Promoting Effective and Inclusive ICT Policy in Africa

Blog

  HomeCollaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA)  /  Blog
29Jul

CIPESA Supports Impactful Digital Rights Media Advocacy in Africa

Author CIPESA Posted on

By Apolo Kakaire |

Civic space continues to shrink across Africa. In recent years, disruptions to the internet and social media applications have emerged as a common trend of digital repression especially in authoritarian countries in Africa. While the Covid-19 pandemic has reaffirmed the immense importance of digital technologies for government and citizen interactions, public services provision, employment, education and commerce, some governments on the continent used the pandemic as an excuse to impose further clampdowns.  

For full realisation of the potential of digital technologies to transform society and economies in Africa during the pandemic and beyond, there is need for continued advocacy to uphold and protect freedom of expression, access to information, and equitable participation online. 

It is against this background that between July 5-9, 2021, the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) in partnership with the African Centre for Media Excellence (ACME) conducted an intensive training course on Digital Rights and Impact Communication for grantees of the Africa Digital Rights Fund (ADRF). The ADRF was launched in April 2019 to offer flexible and rapid response grants to select initiatives in Africa to implement activities that advance digital rights, amidst rising digital rights violations.

The training  equipped civil society organisations (CSOs) with skills, knowledge and tools to effectively communicate digital rights issues and inspired them to approach communication systematically so as to increase the visibility of digital rights issues in different media and to promote public discussion on digital rights issues.

According to Ashnah Kalemera, the Programme Manager at CIPESA, “the training was the result of the realisation that organisations working in the digital rights arena have inadequate skills to effectively and proactively engage the media and to conduct effective public communications.” She added that, as a consequence of this skills gap, “digital rights issues are poorly covered, commonly with limited depth and sensitivity.” 

“Digital rights are a fairly new area of interest, so it is prudent that CSOs working in this space are skilled in pitching appropriate messages in clear language and in making concrete calls to action, especially given that the media is not well-versed or always keen on this subject,” said Kalemera.

The training was preceded by a capacity and training needs assessment which established ADRF grantees’ preeminent training needs as using social media as a tool of influence, communicating research and hard-to sell-subjects, and developing media advocacy strategies. The findings of the assessment informed the development of the curriculum and training resources featuring a mix of trainer-led discussions, experience sharing, case studies, guest lectures, plenary discussions and assignments. 

Sessions during the training included on topics such as Impactful communication and Advocacy, which was led by ACME’s Executive Director, Dr. Peter Mwesige; and Civil Society Relations: Breaking the Barriers, a lecture by Daniel Kalinaki, General Manager, Editorial Nation Media Group in Uganda.  John Baptist Imokola and Dr. Gerald Walulya, both lecturers at Makerere University’s Department of Journalism and Communications, alongside Agnes Tumuheire, Content Manager at Ultimate Media Consults, led the sessions on Communication Planning,  Communicating/ Disseminating Research and Hard-to-Sell Subjects, and Taking Advantage of the Power of Digital/Social Media, respectively.

The 25 trainees, who included the executive leadership, programme and communications officers from ADRF-supported organisations operating in Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo (DR Congo), Ghana, Kenya, Rwanda, Somalia, Somaliland, Tanzania, Uganda and Zimbabwe, worked to develop internal communications strategies and drafted campaign materials.

Experience from such communication-related training shows that having the right mix of senior staff and implementers from an organisation is a prerequisite for success. Communication being a management function, it helps that the key decision makers share the same vision, outlook and attitude to communication with those that handle the day-to-day communication functions. 

Select participant testimonies“I was very interested in understanding how the media works.  Since I don’t have experience working in media houses, it was a good opportunity to discuss how to engage with the media.” Blaise Ndola, Rudi International – DR Congo.

“I am happy to have participated in this training. The delivery method was well thought-through, the materials were easy to access and understand and the mentors were amazing. Many important questions were answered as a result of this training. [I am] grateful for the opportunity to learn from experts in those fields!” Ayaan Khalif, Digital Shelter – Somalia.

“What l really enjoyed were mostly issues to do with how communities have to embrace digital rights so that they see the benefits that come with digital rights, and the roles CSOs have in ensuring our communities are aware of their rights. And also on issues of media relations strategies how best to come up with a working strategy for the diverse communities we serve.” Michelle N. Q Mulingo, Zimbabwe Centre for Media and Information Literacy (ZCMIL).

