenya saw a spike in coordinated attacks against the media and its credibility. “There were fake news websites, and a continuous tug of war between different media and journalists depending on which candidate they supported. They would attack what the journalists were reporting, then attack their media house and finally the individual journalists and link them to a specific candidate,” said Catherine Muya, Programme Officer- Digital, ARTICLE19.

According to Anriette Esterhuysen, of the Association for Progressive Communications (APC), with increased use of social media, many journalists are vulnerable “but the attacks take a special streak when directed [at] or targeting women”. The various violations were being compounded because tech companies were not being held sufficiently responsible for the harm perpetrated on their platforms. As a result, the tech companies were not taking swift and adequate measures to tackle content that undermines journalists’ safety.

On the other hand, there are concerns that, in pandering to state expectations and demands, some tech companies are targeting innocent and genuine content under the guise of offending guidelines that govern content on their platforms. “Legitimate content has been rejected on these flimsy grounds,” said Muya, citing results of research conducted by ARTICLE 19 in Kenya as part of the Social media for peace project.

Muya added that content or accounts flagged for alleged offensive messages are temporarily or permanently blocked without notification or due process: “They just summarily do this and escalation or reactivation is hard.” Such account holders need to go through intermediaries like The Oversight Board to seek redress, and reporting to platforms and receiving a response from  them is  tedious, Muya said.

In the circumstances, the role of technology companies in regulating content, protecting journalists and enabling the prosecution of the perpetrators of violations against journalists came under focus at the dialogue. Speakers called for more transparency and consistency in the moderation of content online by tech companies, arguing that the companies could do a lot more in sanitising the internet and in  protecting the safety of journalists.

Tech companies can do more, especially on transparency and in anticipating and mitigating risks to journalists. Accordingly, UNESCO and its partners are developing a risk assessment framework for the safety of journalists, which could have two major components. The first would be identification of the principal risks faced by journalists by type and consequence. The second component could be a risk management strategy which would articulate the appropriate risk controls and mitigations, means of monitoring and methods of reporting such risks.

Further, platforms would need to document these attacks and be more transparent with data about the attacks, and how they were handled. “Documenting and sharing data is crucial, for instance on incidents of harmful content, including attacks on journalists such as by direct abuse and threats or disinformation campaigns, and actions taken,” said Wairagala Wakabi, CIPESA’s Executive Director. He added that it was essential to properly research safety concerns such as  sexualised attacks against journalists, including the extent of the problem and its effects, in order to devise effective remedial measures.

28Oct

Digital Rights Prioritised at The 73rd Session of The ACHPR

Author CIPESA Posted on

By CIPESA Writer |

Digital rights as key to the realisation and enforcement of human rights on the African continent was  among the thematic focus areas of the Forum on the Participation of NGOs in the 73rd Ordinary Session of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) held on October 17-18, 2022 in Banjul, the Gambia. Under the theme “Human Rights and Governance in Africa: A Multi-Dimensional Approach in Addressing Conflict, Crisis and Inequality”, the Forum also featured thematic discussions on conflict, the Africa Continental Free Trade Agreement, the environment, climate change, gender-based violence, post Covid-19 strategies and civic space for human rights and good governance.

The Forum on the Participation of NGOs in the Ordinary Sessions of the ACHPR is an advocacy platform coordinated by the African Centre for Democracy and Human Rights Studies. It aims to promote advocacy, lobbying and networking among non-governmental organisations (NGOs) for the promotion and protection of human rights in Africa. The Forum allows for sharing updates on the human rights situation on the continent by African and international NGOs with a view of identifying responses as well as adopting strategies towards promoting and protecting human rights on the continent.

A session in which the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) participated alongside Paradigm Initiative (PIN), the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL) and the Centre for Human Rights-University of Pretoria, discussed the relationship between human rights and technology.

Thobekile Matimbe from PIN observed that internet shutdowns in the region are worrying and a major threat to freedom of expression, access to information, freedom of association and peaceful assembly contrary to article 9 of the African Charter on Human and People Rights (ACHPR) and the ACHPR Declaration of Principles on freedom of expression and access to information in Africa. She  expounded on the profound adverse impacts of internet shutdowns and disruptions on socio-economic rights, including the right to education, housing, health, and even social security. Matimbe specifically called for an end to the now two years internet and phone shutdown in Ethiopia’s Tigray region, while also regretting the continued violation of international human rights standards by States in other parts of the continent. 

