Promoting Effective and Inclusive ICT Policy in Africa

Blog

  HomeCollaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA)  /  Blog
07Jun

Internet Freedom In Africa And The Universal Periodic Review

Author admin Posted on

By Ashnah Kalemera |
Human rights review mechanisms such as the United Nations Universal Periodic Review (UPR) and the Africa Commission on Human and People’s Rights (ACHPR) provide a unique opportunity to address human rights concerns in African countries.
The cooperative nature of the review mechanisms allows different stakeholders to make country submissions for consideration by the Human Rights Council (HRC) at the UN or at sessions at the ACHPR, resulting in country recommendations for action. For the UPR, the immediate outcomes of reviews can include country adoption of recommendations made by other countries. At subsequent reviews, countries are expected to state what they have done to fulfil obligations and commitments to recommendations from previous reviews, including any challenges faced in implementing the commitments.
Currently, there is limited participation by African civil society in the UPR process despite the UPR providing a framework within which activists and human rights defenders can lobby governments to promote different rights and freedoms. In particular, there is limited work by African actors to promote internet freedom through the UPR.
In the period 2014–2016, stakeholder submissions to the reviews of African countries were dominated by international organisations and human rights bodies such as Article 19, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Whereas a number of national human rights commissions of the respective countries make submissions, there has been limited input from Africa-based civil society. The figure below gives an overview of the varied level of participation by Africa-based organisations in UPR stakeholder submissions of select countries on the continent. (Source www.upr-info.org)
 
Meanwhile, submissions remain focused on so-called offline rights including women and children’s rights, land rights, sexual rights, the death penalty, health rights, education rights as well as the rights of refugees and persons with disability. A growing but limited number of submissions are focused on both online and offline rights including on access to information, access to the internet, free speech and media freedom, freedom of assembly and association, and privacy.
Various factors play a role in the limited participation of African civil society in the UPR processes, including low awareness among organisations of the cycle periods and opportunities to make submissions or statements. Further, capacity to make individual submissions may be limited (majority of the in-country/continent-based organisation submissions in the chart above were joint submissions with international human rights organisations). This gap in skills and knowledge presents an opportunity for interventions aimed at research, training, and support for African civil society to deliver stakeholder submissions, particularly on digital rights with reference to offline rights.
There is an opportunity for in-country follow up and advocacy on recommendations – both those adopted and those deferred. Further, there is opportunity for stakeholders to organise side events at the UPR to promote dialogue and engagement not only with government representatives for countries under review but also with other governments who have progressive records on internet related rights that can contribute to related recommendations. For stakeholders not able to attend sessions in person, there in a provision to follow the proceedings remotely via live broadcast. Social media holds much promise in ensuring wider audience reach for advocacy and information dissemination – see for instance #UPR26.
Accordingly, from 2018 to 2021, CIPESA, Small Media and a coalition of regional partners will be working to support civil society organisations across Africa to engage with the UPR process through research, capacity development and advocacy. The 15 African focus countries are Angola, Ethiopia, Gambia, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Uganda and Zimbabwe.
The first engagement for the project was conducted at the Internet Policy in Africa Research Methods workshop which was held in Kampala, Uganda from February 26-March 3, 2018. Related sessions during the workshop introduced participants to core processes of the UPR and ways in which the UPR can deliver internet policy impact. Furthermore, participants were equipped with skills in research, strategic communication and advocacy through data-driven campaigns for UPR engagement.
 
 