Going forward, digital rights advocacy CSOs would benefit from investing in the journalism they want to see. Possible avenues include offering reporting grants to facilitate higher quality research than that done by journalists through media houses’ limited resources.  Follow ups with the trainees/grantees is also necessary to ensure application of acquired skills and knowledge. Moreover, given the fairly high staff attrition rate in CSOs it would be useful to regularly conduct these kinds of training if impact communication is to gain traction in the digital rights arena.

28Jul

Digital Taxation Doing More Harm than Good for Access and Rights in Africa

Author CIPESA Posted on

By Evelyn Lirri |

When Uganda introduced a tax on social media use in 2018, the government hoped the new source of revenue would help widen the country’s tax base. Instead, internet subscriptions fell drastically and the government did not raise the anticipated revenue as most users turned to Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) to access social media platforms. 

Three years later in July 2021, Uganda abandoned the levy on social media access and instead introduced a 12% tax on internet data. Still in its early days, the effects of the new tax are yet to be seen. Nonetheless, like its predecessor, the tax is likely to affect internet access, the country’s fledgling digital economy, and digital civic space. 

Yet Uganda is not alone in the growing trend of digital taxation. From South Africa in the south, Kenya and Tanzania in the east, through to Nigeria in the west, as the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) sector grows across the African continent, several countries are turning to the sector as a target for new revenue streams.

But there appears to be no stakeholder consensus on digital tax rules, with activists, economists, technologists and innovators at loggerheads with tax bodies and communications regulators on how to overcome economic downturns while driving digital transformation and upholding digital rights.   

This balancing act formed the basis of a recent workshop on the impact of digital taxation on digital rights in Africa organised by the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA). The workshop brought together 66 participants from across the continent and beyond to deliberate on good digital taxation practices and the impact of taxation on users and national ecosystems. The workshop featured perspectives from platform operators, national and regional regulatory bodies, tax authorities, and policy makers. 

Speaking at the workshop, Professor H Sama Nwana, a technology and telecommunications consultant affiliated with the UK-based Cenerva, said digital taxes in various forms are not only regressive, they disenfranchise poor and marginalised groups such as women and the youth. “If you apply a flat tax, it is going to affect the less privileged and people who need the internet the most, such as women in rural areas. The social media tax in Uganda impacted some of the poorer provinces more than people in urban areas such as the capital Kampala,” he explained.

According to Nwana, countries which have introduced digital taxes have registered a subsequent decline in the number of people accessing and using the internet and other ICT-related services, ultimately leading to less revenue generated for the government. “This is paradoxical because when you try to drive up your tax revenue by putting up more taxes onto the system, people stop using data services to transact or carry out other businesses such as agriculture and financial services,” said Nwana.

Access to affordable internet is still a challenge for many across the continent. With just over a quarter of the population online, additional costs including taxes deepen the affordability challenge. Indeed, as the Alliance for Affordable Internet (A4AI) Africa Regional Coordinator Onica Makwakwa argued, “taxes that are passed on to consumers further burden those who are already struggling with the cost of access” and it is thus crucial to “guard against over-taxation” especially in light of the Covid-19 pandemic which has made the need to be connected and have access to affordable internet even “more urgent”. 

“What we have in Africa is an affordability and accessibility gap which needs to be closed,”  said Dr. Christoph Stork, a telecommunications expert with Research ICT Solutions. “To be able to provide e-services such as health, education and fintech, we need increased connectivity. ICT taxes make these services either too expensive or less attractive to invest in.”

Taxation, according to Stork, should be broad-based, easy to enforce, provide incentive for competition and investment, and be progressive. “The [Uganda] Over the Top Services (OTT) tax, for example, is regressive because everyone pays the same amount regardless of whether they are rich or poor. These kinds of taxes in general prevent the poor from participating in tomorrow’s internet society,” Stork said. 

Reducing or eliminating sector-specific taxation therefore becomes critical to encourage investment in mobile connectivity, improved affordability, increased uptake, and ultimately, economic growth.

