Promoting Effective and Inclusive ICT Policy in Africa

Category Archives: Blog

  HomeCollaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA)  /  Blog  /  Blog
04Jun

Online Freedoms in Burundi – Breaking the boundaries of online commentary

Author admin Posted on

Since the liberalisation of the telecommunications sector in 1997, Burundi has seen a consistent growth in mobile phone penetration, which in 2012 stood at 26 mobile phones per 100 users. Some 1.2% of the population has access to the internet, mostly through mobile phones. Whereas these access rates are much lower than in most East African countries, unlike Ethiopia which has a single telecommunications service provider [See State of Online Freedom in Ethiopia], Burundi has eight, including a state-owned entity.
Like the other landlocked countries in the region, namely Ethiopia, Rwanda and Uganda, Burundi is faced with high internet costs due to the connections required to offshore fibre optic cables such as the Eastern Africa Submarine Cable System (EASSy).To support the growth of its telecommunications sector, the country has invested in the Burundi Backbone System (BBS) which is the national internet access infrastructure that currently covers eight of the country’s 17 districts.
Although the coverage is still in its infancy, the backbone system, which is financed by the government, the World Bank and four telecom operators – Ucom Burundi, Africell Tempo, Onatel and CBINE- is working to provide high speed internet at lower costs. Besides, there is the recent launch of BurundiX, the local Internet Exchange Point, which is also aimed to help further reduce access costs.
The National Communications Council (CNC) is tasked with regulating online and offline media in the country. It is mandated to ensure that citizens have access to balanced information and a diversity of opinions including political, social, cultural and economic opinion through the public media.
The CNC is meant to be a neutral entity. However, in May 2013, the Council ordered a 30 day shut down of the discussion forum of an online news publisher – www.iwacu-burundi.org.
The shutdown was as a result of comments posted on the site, which the CNC considered “defamatory against official institutions” and in contravention of the 2003 Press Law. The regulator said the comments constituted an “attack on national unity, public order and security, inciting ethnic hatred, defending criminal activity and insulting the head of state” according to the press law.
In similarity to the CNC in Burundi, the Uganda Communications Commission [See State of Online Freedom in Uganda], and the Rwanda Media Commission [See State of Online Freedom in Rwanda], have faced criticism for their roles in interfering with online freedom.
Freedom of the media and expression is provided for in Burundi legislation. However, with growing internet penetration, the country has adopted regressive laws and practices on communications. In January 2014, as a result of opposition calls for protests against proposed amendments to the country’s 2005 constitution, the communications regulatory authority issued a notice warning the public against transmitting SMS and anonymous calls that could fuel tensions. The regulator stated that it would work with service providers “on cooperation mechanisms in the traceability” of communications.
These recent events have created an atmosphere of uncertainty about the extent to which online and offline freedoms can be fully exercised by the media and citizens.
Like many of the countries studied in the State of Internet Freedom in East Africa Report, self-censorship by both the media and citizens in Burundi is applied to content shared in the online arena.
Read more on the status of the legislative environment, and threats to online freedoms in Burundi in the 2014 Internet Freedom in Burundi Report prepared by CIPESA’s OpenNet Africa.

30May

Are East African States Using ‘Terrorism’ to Stifle Internet Freedoms?