06Jun

Uncertainty Over How Uganda’s New Social Media Tax Will be Collected

Author admin Posted on

By Juliet Nanfuka |
On May 30, 2018, Uganda’s parliament passed the Excise Duty (Amendment) Bill 2018, which will see users of Over-The-Top (OTT) services that include messaging and voice calls via Whatsapp, Facebook, Skype and Viber pay a mandatory fee of UGX 200 (USD 0.05) per day of use. In another move that could hit affordability, stifle innovation, and undermine the role digital technologies play in socio-economic transformation, the amendment will also introduce a one percent fee on each mobile money transaction. However, it remains unclear how the tax on social media use would be collected.
The amendment bill was first introduced last April and was met with criticism over the new taxes, which many observers believe would make Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) inaccessible to majority of Ugandans. The taxes were proposed in response to a letter president Yoweri Museveni wrote to the finance ministry wherein he stated that the government needed resources “to cope with the consequences” of social media users’ “opinions, prejudices [and] insults”. Without mentioning mobile money, Museveni proposed a levy of UGX 100 (USD 0.025) per day per OTT user, but proposals by the finance ministry, since passed by parliament, doubled this figure.
Further, days after parliament passed the amendments bill, the finance minister reportedly stated that the tax rate on mobile money transactions should be 0.5% and not 1% and suggested that the bill could need revisiting.


As of September 2017, Uganda had an internet penetration rate of 48%. Meanwhile, there were 23 million mobile money subscribers in a country of 37.7 million people, and their more than 340 million transactions during the third quarter of 2017 alone totalled UGX 18.1 trillion (USD 4.7 billion).
Mobile money has been a primary avenue of financial inclusion particularly for the unbanked. According to the Bank of Uganda, in 2015, only 16% of the population had a bank point of service within one kilometre of a home, whereas 54% of the population had a mobile money point of service within one kilometre.
Meanwhile, social media has served as many users’ initial entry point to internet use in many developing countries such as Uganda. This is among the reasons why OTT packages have been popular with telecommunications companies as tools to attract more clients. Introducing taxes on the use of these platforms could therefore negatively impact local content development and civic participation tools that rely on these services.
The proposals passed by Uganda’s parliament also include raising tax on airtime on cellular, landline and public payphones from 5% to 12% and the increase on the tax on mobile money transfers from 10% to 15%. .
The passing of the bill attracted various reactions on Twitter:


In 2016, social media and mobile money services were shut down twice during the electioneering period.


As a result of the shutdown of social media platforms, Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) became popular as users sought alternative avenues to remain online. There were no alternatives for mobile money users but the impact of the shutdown was felt by mobile money service providers such as the Airtel Uganda mobile money platform which at the time was  used by around 650,000 unique users per day and processed around 30 billion Ugandan shillings (USD 8.8 million) according to FSD Uganda.
At a private sector dialogue hosted by the Collaboration on International ICT Policy in East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) a day after the passing of the bill, participants noted that the move to tax mobile money services could potentially force users to explore other alternatives for transactions, including reverting to cash or to new financial transaction models such as blockchain which is emerging as a  potential alternative avenue for financial transactions in Uganda.


According to a 2017/18 Uganda National Information Technology Survey, social media platforms including OTT services are some of the popular avenues through which civic engagement has been pursued by the state. It remains to be seen how access to government services will be incorporated in the new tax model.


With the taxation expected to come into effect as early as July 1, 2018, uncertainty remains over whether, if signed into law by the president, the tax would be executed given the limited public consultation and the absence of guidelines.

30May

Sections of Kenya’s Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act, 2018 Temporarily Suspended

Author admin Posted on

By Juliet Nanfuka |
Barely two weeks after the presidential assent to the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act, 2018, a High Court judge has issued a conservatory order suspending the entry into force of 26 sections of Kenya’s contentious Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act, 2018. The order by Judge Chacha Mwita, suspending the sections until July 18, follows a petition filed by the Bloggers Association of Kenya (BAKE), which challenged the law for contravening constitutional provisions on freedom of opinion, freedom of expression, freedom of the media, freedom and security of the person, right to privacy, right to property and the right to a fair hearing.
In the order issued on May 29, the judge certified BAKE’s petition as urgent, and stated that  respondents (who include the Attorney General, the Speaker of the National Assembly, the head of the National Police Service, and the Director of Public Prosecutions) be served immediately. The respondents would have seven days from receipt to file written submissions. Hearing of the petition is scheduled for July 18, 2018.
Although the conservatory order only stalls the enforcement and could be lifted or maintained thereafter, it nonetheless represents a win for digital rights advocates in Kenya, as they have in the interim satisfied the judge that there is an arguable case to be made against the constitutionality of the recently enacted law. The order also marks another landmark ruling in the litigation towards respect and realisation of digital rights across Africa.