The CIPESA Programme Manager, Ashnah Kalemera, cited the example of Chad, a country with one of the lowest internet and mobile penetration rates on the continent and a history of restricting citizens’ access to internet platforms, which in January 2020 eliminated an 18% excise duty on mobile internet to facilitate increased access and usage of data by citizens. On the other hand, in countries such as Malawi, where telecommunications operators have over recent months made strides in lowering the cost of data services, Kalemera said the government maintains various ICT-related taxes that continue to affect affordability. 

Nwana said research shows that for every 10% increase in mobile broadband penetration, there is an increase of between 0.82 to 1.4% in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of developing countries in Africa. He added: “Why do we want to forego this growth by increasing taxes which drops the number of people using broadband data services, which clearly adds significant value and GDP growth to our economy?”

The digital tax debate has also featured discussions around how African governments can derive revenue from big multinational companies such as Facebook which are domiciled abroad but have a significant number of users on the continent. 

Jacob Puhl, Manager of Tax Policy at Facebook, noted that while the social media platform generates about 98% of its revenue from advertising, only about 8-9% of that revenue comes from emerging economies in Africa and Asia. “People keep asking, ‘you have users here, why don’t you pay taxes?’ Because users of our platform are all over the world, there is a lot of misunderstanding about where our revenues come from as well as our advertisers. Advertisers pay more to reach markets where e-commerce is robust,” said Puhl.

Audience Q&A

Participant: It is true that Facebook is an advertising company based in the USA and that most users are not Facebook customers. However, take an advertiser like Coca-Cola. Their product is consumed in most countries in the world and so they advertise with Facebook because of those users who pay nothing to Facebook.

Response: In the 80+ countries where VAT is applied to ads purchased from non-resident companies, Coca-Cola would pay VAT to Facebook and we would remit it to the tax administration.

Indeed the impact of taxation on e-commerce platforms was highlighted as part of the workshop’s deliberations. For instance, according to Ron Kawamara, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Jumia-Uganda, the introduction of the OTT tax led to a decline in the number of vendors and customers on their platform despite the potential that e-commerce presents for the country and continent. 

“Before the tax, we had a reach of about 11 million users on Facebook. That dropped by 35% with the introduction of OTT. And with users turning to VPN, it becomes difficult to reach customers with one service or the other,” said Kawamara.

Jumia Uganda is a subsidiary of the pan-African e-commerce company Jumia Group, which is Africa’s largest online retailer. Launched in 2012, it currently has operations in 11 African countries as well as China, United Arab Emirates and Portugal. 

While e-commerce platforms can be catalysts for revenue generation for governments, the lack of visibility of some of the platforms has made it difficult for tax bodies to properly track and ensure tax compliance. This, according to Milly Nalukwago Isingoma, the Assistant Commissioner Research, Planning and Development at Uganda Revenue Authority (URA), has impacted how much revenue the government is able to generate from online platforms and businesses. 

“With the previous model of taxation, you had to have a physical address where you could reach the taxpayer. Now transactions are happening online with no visibility and our collections have remained low. This is what forced us to come up with taxes such as the OTT tax,” said Isingoma. 

Isingoma acknowledged that implementing the tax was difficult and less revenue than had been projected was collected. “We do acknowledge that we got it wrong with the OTT tax. That is why we decided to work with the telecom companies to come up with the 12% excise duty that cuts across. This way, we are also able to protect the revenue base of the telecom companies,” said Isingoma. 

Dr. Peter Mwencha, Director at Consumer Unity & Trust Society-Africa Centre, called for an update to tax laws on the continent in order to protect consumers and integrate the digital economy. Similarly, James Mutandwa Madya, the Director for Policy and Strategic Planning at the ICT ministry in Zimbabwe, noted that in order to address some of the challenges and limitations of digital taxation, tax models should be reviewed with the interests of governments and consumers taken into account. 

Creating this balance requires collaboration between regulators and tax bodies, according to  Anthony Marufu Chigaazira, the former Executive Secretary of the Communications Regulators Association of Southern Africa (CRASA). “Collaborative regulation should be at the forefront otherwise we end up with tax authorities who do not understand the sector proposing taxes that infringe on digital rights and impact the majority of the population,” said Chigaazira. 

Indeed, as noted by Pria Chetty, Director of the South Africa-based EndCode, it would be instructive to understand the trajectory of models informing specific digital tax approaches in different countries. According to her, “it would be too simplistic” to consider the motivation for digital taxes as merely a government “grab” for new taxation sources. 

