Growing the Conversation on Online Rights and Internet Measurement in Africa

By Juliet Nanfuka |
Rising awareness of the role the internet can play in promoting democratic governance, economic prosperity, civic participation and social inclusion is increasingly driving discussions around Africa. A growing number of stakeholders is getting involved in discussions to address gaps in the realisation of the potential of the internet in progressing socio- economic development and justice.
Platforms such as the Internet Governance Forum gave birth to regional and national dialogues on the issues affecting internet governance and internet rights on the continent. Discussions on the technical management of the internet have been held by bodies like the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and the African Network Information Centre (AFRINIC).
Similarly, the Africa Internet Summit (AIS) currently taking place in Nairobi, Kenya has seen yet another convening of stakeholders to explore the current landscape of internet access and use in Africa. The annual multi-stakeholder conference allows key players in Africa’s internet industry to interact with the global Internet community.
This year’s summit is held at a time when Africa’s growing internet use is threatened by increasing affronts to the free flow of information online, including shut downs of the internet, social media and services such as mobile money. Up to 25% of Africa’s households have access to the internet, according to the International Telecommunications Union, and the average telephone penetration on the continent stands at 81%. But rising incidents of shutdowns, along with other curtails to free expression and privacy online, are getting more actors in Africa
The Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) will be sharing research insights and experiences on the relationship between internet infrastructure, privacy, surveillance and censorship in Africa.
To-date, there remains little data in this area which is fundamental to support advocacy for improved policy development for online rights in Africa. Currently, the true extent of interference in communications remains largely unknown and subject to speculation where there is limited evidence of interference at an internet infrastructure level.
During the AIS, CIPESA Executive Director Dr. Wairagala Wakabi presented on Tampering with the Open Internet: Experiences From Africa during which he shared insights from the 2016 report on the State of Internet Freedom Africa which forms the latest in the #InternetFreedomAfrica series of reports that CIPESA have released since 2014. Additional insights were shared during a panel discussion on Internet measurements and Internet freedom alongside Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Technology Law (CIPIT) and Small Media (UK) during which the digital resilience of civil society was also  discussed.
The discussions built on presentations made by Research ICT Africa and AFRINIC during workshops they hosted at the Summit.

See this Storify: Measuring the Internet (or continue to Storify below)

Meanwhile, CIPESA and the Association for Progressive Communications (APC) will host the Forum on Internet Freedom in Africa (FIFAfrica) in Johannesburg, South Africa on September 27–29, 2017 where there will be continuation of similar discussions including the cross paths of internet use, access, policy and online rights in the continent.
Share your thoughts and opinions online using #InternetFreedomAfrica


The African Internet Summit (#AISKenya) taking place in Nairobi has raised various arguments for the measurement of internet infrastructure in Africa. The current internet landscape features various forms of online interruption, some of which go unnoticed due to the absence of measurement.
https://storify.com/cipesaug/measuring-the-internet