According to the  order, the suspended sections are: 5, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 & 53.


Various organisations criticised the bill prior to its assent on May 16, 2018 calling it unconstitutional. Among the organisations were the Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANET), Article 19 Eastern Africa, BAKE and the Centre to Protect Journalists (CPJ) who deemed numerous sections unconstitutional and detrimental to Kenyan citizens’ digital rights. They said it infringed on the privacy of individuals, freedom of expression, speech, opinion and access to information online.
Kenya already has a history of stifling online critics of the state and state actors, as echoed by James Wamathai, the Director of Partnerships at BAKE. In a statement, he said: “In the past several years, there have been attempts by the government to clamp down on the freedom of expression online. This Act is a testament of these efforts, especially after other sections were declared unconstitutional by the courts.
Among the prevailing concerns on the law is the use of vague language on issues such as “false” or “fictitious” content and false publications in Section 22 and 23, accompanied with heavy obligations on users to verify truthfulness or untruthfulness of information before disseminating. As per section 12, failure to comply would result in a fine of five million Kenyan shilling (USD 50,000), up to two years in prison, or both.
The  court order comes on the heels of the two judgments (Okiya Omtatah Okoiti v The Communication Authority of Kenya and 3 others Constitutional Petition No. 53 of 2017 and Kenya Human Rights Commission v Communications Authority of Kenya and 3 others no. 86 of 2017) by the Kenya High Court in which the petitioners successfully challenged the installation on mobile phone networks of a communication surveillance system dubbed Device Management System (DMS), by the Communications Authority (CA) Kenya (CA). The petitioners argued that, through this system, the authority would have undue access to the communications of citizens.
As more countries in Sub-Saharan Africa develop technology related laws, it is fundamental that the laws uphold human rights standards prescribed at global and regional levels, including in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (ACHPR), and African Union Convention on Cybersecurity and Personal Data Protection. However, recent developments such as has been witnessed in East Africa appear to prioritise the criminalisation and penalisation of internet use rather than encourage its adoption as a tool for greater access to information, and for expanding free expression and civic engagement.
Kenya’s neighbours Tanzania and Uganda have this year taken actions detrimental to digital rights. In Uganda, social media taxes that could be introduced in July 2018 threaten internet access and affordability while in in Tanzania, online content producers will have to pay over USD 900 to register with the state for permissions to maintain their platforms, according to new regulations.
 

29May

Let Us Bring People To The Centre Of The Digital Future

Author admin Posted on

Joint Call |
The Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) is part of a call urging G20 countries to place citizens and consumers at the centre of decisions around the digital society.
The call states, “For the digital society to be open, safe, and empowering for everyone, policies for the digital age must be trusted and trustworthy – putting the interests of people and their rights first. Governments should intensify efforts to assure that the Internet is not fragmented and that people and their rights are at its centre.”
See the complete document here.

30Apr

Privacy & Protection: Do Ugandans Care What Happens to Their Data?

Author admin Posted on

By Neema Iyer |

Let’s be honest.

When was the last time you read the “Terms and Conditions” before you signed up for a new service online?

We don’t blame you. It’s easy to get lost in the legal jargon.

But do you know what happens to your personal data every time you click on “I have agreed to terms and conditions”? Did you know at the mere click to accept, you could have given a way a portion of your vital information and put your data privacy in absolute jeopardy?

Today, it’s hard to raise the issue of data privacy without putting a thought on the recent Facebook-Cambridge Analytica scandal that made many people realize the power of data. Even with as much information spewed out explaining what the scandal was about, very few took a note to learn from.

A recent allegation from the Cambridge Analytica scandal pins the Uhuru Kenyatta presidential campaign to have employed social media surveillance results to target campaign messages to different profiles of voters. This was possible because Facebook monitors your social media activity and can predict your behavior from that, hence such information is used to target messages that speak to your interests and emotions to sway major decisions such as election outcomes. This isn’t just happening on our doorsteps, allegations claim similar outcomes in the United States and the UK.