Author admin Posted on

By Edris Kisambira
On May 23, 2014, the Collaboration on International ICT Policy in East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) launched a report on the State of Internet Freedom in East Africa. The report is an investigation into the policies and practices that define internet freedom in the region. The event, which took place in Kampala, Uganda, was attended by ICT thought leaders, media and human rights activists from Uganda, Rwanda, Kenya, Tanzania, Burundi and Nigeria, among others.
A number of East Africa countries such as Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and Rwanda boast over 50% teledensity and a growing number of internet users.
But as internet user numbers grow, so does content questioning governments’ democratic credentials. In turn, governments are enacting laws to counter freedom of expression, including online. These curtails are often framed under the guise of fighting terrorism, cyber crime and hate speech.
The CIPESA report noted that, regrettably, despite increased usage of the internet and infringements on freedoms, East Africans are not engaging enough in discussions around the issues of internet freedoms.
In his keynote address at the launch, the Chairperson of the ICT Committee in Uganda’s parliament, Vincent Waiswa Bagiire, noted that internet use by East African citizens has grown exponentially over the last five years. Considering the importance of the internet to improving livelihoods, the economy, and to security and stability, it had become necessary to make regulations to govern the online space.
“The issue becomes whether the rules are fair, inclusive, allow the growth of the internet and associated digital technologies, or whether they suppress citizens’ rights and creativity, lock out some sections of society and stifle creativity and innovation,” said Bagiire.
Panel discussions centred on how to find a balance between users’ freedoms and national security, as well as on online safety, security and privacy.
Arnold Mangeni, the Data Centre Manager at the National Information Technology Authority of Uganda (NITA-U) noted that when one goes online, they need not to expect security and privacy granted at the same time. He added that governments are mandated to protect citizens and as such have to curtail some freedoms while protecting citizens.
This sentiment was in sharp contrast to that of Neil Blazevic from the Pan African Human Rights Defenders Network. He encouraged citizens to take more active measures to ensure their privacy and security both offline and online. “Privacy is something we rely on in basic existence without which we face an existential crisis,” he said.
Patrick Mutahi, a Safety & Security Programme Officer from Article 19 Kenya raised the concern that while pursuing national security, governments are collecting citizen’s personal information during SIM card and national Identity registration exercises with no regulations on how this information is used. He further said governments are moving to curtail some of the freedoms because of vices like hate speech.
Lydia Namubiru, a Programme Officer at the African Centre for Media Excellence (ACME), said privacy and security online, like transport infrastructure for example, was a public service and should be guaranteed by governments. She said government surveillance online is akin to “placing a police officer at someone’s bedroom window”.
Panelists pointed to a need for competent judicial authorities to provide oversight over surveillance and monitoring. They also called for governments to consult citizens in enacting laws related to internet freedoms.
It was also pointed out that individuals and the private sector should take responsibility for their own online privacy and security.
“The Police alone cannot protect everyone online. The private sector has got to play a major role too. For example the problem of unsolicited SMS messages and online fraud where people lose millions of shillings in bogus transactions,” said Jimmy Haguma, the Acting Commissioner for Electronic and Counter Measures, Uganda Police Force.
He was backed by legislator Bagiire who said online safety is complex and needs continuous stakeholder collaborative efforts and user sensitisation efforts.
“Whereas government will put in place laws to protect users like the Computer Misuse Act and the e-signatures Ac, we the individuals have to be careful online,” he said.
Conducted between January 2010 and April 2014, CIPESA’s research found that the state of internet freedom in East Africa is littered with legislation and state actions which contradict constitutional rights provisions.
The legacy of colonial laws still lingers in countries like Tanzania and Uganda where public information disclosure is severely restricted. Besides, some laws, without being explicit on the internet and related technologies, are used in contexts that they were not intended for. Meanwhile, in Kenya, Rwanda and Burundi, hate speech content regulations posed a threat to internet freedoms. In Ethiopia, the state monopoly over telecommunications was found to enable mass surveillance and content filtering, particularly that of the regime’s critics.
The full report can be found here.

14Mar

Towards an African Declaration on Internet Rights

Author admin Posted on

As internet usage continues to grow in Africa, so does the interest by governments to monitor users’ online activities. This has led to a clash between internet rights promoters and governments in some African countries.
On February 12–13, 2014, participants from several African civil society organisations involved in promoting human rights and internet rights convened in Johannesburg, South Africa to draft an African Declaration on Internet Rights and Freedoms. The meeting was organised by the Association for Progressive Communications (APC) and Global Partners Digital in collaboration with the Media Rights Agenda, Media Foundation for West Africa and the Kenya Human Rights Commission.
Many countries justify their tough stance on internet freedom as necessary to fight cybercrime, promote peace and maintain national security. Whereas some of these policies and practices have been adopted by authoritarian regimes to retain power, others were in response to national crisis contexts such as hate speech and terrorism. Ultimately, the measures have often had chilling effects on access to information, freedom of expression, privacy and data protection.
Participants in this meeting called for the promotion of an open, free and accessible internet. Issues identified as the most crucial and still hindering internet growth in Africa that need immediate action were: improving access to internet including the development and promotion of localised multi-lingual content; addressing internet infrastructure obstacles; capacity building for users; and the need to create a balance between freedom of expression and privacy of users.
Others identified were data protection, addressing gender inequalities and gender-based violence against women online, and adopting supportive ICT policies that promote freedom of expression online and equitable access to information.
Due to increased internet freedom violation incidents coupled with regressive policies being made in many countries, the need for a well-defined Internet Intermediary Liability (ILL) regime has also become increasingly apparent. Another meeting held on February 10-11, 2014 organised by the APC with support from Google Africa discussed the responsibility that may be placed on intermediaries in implementing monitoring and control mechanisms laid down by the laws.
At the regional level, there are legal and regulatory frameworks like the Africa Charter on Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression in Africa, which provide limited protection for internet rights and the liability of internet intermediaries. It was noted that such frameworks could act as building blocks for individual countries to draw up best practices on ILL regimes.
There was consensus that such existing frameworks should be the basis for adopting a general guide with definitions of terms on Internet intermediary liability. This guide would act as central referencing document on which individual countries would base their national IIL regimes.
During the discussions, participants charted their thoughts on a best practice guide for an IIL regime for Africa by asking the below questions:
Untitled
 