18 NGOs file an intervention before France’s highest court on dangers of the ‘right to be forgotten’

Press Release | Today, 18 expert non-governmental organisations from across the world have filed legal submissions before France’s highest court, the Council of State (Conseil d’État), raising serious concerns about a ruling of France’s data protection authority, la Commission nationale informatique et libertés (“CNIL”), on the “right to be forgotten”.
In 2014, CNIL ordered Google to remove 21 links from the results of an internet search on the name of a French citizen who claims a “right to be forgotten.” Google initially removed the links from its French search site (www.google.fr) and other European search sites (such as www.google.ie), but CNIL demanded it go further. Google then blocked the links from results returned to European users, even when using Google’s non-European sites, including www.google.com. CNIL however demands that when it orders content to be “forgotten” from search results, this decision must be given effect worldwide, meaning that the results must be made unavailable to all users internationally, regardless of where they are accessing internet search engines. CNIL has also imposed a huge fine on Google, of €100,000.
The 18 NGOs who have filed legal submissions with the Council of State today have grave concerns about CNIL’s approach and its implications for human rights worldwide. They all specialise in the defence of human rights, the protection of online freedom of expression, and in increasing access to information technology around the world. The NGOs, and the many people across the world whose rights they protect, rely on freedom of expression and the free exchange of ideas and information online in order to carry out their important work in protecting human rights internationally. CNIL has unilaterally imposed draconian restrictions on free expression upon all organisations and individuals who use the internet around the world, even imposing a “right to be forgotten” upon countries which do not recognise this principle. The CNIL ruling causes particularly serious damage to human rights protection in the developing world. In their submissions, the NGOs urge the Council of State to annul the CNIL’s decision, stating:
“In the developing world, given that some governments are already trying to restrict freedoms on the internet through restrictive local laws, a precedent compelling companies to remove content based on already limiting laws will have the effect of eliminating checks and balances that inhere in international law. Countries such as Pakistan are already making efforts to ensure that certain political and critical content is removed from cyber space and the interveners are concerned that compelling companies to follow restrictive laws will further stymie the right to access to information and free speech. Such a precedent will also mean that dissent within a country can be censored in equal measure internationally.
As a result, the order of the CNIL sets a dangerous precedent, by opening the door for national authorities in other countries to impose global restrictions on freedom of expression through remedies grounded solely in their own domestic law. The possible race to the bottom is of the utmost concern to the interveners.”
The legal submissions were drafted by freedom of expression experts Caoilfhionn Gallagher QC and Jude Bunting, barristers at Doughty Street Chambers, London, and avocat Thomas Haas, Paris, who acts for the NGOs and filed the submissions with the Council of State. The decision of the Council of State on Google’s appeal is expected later this year.
Additional Information:
The 18 NGOs who have filed submissions are: the Internet Freedom Foundation; the Software Freedom Law Center, India; Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (“CIPESA”); Digital Rights Foundation; Unwanted Witness; Paradigm Initiative ; Association for Progressive Communications; I-Freedom Uganda Network; Jonction; Media Rights Agenda; Sierra Sustainable Technology; Instituto Beta for Internet and Democracy; The League of cyberactivists for democracy, Africtivistes; The Karisma Foundation; Global Voices; the Institute of Technology and Society of Rio; Red en Defensa de los Derechos Digitales; the Center for Information Technology and Development (“CITAD”), Nigeria.
The Council of State is considering an application by Google Inc for the annulment of decision no. 2016-054 of 10th March 2016 by the CNIL. The CNIL in this decision ruled that the delisting process implemented by Google in order to comply with the principles arising from the European Court of Justice’s ruling in Google pain et Google Inc c and ario Coste a on le on 13th May 2014 was insufficient, imposed a monetary penalty on Google of €100,000 and decided to make its decision public.
Any queries regarding the legal submissions should be directed to Caoilfhionn Gallagher QC and Jude Bunting at Doughty Street Chambers, London, by phone on +442074041313 or by email to [email protected] or [email protected]).
List of Interveners
a) The Internet Freedom Foundation defends online freedom, privacy and innovation in India. Through public campaigns, it aims to build and deploy technology to promote freedom on the internet. It advocates a free and open internet and campaigns against censorship in all its forms. It has also sought to intervene in similar litigation in India on delisting and erasure, taking the unequivocal position that there is no “right to be forgotten” in India, and that direction for delisting would constitution an impermissible restriction on freedom of expression and the public’s right to information, protected by the Constitution of India;