Chetty added that instances where digital taxes have been withdrawn, including outside the continent, should offer learning to African regulators. “Regional and continental guidance on taxation that accounts for the unique costs of connectivity and unique value chains should also be a priority. National approaches should account for the state of the digital economy, existing tax structures, fundamental rights and competition dynamics,” said Chetty.

Resources:

19Jul

CIPESA, Small Media Make Stakeholder Submissions to the United Nations Human Rights Council on Digital Rights in South Sudan, Uganda and Zimbabwe

Author CIPESA Writer Posted on

By Ashnah Kalemera |

The Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) together with Small Media last week made joint stakeholder submissions on digital rights in South Sudan, Uganda and Zimbabwe to the United Nations Human Rights Council.

The submissions were made as part of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) mechanism which is an assessment of a country’s human rights under the auspices of the Human Rights Council. Every United Nations (UN) member state has its human rights record assessed, and all UN member states are involved in the review process. It happens every four-and-a-half years, for every state.

The submissions urge the three countries to ensure that rights to freedom of expression, freedom of information, equal access and opportunity as well as data protection and privacy are protected both offline and online pursuant to constitutional guarantees, regional and international instruments. Based on developments since the three countries’ previous UPR back in November 2016, the submissions make recommendations to be considered during the upcoming third cycle of the UPR, tentatively scheduled for November 2021.

The South Sudan submission was made in partnership with Defy Hate Now and supported by eight institutions – Rise Initiative for Women’s Rights Advocacy (RiWA), Freedom of Expression Hub, Koneta hub, Okay Africa Foundation, Anataban Initiative, IamPeace, Internet Governance Forum (IGF) South Sudan and Information Communication Technology for Development (ICT4D) Network.

The submission for Uganda was supported by Access Now, Freedom of Expression Hub, Women of Uganda Network (WOUGNET), Internet Society – Uganda Chapter and Pollicy.

Access Now, Paradigm Initiative, Zimbabwe Human Rights Association, Association for Progressive Communication (APC), Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights, Zimbabwe Centre for Media and Information Literacy (ZCMIL), Media Alliance of Zimbabwe supported the Zimbabwe Submission.

Read the full submissions:

The three submissions bring to 14 the total number of UPR submissions made by CIPESA and Small Media on digital rights in Africa since 2018. Previous submissions made include: Ethiopia, the Gambia, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, and Tanzania

19Jul

How Surveillance, Collection of Biometric Data and Limitation of Encryption are Undermining Privacy Rights in Africa

Author CIPESA Writer Posted on

By Paul Kimumwe |

The right to privacy online has become a critical human rights issue, given its intricate connection with, and its being a foundation for the realisation of other rights including the rights to freedoms of expression, information, assembly, and association and preservation of human dignity. However, many African countries have steadily taken measures to undermine this right, including enacting retrogressive laws and policies that facilitate surveillance and the collection of biometric data, and others that limit the use of encryption

The advent of the Covid-19 pandemic has exacerbated the privacy concerns yet in several countries, digital rights were already under steady attack, including via internet shutdowns, criminalisation of “false news”, misinformation and disinformation campaigns by state and non-state actors, harassment and prosecution of social media users, and growing state surveillance.

In responding to the pandemic, many countries adopted regulations and practices, including deploying surveillance technologies and untested applications, to enable them collect and process personal data for purposes of tracing, contacting, and isolating those suspected to be carrying the virus and those confirmed to carry it. These measures were quickly adopted, often without adequate regulation or oversight.

In this research report, the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) has analysed laws and policies that impact on privacy, notably those that regulate surveillance, data localisation, biometric databases, and encryption.

The research covered 19 countries – Cameroon, Chad, Egypt, Ethiopia, Kenya, Ghana, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, and South Africa.

Summary findings

Growing Surveillance: The research findings show that overall, there has been notable progress in the enactment of specific laws and policies safeguarding the right to privacy, including requiring judicial authority to authorise surveillance in countries such as Kenya, Nigeria, Tanzania, Tunisia and Uganda.

However, there are a few cases, such as in Zimbabwe, where authorisation for monitoring and intercepting communications is offered by non-independent and partial actors such as ministers. In addition, many of the countries’ laws do not measure up to international human rights standards and fail to establish clear and appropriate oversight, redress, and remedy mechanisms.