While responding to these questions, participants recognised that intermediaries can play a crucial role in promoting Internet freedoms in Africa.
Meanwhile, the meeting also reviewed recent policy and practice developments in Uganda, Kenya, South Africa and Nigeria since the 2011 Intermediary Liability in Africa research. It identified a need to increase awareness among different stakeholder groups of the importance of clear regulatory frameworks for intermediary liability to secure rights on the internet; and for stronger collaboration to advocate for best practice internet intermediary regulatory measures in Africa.
The outcomes of both these meetings will form the basis for the draft civil society Africa Declaration on Internet Rights and Freedoms, which will be launched at the ninth global Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Istanbul, Turkey September 2-5, 2014. The declaration will be available for public input throughout the period leading up to IGF 2014.

04Mar

Exploring The State of Internet Freedom in Africa

Author admin Posted on

What is the price of security? Should it be your online freedom? 
By Juliet Nanfuka
Where do human rights and online rights meet? Is there a clash between online freedom and human rights? Is there room for self-regulation? These are some of the questions that a recently concluded online discussions report on Internet freedom in Africa explores.
Participants from Uganda, Kenya and Nigeria used online platforms to discuss these issues over a four week period at the end of 2013.
A key theme that came out of the report is the recognition of the increased numbers of internet users across the continent and parallel to this, increased measures taken by governments on surveillance of citizens. This, in turn, has brought to the fore many questions about freedom of expression and privacy.
Many countries are faced with contradictory policies when it comes to freedom of expression especially when it is placed alongside national security and stability. As a result, freedom of expression is threatened by restrictive legal measures that infringe on the access and sharing of information. In addition to these are the legal permissions granted to governments with regards to accessing information about users. Requests from African governments, although few, appear to be politically motivated according to the Google Transparency Reports.
In light of this, a participant asked a key question that also raises concerns about censorship, “How much can you restrict if those with no restriction can interact with and pass on information to the restricted using alternative methods of communication?” This led to the recognition of the conflict that exists between online freedom of expression and the state. Such was seen in the 2011 politically motivated ‘Walk to Work’ protests in Uganda in which the national communications regulatory authority, the Uganda Communications Commission, instructed ISPs to block access to social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook for 24 hours. More on this can be found here Internet Freedom in Africa Under Threat.
The report, prepared by the Collaboration on International ICT Policy in East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) in partnership with Paradigm Initiative Nigeria (PIN) can be downloaded here.

08Oct

Freedom on the Net 2013: An African Review

Author admin Posted on

The increasing use of the Internet worldwide has continued to see governments put caveats on its openness and the range of freedoms users enjoy online. According to the 2013 Freedom on the Net report, in the period May 2012–April 2013, the global number of censored websites has increased, while internet users in various countries have been arrested, tortured, and killed over the information they posted online.
In Sub Saharan Africa, Freedom House found that both physical and technical mechanisms of filtering, monitoring or otherwise obstructing free speech online have been employed by states concerned with the power of internet-based technologies.
“All 10 of the African countries examined in this report have stepped up their online monitoring efforts in the past year, either by obtaining new technical capabilities or by expanding the government’s legal authority,” says the report which was published by Freedom House on October 3, 2013. Last year, Ethiopia was the only country in the region found to implement nationwide internet filtering.
In its study, Freedom House covered developments in internet freedom in 60 countries around the world.  Based on an examination of obstacles to access, limits to content, and violation of user rights on the internet, countries were scored as ‘Free’, ‘Partly Free’ or ‘Not Free’.
Table 1: Summary of Global Freedom on the Net Rankings (Source: by author based on Freedom on the Net 2013 report)