b) The Software Freedom Law Centre (“SFLC.in”) is a New Delhi based not-for-profit organization that provides pro bono legal representation and other law-related services to developers of open source software to further the goal of defending digital civil liberties. SFLC.in has worked extensively on issues of free speech, expression online, and intermediary liability, and has a history of supporting courts on these issues, for example they filed a brief with the United States Supreme Court, which was considering whether to grant certiorari in the case of Google Inc. v Oracle Inc (US Supreme Court ref. 14-410). SFLC.in has an interest in this matter because the decision of this Court will have a significant effect on the rights of the internet users that SFLC.in represents. More specifically, SFLC.in has an interest in ensuring that limits are maintained on the reach of law so that free speech rights that are facilitated by the internet are not unreasonably and unnecessarily impeded;
c) Since its inception in 2004, the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (“CIPESA”) has positioned itself as the leading centre for research and analysis of information aimed to enable policy makers in east and southern Africa understand international Information and Communications Technology (“ICT”) policy issues. Its overall goals are to develop the capacity of African stakeholders to contribute effectively to international decision-making on ICT and ICT-related products and services; and to build multi-stakeholder policymaking capacity in African countries. In particular, CIPESA focuses on decisionmaking that facilitates the use of ICT in support of development, civic participation and democratic governance;
d) Digital Rights Foundation is a registered research-based advocacy nongovernmental organization focusing on ICT to support human rights, democratic processes and digital governance. Based in Pakistan, the Digital Rights Foundation envisions a place where all people, and especially women, are able to exercise their right of expression without being threatened. It believes that a free internet with access to information and clear privacy policies can encourage such a healthy and productive environment that would eventually help not only women, but the world at large;
e) Unwanted Witness is a non-governmental organisation based in Uganda. It advises government on internet governance and lobbies for a legal framework that guarantees internet freedom and internet safety. Its work includes the drafting of policy briefs, making shadow reports to relevant human rights bodies to which Uganda is signatory, interfacing between internet actors and government agencies on internet freedom, and also providing legal support to internet users whose work is being threatened. It brings strategic litigation to challenge government actions that threaten the enjoyment of online freedoms in Africa;
f) Paradigm Initiative is a registered non-for profit organization with core objectives of digital inclusion and digital rights in Nigeria and other African countries of interest. The digital rights mandate of the organization involves working with several stakeholders within the African region on rights-respecting technologies and also pushing for people-inclusive policies in ICT. Paradigm Initiative carries out its work mainly through research reports, stakeholder-dialogues on Internet freedom and policy engagements within the region. Paradigm Initiative is currently working on the Digital Rights and Freedom Bill (HB. 490) becoming a law in Nigeria. It is the first long-term policy document to ensure Internet freedom in Africa and second in the world after Brazil’s “Marco Civil.” The bill has reached an advanced stage of becoming law in Nigeria;
g) The Association for Progressive Communications has 50 member organisations in 36 countries, the majority from developing countries. The vision of its membership is that: “All people have easy and affordable access to a free and open internet to improve their lives and create a more ust world ” It works to empower and support organisations, social movements and individuals in and through the use of ICTs to build strategic communities and initiatives for the purpose of making meaningful contributions to equitable human development, social justice, participatory political processes and environmental sustainability. The Association for Progressive Communications is a participant in high level international ICT policy discussions and was granted category one consultative status to the United Nations Economic and Social Council in 1995. Its chief operating office is located in Johannesburg, South Africa.
h) I-Freedom Uganda Network is an organisation that promotes and supports freedom of speech, expression, association, and assembly through technical IT support, research and development of tools and applications that enhance digital security and safety. It is composed of 28 member organizations which can be broadly categorized into three categories; LGBTI organisations, sex workers organisations and mainstream human rights organisations. The network was formed by a number of organisations that came together at the end of January 2012 to fight against the way in which various key stake holders were misusing the Internet to affect the online and offline freedom and rights of a marginalised groups. These organisations believed that online activity is key to their ability to freely associate, assemble and express themselves freely without any fear of risk and reprisal from state agencies and other dangerous hacking groups. The Network is therefore particularly interested in freedom of expression and associated assembly rights, as they manifest in online expression. It is based in Kampala, Uganda.
i) Jonction is a non-governmental organization, based in Dakar in Senegal, which aims to promote and defend human rights. Founded in 2006, Jonction has conducted a number of advocacy and awareness campaigns on the protection of personal data, privacy and freedom of expression in both Senegal and West Africa. It has a particular focus on the right to privacy and freedom of expression on the Internet.