Introducing digital rights as human rights and situating the different human rights groups within the digital rights discourse, Irene Petras from ICNL highlighted the technological evolution on the continent and the interrelatedness and interdependence of the internet with various rights and freedoms. According to her, internet shutdowns are an emerging concern that is adversely impacting the digital civic space. 

According to Access Now, in 2021 at least 182 internet shutdowns were experienced in 34 countries across the globe. In Africa, shutdowns were recorded in 12 countries on up to 19 occasions. The affected countries were Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Gabon, Niger, Uganda and Zambia, which experienced internet restrictions during elections. Eswatini, Ethiopia, Gabon, Senegal and South Sudan experienced internet shutdowns due to protests and civil unrest. 

According to CIPESA’s legal officer Edrine Wanyama, given the long-standing authoritarianism and democracy deficits in most parts of the continent, elections, protests and demonstrations and examination periods are  the key drivers of internet shutdowns in Africa. Wanyama also noted that the consequences of internet shutdowns were wide ranging, extending to economic and financial loss, undermining freedom of expression, access to information and access to the internet, aggravating the digital exclusion gap, placing doubt on credibility of elections, facilitating loss of trust in governments and often fueling disinformation and hate speech. 

Given the social, economic and political benefits of the internet, Hlengiwe Dube of the Centre for Human Rights at the University of Pretoria urged states to re-think its availability and access at all times, as opposed to imposing information blackouts and creating situations for litigation.  She noted that meaningful access and creation of a facilitative environment for internet access has widely been advanced as part of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). 

The session called for active monitoring and documentation of internet shutdowns by NGOs including through collaborative and partnership building efforts, utilising investigative tools like Observatory of Network Interference (OONI) and NetBlocks which help to detect disruptions, and engaging in strategic litigation. 

The joint recommendations provided for inclusion in the NGOs Statement to the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) 73rd Ordinary Session by the thematic cluster on digital rights and security are to:

African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) 

  1. In the event of an internet shutdown or any state-perpetrated network disruption, the ACHPR should condemn in the strongest terms such practices and reiterate the state obligations under international human rights law and standards. 
  2. In its assessment of State periodic reports, the ACHPR should engage States under assessment on issues of internet access including the occurrence of interferences through measures such as the removal, blocking or filtering of content and assess compliance with international human rights law and standards.
  3. The ACHPR should engage with stakeholders including State Parties, national human rights institutions and NGOs to develop guidance on internet freedom in Africa aimed at realising an open and secure internet in the promotion of freedom of expression and access to information online.

States Parties

  1. States should recognise and respect that universal, equitable, affordable and meaningful access to the internet is necessary for the realisation of human rights by adopting legal, policy and other measures to promote access to the internet and amend laws that unjustifiably restrict access to the internet.
  2. States parties should desist from unnecessarily implementing internet shutdowns and any other arbitrary actions that limit access to, and use of the internet and restore all disrupted digital networks where such disruptions have been ordered. Where limitation measures that disrupt access to the internet and social media are inevitable, they should be narrowly applied and should be prescribed by the law; serve a legitimate aim and be necessary and proportionate means to achieve a stated aim in a democratic society. 
  3. The State, as the duty bearer, should create a conducive environment for business entities to operate in a manner that respects human rights. 

Non-Governmental Organisations 

  • NGOs and other stakeholders should monitor and document the occurrence of internet shutdowns including their impact on human rights and development; raise awareness of the shutdowns and continuously advocate for an open and secure internet.

The Private Sector

  • Telecommunications companies and internet service providers, in their response to shut down requests, should take the relevant legal measures to avoid internet shutdowns and whenever they receive Internet Shutdown requests from States, the companies should insist on human rights due diligence before such measures are taken to mitigate their impact on human rights, ensuring transparency.
1 … 20 21 22 23 24 … 158