Continent Free Not Free Partly Free Total
Asia 2 8 4 14
Eurasia 3 5 2 10
Australia, EU, Iceland and the United States 9     9
Latin America 1 4 1 6
Middle East and North Africa   5 6 11
Sub-Saharan Africa 2 6 2 10
Total 17 28 15 60

Free
South Africa and Kenya were the two countries reported as Free. In Kenya, mention was made of the communications regulatory authority issuing guidelines to internet service providers not to allow services to be used to spread hate speech. Service providers were also reportedly required to install internet traffic monitoring equipment.
In South Africa, the proposed Protection of State Information bill which criminalises reporting on classified state information and accessing leaked information online would violate user rights if passed into law. Another legislation, the General Intelligence Laws Amendment 2013, which gives authorities the power to intercept bulk communications known as “foreign signals intelligence” was passed in July 2013. The partially state-owned Telkom network was also said to have installed servers to harvest data and user information. The extent to which this spyware has been deployed in the country was unknown.
Partly Free
Freedom house ranked Malawi, Nigeria, Angola, Uganda, Rwanda and Zimbabwe as ‘Partly Free’. A draft Interception of Communications law in Nigeria was criticised for potentially infringing on user’s right to privacy. There were also reports that the Nigerian government had awarded a contract to an Israeli based company to monitor internet communications. A privately owned ISP was said to have installed surveillance malware. It is unclear if the installation was at the bidding of the state.
Suspicions of online government surveillance in Uganda increased in part due to officials publically expressing “the need” for policing Internet mediums. A new communications law, the Uganda Communications Act, passed in September 2012 created a regulatory authority with sweeping powers to oversee electronic, print and broadcast media. The body’s independence has been called into question. As a sim card (including mobile internet) registration exercises drew to a close, there were privacy concerns due to the country’s lack of data protection legislation. The country already has lawful interception of communications regulations.
There were no reports of internet content being blocked or filtered in Zimbabwe. However, ruling party officials were said to have publicly expressed the desire to increase control over ICTs, particularly in the lead-up to the July 2013 general elections. Zimbabwe was also said to be seeking foreign support for surveillance in Iran. “Personnel from the Zimbabwean armed forces and the Central Intelligence Organisation have been undergoing intensive cyber training in technological warfare techniques, counter-intelligence and methods of suppressing popular revolts among others, every six months,” says the report.
Egypt was also reported to be seeking surveillance assistance from Iran. Activists and social media users were also targeted by security forces during protests either through abductions, killings or prosecution.
In Libya, surveillance equipment from the Muammar Gaddafi regime remained in operation.
Despite being reported as a ”country at risk” in 2013 owing to its “strict” controls over traditional media which were feared may extend to digital media, improvements were reported in Rwanda. An amended media law expanded the rights of journalists and recognised freedom for online communications.
Meanwhile, Angola’s State Security Services, with assistance from Germany, were planning to implement an electronic monitoring system to track digital communications.
Not Free
The Sudanese government was accused of surveillance particularly during protests. In addition to harassment and arrest of journalists during and following the protests, intelligence services are said to have “ramped up” efforts to censor antigovernment content, target cyber-dissidents, and manipulate online information.
In September 2012, Ethiopia “toughened” restrictions on electronic communications by passing the Telecom Fraud Offence Proclamation law. The government was also allegedly increasing its technical capacity to filter, block and monitor the internet with assistance from the Chinese authorities and the use of Finfisher – a commercial spyware software.
Globally, Iceland and Estonia were ranked the freest while China, Cuba and Iran were said to be the “most repressive countries” in terms of internet freedom.
Under the OpenNetAfrica initiative, CIPESA researches into internet freedoms in various African countries. To learn more, to share an idea or report a violation, write to programmes @cipesa.org. 

1 … 90 91 92 93 94 95