j) Media Rights Agenda is a non-profit, non-governmental organization based in Lagos, Nigeria. It was established in 1997 to promote and defend freedom of expression, including media freedom and access to information. Media Rights Agenda is registered in Nigeria and has Observer Status with the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights.
k) Sierra Sustainable Technology is a non-profit and non-governmental organisation that was established in 2007 due to a large number of school children dropping out of education and large-scale unemployment of young people (especially girls). Its purpose is to serve as a rights-based organisation that meet the needs of poor and deprived communicates through advocacy and the use of sustainable and communications technology, promoting and protecting the rights and responsibilities of women, youth and children through training, awareness raising and empowerment initiatives.
l) The Instituto Beta: Internet & Democracy is a Brazilian based non-profit organisation engaged in defending and promoting human rights in the digital environment. Beta’s activities involve the promotion of Internet users rights, the production of Internet culture research and reports, and the organisation of social, cultural and political events and demonstrations aimed at preserving democratic values in cyberspace. Its action focuses on the protection of principles such as of freedom of thought and expression, freedom in Internet access, net neutrality and data protection. Pursuant to these goals, Beta has been accepted to intervene as an amicus curae in two central Brazilian Supreme Court legal cases relating to WhatsApp blocking.
m) The League of cyberactivists for democracy, Africtivistes, is an association founded in November 2015 and based in Senegal. It has 150 active members in 35 countries in Africa and in the Diaspora. It brings together committed Africans to contribute to addressing challenges of democratisation and freedom on the African continent through participatory democracy, e-democracy and the effective anchoring of democratic culture in our respective countries. Africtivistes has supported legal petitions to several governments regarding access to the Internet, net neutrality, privacy and online security. In addition to campaigns, Africtivistes also provides online security training to members, media organisations, and civil society.
n) The Karisma Foundation was founded in 2003 and is based in Bogotá, Colombia. Its goal is to respond to the opportunities and threats that arise in the context of “technology for development” so as to ensure the exercise of human rights and the promotion of freedom of expression. Karisma works through activism with multiple perspectives – legal and technological – in coalitions with local, regional and international partners.
o) Global Voices was founded at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School in December 2004. It subsequently became incorporated in the Netherlands as Stichting Global Voices, a nonprofit foundation. Global Voices is a largely volunteer community of more than 1400 writers, analysts, online media experts, and translators. It aims to curate, verify and translate trending news and stories on the Internet, from blogs, independent press and social media in 167 countries.
p) The Institute of Technology and Society of Rio is a non-profit independent organisation, which is made up of professors and researchers from different academic institutions (such as the Rio de Janeiro State University, Pontifical Catholic University (PUC-Rio), Fundação Getulio Vargas, IBMEC, ESPM, MIT Media Lab, and others). Its mission, over the past 14 years, has been to ensure that Brazil and the Global South respond creatively and appropriately to the opportunities provided by technology in the digital age, and that the potential benefits are broadly shared across society. It is also a member of the Executive Committee of the Global Network of Internet & Society research centers. Its members have been directly involved in the conception and in the collaborative process of creating the so-called “Brazilian Internet Bill of Rights” (Law no 12965/14).
q) Red en Defensa de los Derechos Digitales is a non-profit organization in Mexico that defends human rights in the digital environment. It was formed in 2014. It uses research, advocacy and litigation to defend digital rights in Mexico, including the right to freedom of expression, the right to privacy, and the right of access to knowledge. As part of its work, it has successfully defended online media organizations from Mexico’s data protection decisions ordering the delisting of links to news articles in search engines. This litigation has included the leading case against Mexico’s data protection authority, which first considered the implementation of the “right to be forgotten” in Mexico. This case arose in the context of an order to delist news articles that considered corruption in Mexico. Red en Defensa de los Derechos Digitales represented one of the news organizations that published the original news story.
r) The Center for Information Technology and Development (“CITAD”), Nigeria, is a non-governmental and non-profit organization, established in 1996, that is committed to the use of ICT for the development and promotion of good governance, social justice, peace and sustainable development. It commits to universal access to free, secure, affordable and transparent internet services as a platform for development and cultural expression. CITAD uses ICT to empower youth and women in particular through access to information, skills and online mentoring opportunities. It utilises platforms such as social networking, web-to-text interface and tools such as Google alert to provide information that would promote peaceful co-existence. Its mission is to use ICT to empower citizens for a just and knowledge-based society, anchored in sustainable and balanced development.