Indeed, “national security” considerations have been employed in laws in various countries broadly to justify and authorise the interception of communication, restrict privacy rights, grant wide search and seizure powers to law enforcement agencies, mandate intermediaries such as telecommunication service providers to facilitate interception, and to require data localisation.

In addition, while various countries have criminalised illegal surveillance and placed various safeguards on the conduct of state surveillance, many of them still contain retrogressive provisions that leave scope for intrusion, including enabling state surveillance with limited safeguards.

Limitation of Encryption Anonymity and the use of encryption in digital communications are critical in advancing both the right to freedom of expression and right to privacy. In the absence of these rights,  the capacity of individuals to communicate anonymously and without fear of their communications being intercepted cannot be guaranteed.

There are few positive provisions in some countries that require the protection of personal data through technical security measures which include encryption. On the other hand, many countries in the study have passed legislation that limit anonymity and the use of encryption through criminalisation of possession and use of cryptographic software or hardware, providing for fines and prison sentences.

The findings show that in countries like Chad, Malawi, Senegal, Tanzania, Tunisia and Zambia, there are penalties for offering cryptographic services without licensing, registration or authorisation. Interception of communications provisions often require service providers to decrypt any encrypted information that they may intercept in the course of offering assistance to lawful interception. In countries such as Mali and Tanzania, the laws require the encryption service providers, upon registration with the authorities, to disclose the technologies they plan to use for encryption.

Data Localisation The findings show that a growing number of African countries have been legislating on data localisation, which has mostly taken the form of a requirement to store data locally and forbidding unauthorised cross-border data transfers. Various countries have specified the conditions for authorising transfer, mostly where the data subject has offered consent and where an adequate level of protection is assured in the recipient country or international organisation.

Several African countries have adopted different approaches towards data localisation. Several countries use laws on financial services (Nigeria, Ethiopia and Rwanda), cybersecurity and cybercrimes (Rwanda, Zambia and Zimbabwe), telecommunications (Cameroon, Rwanda and Nigeria) and data protection (Kenya, South Africa, Tunisia and Uganda) to place restrictions on cross-border transfer of data.

Some countries have specified the data that cannot be exported without authorisation. Kenya specifies all public data; Nigeria mentions all government data and all subscriber and consumer data; while Zimbabwe, Malawi and Tunisia cite personal information.

Establishment of Biometric Databases  In several countries, government agencies are collecting and processing personal data without adequate data protection laws, amidst limited oversight mechanisms and inadequate remedies. While many have recently passed data protection laws and policies, implementation is not effective, and the safeguards are not water-tight as required under international human rights law.

Some laws in countries such as Chad, Kenya, Tunisia, Uganda, South Africa, and Zimbabwe, prohibit the collection of certain categories of data, including specific types of biometric data generally, or where certain conditions are not complied with. In the other countries studied, the laws require the mandatory collection of biometric information for the registration of telecommunications subscribers, for digital identity programmes and during voters’ registration. Several laws and policies on biometric data collection contain provisions on sanctions and penalties for breach.

Weak Oversight, Transparency and Accountability Mechanisms The study found that countries have adopted different approaches to oversight, including specifying courts, data protection authorities, sector regulators and administrative bodies as key oversight bodies. Some of these bodies are located within the executive, and therefore may lack the proper legal, financial, and institutional independence to stem violations within government, and especially by state security agencies. The laws in most countries require judicial authorities to issue a warrant for interception or monitoring of communications. However, in some countries interception orders can be issued by non-judicial officials, such as ministers.

The deficiency of accountability and transparency is among the weakest links in the various countries’ surveillance laws. While some countries, such as Nigeria, Rwanda, Tunisia, Zimbabwe, have commendable oversight and accountability provisions, it is not known whether they are applied. No entity in any of the countries studied permits public access to records on interception which the laws require state authorities to compile periodically, or publishes any data related to interception warrants issued and if at all they do record such data, they are categorised as classified information under state secrets laws. Thus, the public and oversight institutions such as judiciaries and parliaments remain in the dark about the extent and legality of the conduct of surveillance in the respective countries.