The EU revised as much on data privacy and protection in Europe and promised to give users more power over their data. While Europe seems to take quick action, down in Uganda and Africa at large, we continue to grapple with weak data privacy and protection laws, a citizenry that is not well-informed on data privacy, a delay in passing necessary bills and weak implementation processes. Unfortunately, a majority of African countries lack the necessary mechanisms for the inclusive participation of citizens and other stakeholders in the processes of formulating the very laws on internet and digital rights that directly affect them.

Do we care about Data Privacy and Protection?

In December 2017, Unwanted Witness, an activists group petitioned the Uganda Human Rights Commission (UHRC) to compel Parliament to speed up the enactment of privacy and data protection law.

They argued that without a governing law, citizens’ personal data is exposed to abuse without collection and protection safeguards. They further asked UHRC to prioritize privacy and recognize it as a fundamental right under attack in the country. However, to date, we are yet to see significant action taken to build an informed citizenry on their digital rights and to provide appropriate protections.

When talk about data arises, many are not really willing to delve further into the ethics surrounding the topic. This can and will still be attributed to the high illiteracy levels in the country and because many don’t know what data is or how valuable it might be on the long run, they will give it away easily. Funny as it may sound, a majority internet users think ‘data’ is the a term tied to the internet bundles that the ISPs provide and it’s that school of thought that has stuck with them. Whether their data gets in the hands of the wrong or the right people, it’s the least of their concerns.

Data Protection basically means to ensure the right to privacy, respect to confidentiality principles in various relations such as doctor patient, employer-employee and service providers with their clients generally.

Did you know that privacy is your human right?

The right to privacy refers to the concept that one’s personal information is protected from public scrutiny. It is essentially, your right to be left alone. Privacy is a core aspect of human dignity and values such as freedom of association and freedom of speech.

One would wonder, even with the data privacy breaches, are there really laws in place to curb and punish those that are misusing people’s data and evading on their privacy or we are simply looking while our data gets tampered with and is easily handed to the wrong hands.

Are there Laws in Place?

Yes! There is a Ugandan Data Protection and Privacy Bill that was tabled before parliament in 2015 and although the Bill needs to be revised and aligned better with human rights provisions, comments have been raised on the need to balance civil liberties, national security and data protection and privacy.

According to a paper published a couple of years ago by Dr Ronald Kakungulu Mayambala a Senior Lecturer of Human Rights and Peace Centre at Makerere University, Article 27 of the Constitution guarantees the right to privacy of person, home and other property. In particular, article 27(2) of the Constitution provides that a person shall not be subjected to interference with the privacy of that person’s home, correspondence, communication or other property.

Unfortunately there is no comprehensive law giving effect to article 27, yet a lot of data concerning individuals are collected, stored or processed regularly by various institutions in the private and public sector, including banks, hospitals, insurance companies, the Uganda Citizenship and Immigration Control Board, the Uganda Revenue Authority, Uganda Registration Services Bureau, the Electoral Commission, utility service providers and telecommunications companies under the SIM card registration exercise

The Bill seeks to protect the privacy of the individual and personal data by regulating the collection and processing of personal information. It provides for the rights of persons whose data is collected and the obligations of data collectors and data processors; and regulates the use or disclosure of personal information.

However even with these laws and bills in place, further questions continue to be raised on whether they even hold any solid ground in implementation, especially, if there has not been enough sensitization of the bills and data literacy.

 

What do some people think about data privacy in Uganda?

A chat with a few random Ugandans around town shows you just how long of a way we have to go with the data privacy and protection talk.

“I honestly have nothing to hide with my data and anyone who wants to access it can go ahead and access it. Your data can only be private if you choose to keep it private but if you choose to put it out there and later claim for privacy, then you are playing yourself” — Lisa

“Whatever you put out there is public. I don’t really care who gets my data because once Ipost anything on social media, it’s no longer in any way private. I get a need for data privacy if it comes to my business data like emails. That is when i need some real privacy” — Hans

“Data privacy is not even a topic of debating here in Uganda because people don’t really care what happens with their data. Because we have a huge Internet penetration gap, very many people don’t even know what data is in most parts of africa.” — Emmanuel


 

1 … 92 93 94 95 96 … 164