How Applicable is the Multi-stakeholder Approach to Internet Governance in Africa?

By Ashnah Kalemera |
What is the value for Africans in international Internet Governance processes if the approach towards Internet governance on the continent has not fully embraced the multi-stakeholder model? This was among the concerns heard during debates at the 11th Internet Governance Forum (IGF), as some participants questioned the applicability of the global internet governance agenda to Africa.
At a global level, the IGF, an initiative of the United Nations, discusses public policy issues related to the internet. The annual gathering drives best practices and common understanding of how to maximise internet opportunities and address the risks and challenges it faces. At the core of the IGF is the multi-stakeholder approach which aims to bring together individuals, groups or organisations with a stake in the internet to cooperate in advancing policy and practice for its development globally.
This approach is said to be “optimal” in ensuring government, business, civil society and the technical community take part in making policy decisions for the internet that are accountable, sustainable and effective.

Why the multi-stakeholder approach?

  • Decisions impact a wide and distributed range of people and interests,
  • There are overlapping rights and responsibilities across sectors and borders,
  • Different forms of expertise are needed, such as technical expertise, and
  • Legitimacy and acceptance of decisions directly impact implementation.

Internet Governance: Why the Multi-stakeholder Approach Works (Internet Society)

National and regional IGF initiatives (NRI) are similarly conducted to address community needs and involve multiple stakeholders. However, few African stakeholders participate at the global IGF and NRIs, rendering the principles of multi-stakeholderism difficult to achieve.

More than 2,000 participants from 123 countries attended the 2016 IGF held in Mexico. By stakeholder group, civil society constituted the majority (44.5%). Government representation was 20.5% and private sector was 15.5%. By region, Africa had the second lowest regional representation– 6.7%, beating only Eastern Europe from which 2.5% of participants originated.

There are up to 16 national, sub-regional and regional IGFs in Africa. Of the African countries that hosted forums during 2016, most were civil society led with some support from government reported – for instance in Ghana, Nigeria and Uganda. However, there was limited participation by the judiciary and law enforcement, youth and the private sector.
Organisers of the Africa Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) and national forums say there is a challenge of multi-stakeholder participation at gatherings on the continent due to lack of political will and limited knowledge and awareness of internet governance issues, among other reasons.
Organisers of the regional AIGF also reported limited representation by policy makers and other government officials. Private sector and youth were reportedly underrepresented at the fifth AIGF held in Durban, South Africa, last October.
According to Olusegun Olugbile who sits on the technical committee of the AIGF and the Nigeria national forum, limited stakeholder participation in national and regional internet governance forums was due to a lack of trust and confidence in the dialogue and ensuing outcomes.
Speaking at the African Union (AU) session at the IGF, Olugbile stated that bringing more stakeholders to the table on internet governance in Africa requires “embracing” policy documents from the continent, such as the African Union Convention on Cyber Security and the African Declaration on Internet Rights –  less so international instruments – so as to ensure contextual understanding of key concerns. This would contribute to a demonstration of value in participation for the stakeholders currently not participating. Furthermore, it would ensure that agendas for debate are localised to suit African needs and follow ups on recommendations are directly linked to the mandate of the relevant stakeholders.
Whereas discussants at the Africa themed sessions also called for more public-private partnership efforts in pursuing the principles of internet governance in Africa, regional bodies such as the AU were also called upon not only to convey outcomes to governments but to actively advocate and “push” for the implementation of recommendations from the AIGF among member states.
Meanwhile, the Africa School of Internet Governance (AfriSIG), which started in 2013 was commended for its role in bridging the internet governance knowledge and skills gap on the continent. To-date, the school has graduated over 150 individuals from government, the private sector and civil society across Africa in the principles and procedures of internet governance. Continued capacity building efforts by the school and other practitioners were recommended.
The 2016 IGF was convened under the theme ‘Enabling Inclusive and Sustainable Growth” from December 6–9, 2016 in Jalisco, Mexico.
 