Recommendations

  • Governments should review existing laws, policies and practices on surveillance, including Covid-19 surveillance, biometric data collection, encryption and data localisation to ensure they comply with the principles in the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) Declaration on Principles of Freedom of Expression and Access to Information in Africa and international human rights standards.
  • Governments should also adopt multi-stakeholder approaches to ensure meaningful participation of all stakeholders in the development of policies and laws that affect the right to privacy and data protection.
  • Civil society actors should use strategic public interest litigation as an avenue to challenge laws that violate privacy rights and push for policies and practices reforms that uphold privacy.
  • Civil society actors should also monitor and document privacy rights violations through evidence-based research, and report on state compliance with their obligations to human rights monitoring bodies.

See the full research report here.

08Jul

New Cyber Law Impedes Civil Liberties in Increasingly Repressive Zambia

Author CIPESA Posted on

By CIPESA Writer |

Zambia is increasingly repressing the exercise of civic rights, a trend that is growing as the country heads to general elections in August 2021. Human rights defenders are equally worried that state agencies could apply the recently enacted Cyber Security and Cyber Crimes Act 2021 to further undermine the digital civic space.

President Edgar Lungu, who has been in power since 2015, is standing for re-election in the August 12 elections. In the last five years of his reign, freedom of expression and peaceful assembly have come under increasing attack, with opposition leaders and activists jailed, and independent media outlets shut down, according to an Amnesty International Report.

The government denies these accusations, claiming the country has a vibrant civil society, a thriving independent media, and an impartial judiciary that protects civil liberties. However, independent analysts dismiss the government’s claims, pointing out that there has been “a creation of a fear society through the demonising of civil society and political opposition, the punishing of dissent, and weaponising the law and applying it selectively against anyone critical of the state.”

The repression in the southern African country has been witnessed both offline and online. Freedom House ranked the country’s state of internet freedom in 2020 as “partly free”, citing network restrictions, arrest of pro-government commentators and online users. And with the recent enactment of the cyber crimes law, worries are growing that the government could employ it as yet another weapon to silence dissenters and critics. Crucially, the new law falls short on protecting individual rights to privacy, anonymity, and freedom of expression online.

Notably, the law was passed amidst criticism that it was primarily aimed at policing cyber space and gagging freedom of expression and speech of government critics and opponents ahead of the August 12, 2021 general election. The government passed the law after rejecting concerns raised by civil society about its regressive provisions.

According to the Bloggers of Zambia, during 2020 seven people were arrested under the Criminal Procedure Code for purportedly defaming the president through posts on social media. Meanwhile, a 2020 report by Citizen Lab, a global digital rights watchdog, identified Zambia as a possible customer of cyber espionage software. This was the second time that Zambia, alongside other African governments, was featured in the report that unmasks clients of surveillance software. The country has also embarked on a Safe City Project that is mounting 24-hour surveillance cameras in public places and on the main road networks, despite its lack of an operational data protection law and regulations to govern the use of such video surveillance.

According to CIPESA’s analysis of the law, while cyber security is critical in the highly evolving technological era, it is important that a rights-based approach is employed in the development of policies and laws to ensure that the adopted laws and policies do not wantonly limit individual rights and freedoms. The Cyber Security and Cyber Crimes Act, 2021 in its current state offers some solutions to emerging challenges in the digital space but has wide negative impacts on the protection, promotion and enjoyment of digital rights and freedoms.

Under international human rights law, the rights to privacy, freedom of expression and information may only be restricted if prescribed by law, in pursuit of a legitimate aim, and if the restrictions are necessary and proportionate in pursuance of a legitimate aim. Many provisions in the Zambian law are vague and overly broad, and in contravention of the principle of legality. The law extends the powers of state authorities to restrict and punish online expression, and gives law enforcement agents leverage to conduct unsupervised surveillance without judicial oversight.

Indeed, the CIPESA analysis shows that Zambia’ cyber law falls short of the established regional and international human rights standards on the right to privacy as laid down in the African Union Convention on Cyber Security and Personal Data Protection, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) Declaration on Principles of Freedom of Expression and Access to Information. 

Accordingly, the Zambian parliament should consider repealing or amending the regressive provisions to ensure the protection of digital rights and freedoms. Short of this, the new law could only serve the purpose of handing enemies of democracy yet another weapon for silencing the legitimate expression of critics, political opponents, and ordinary citizens.

See here CIPESA’s full review of the ramifications of Zambia’s Cyber Security and Cyber Crimes Act 2021.

1 … 44 45 46 47 48 … 164