 

#KeepitOn: Joint letter on the internet and the election in Gambia

Joint Letter |
President Yahya Jammeh
cc: Gambia Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA)
Gambia Permanent Mission to the United Nations
African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights
30 November 2016
Your Excellency,
We are writing to urgently request that you ensure the stability and openness of the internet during the forthcoming elections in Gambia on December 1. Elections represent the most critical moment in a democracy, and the internet enables free expression and the fulfillment of all human rights.
However, we have received unconfirmed reports through a variety of sources that your government intends to shut down the internet. We implore you to keep the internet on.
Research shows that internet shutdowns and state violence go hand in hand. [1] Shutdowns disrupt the free flow of information and create a cover of darkness that allows state repression to occur without scrutiny. Worryingly, Gambia would be joining an alarming global trend of government-mandated shutdowns during elections, a practice that many African Union member governments have recently adopted, including:  Burundi, Congo-Brazzaville, Egypt, Sudan, the Central African Republic, Niger, Democratic Republic of Congo. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]
Internet shutdowns — with governments ordering the suspension or throttling of entire networks, often during elections or public protests — must never be allowed to become the new normal.
Justified for public safety purposes, shutdowns instead cut off access to vital information, e-financing, and emergency services, plunging whole societies into fear and destabilizing the internet’s power to support small business livelihoods and drive economic development. In addition, a study by the Brookings Institution indicates that shutdowns drained $2.4 billion from the global economy last year. [9]
International Law
A growing body of jurisprudence declares shutdowns to violate international law. The United Nations Human Rights Council has spoken out strongly against internet shutdowns. In its 32nd Session, in July 2016, the Council passed by consensus a resolution on freedom of expression and the internet with operative language on internet shutdowns. The resolution, A/HRC/RES/32/13, “condemns unequivocally measures to intentionally prevent or disrupt access to or dissemination of information online in violation of international human rights law and calls on all States to refrain from and cease such measures.” The Council intended this clear declaration to combat the blocking and throttling of networks, applications, and services that facilitate the freedoms of expression, opinion, and access to information online. In addition, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights stated in its November 2016  Resolution on the Right to Freedom of Information and Expression on the Internet in Africa that it was “Concerned by the emerging practice of State Parties of interrupting or limiting access to telecommunication services such as the Internet, social media and messaging services, increasingly during elections.” [10]
In 2015, various experts from the United Nations (UN) Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), Organization of American States (OAS), and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR), issued an historic statement declaring that internet “kill switches” can never be justified under international human rights law, even in times of conflict. [11] General Comment 34 of the UN Human Rights Committee, the official interpreter of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, emphasizes that restrictions on speech online must be strictly necessary and proportionate to achieve a legitimate purpose. Shutdowns disproportionately impact all users, and unnecessarily restrict access to information and emergency services communications during crucial moments.
The internet has enabled significant advances in health, education, and creativity, and it is now essential to fully realize human rights including participation in elections and access to information.
We humbly request that you use the vital positions of your good offices to:

  • Ensure that the internet, including social media, remains on in Gambia throughout the election and beyond
  • Publicly declare your commitment to keep the internet on, including social media
  • Encourage telecommunications and internet services providers to respect human rights, including through public disclosures and transparency reports.

We are happy to assist you in any of these matters.
Sincerely,
Access Now
Association for Progressive Communications (APC)
CIPESA
Heliopolis Institute
Human Rights Foundation
iFreedom Uganda
Internet Sans Frontières
Media Foundation for West Africa
Paradigm Initiative Nigeria
Social Media Exchange (SMEX)
Strathmore University Centre for IP and It Law (CIPIT)
Unwanted Witness Uganda
 
[1] Sarah Myers West, ‘Research Shows Internet Shutdowns and State Violence Go Hand in Hand in Syria’ (Electronic Frontier Foundation, 1 July 2015)
<https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/06/research-shows-internet-shutdowns-and-state-violence-go-hand-hand-syria> accessed 18 February 2016.
[2] ‘Access urges UN and African Union experts to take action on Burundi internet shutdown’ (Access Now 29 April 2015) <https://www.accessnow.org/access-urges-un-and-african-union-experts-to-take-action-on-burundi-interne/> accessed 18 February 2016.
[3] Deji Olukotun, ‘Government may have ordered internet shutdown in Congo-Brazzaville’ (Access Now 20 October 2015) <https://www.accessnow.org/government-may-have-ordered-internet-shutdown-in-congo-brazzaville/> accessed 18 February 2016.
[4]  Deji Olukotun and Peter Micek, ‘Five years later: the internet shutdown that rocked Egypt’ (Access Now 21 January 2016) <https://www.accessnow.org/five-years-later-the-internet-shutdown-that-rocked-egypt/> accessed 18 February 2016.
[5] Peter Micek, ‘Update: Mass internet shutdown in Sudan follows days of protest’ (Access Now, 15 October 2013) <https://www.accessnow.org/mass-internet-shutdown-in-sudan-follows-days-of-protest/> accessed 18 February 2016.
[6] Peter Micek, ‘Access submits evidence to International Criminal Court on net shutdown in Central African Republic’(Access Now 17 February 2015) <https://www.accessnow.org/evidence-international-criminal-court-net-shutdown-in-central-african-repub/> accessed 18 February 2016.
[7] ‘Niger resorts to blocking in wake of violent protests against Charlie Hebdo cartoons.’ (Access Now Facebook page 26 January 2015) <https://www.facebook.com/accessnow/posts/10153030213288480> accessed 18 February 2016.
[8] Peter Micek, (Access Now 23 January 2015) ‘Violating International Law, DRC Orders Telcos to Cease Communications Services’ <https://www.accessnow.org/violating-international-law-drc-orders-telcos-vodafone-millicon-airtel/> accessed 18 February 2016.
[9] Darrell West, (Brookings Institution, October 2016) “Internet shutdowns cost countries $2.4 billion last year” https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/intenet-shutdowns-v-3.pdf
[10] African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, (November 2016) ‘362: Resolution on the Right to Freedom of Information and Expression on the Internet in Africa – ACHPR/Res. 362(LIX) 2016’ http://www.achpr.org/sessions/59th/resolutions/362/
[11] Peter Micek, (Access Now 4 May 2015) ‘Internet kill switches are a violation of human rights law, declare major UN and rights experts’ <https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2015/05/04/internet-kill-switches-are-a-violation-of-human-rights-law-declare-major-un> accessed 18 February 2016.

This join letter first appeared on the Access Now website

Strengthening Africa’s Conversation and Actions on Internet Freedom

By Juliet Nanfuka |

The Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) with the support of Facebook, the Ford Foundation, Google, Hivos, Open Technology Fund (OTF) and Small Media will assemble an audience in Kampala, Uganda for the Forum on Internet Freedom in Africa 2016. Set to take place on September 27–29, the Forum has become a crucial convening for actors on online freedom of expression and association, and the free flow of information in Africa.
Panel discussions at this year’s Forum will explore the growing trend of internet shutdowns, the increasing presence of violence against women online, the intersection of open data and human rights, African frameworks that protect online rights and their conflicts with outdated laws, amongst others.
“Recent events across various African countries make the Forum as indispensable as it ever has been in discussing challenges to online rights and the opportunities for collaborative efforts by state and non-state actors to meaningfully protect and advance internet freedom on the continent,” says CIPESA Executive Director Dr. Wairagala Wakabi. “We are glad to be facilitating growing awareness of online rights in Africa and are keen to continue contributing towards building this awareness amongst different stakeholders.”
Indeed, one of the pre events at the Forum will be the training of journalists and human rights defenders on human rights and internet policy. The training will be hosted by CIPESA, together with Paradigm Initiative Nigeria (PIN) and the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in Uganda.
The Forum, set to coincide with the International Day for Universal Access to information (September 28), will also serve as an opportunity to delve into the current trends on access to information on the continent. In partnership with the Africa Freedom of Information Center (AFIC) and Office of the Prime Minister (Uganda), a public dialogue on access to information as a driver to achieving the 2030 Development Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) will also be held.
A key highlight of the Forum since its inception is the launch of the annual State of Internet Freedom in Africa regional reports. Previous editions of this report have focused on seven African countries – Burundi, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda,  Tanzania and Uganda – with a stand-alone report produced on South Africa. This year’s report has been expanded to include 10 countries. The countries featured in the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in Africa report are Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Somalia, South Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
Dr. Wakabi adds, “Access to information and the state of internet freedom are closely interlinked. Countries with higher levels of information access tend to have more online liberties than those without, and they also generally have a healthier democratic culture. The power of public information, open data and a free and open internet should not be undermined if we are to achieve effective civic participation, respect for human rights, transparent, accountable and democratic governance, and realisation of the 2030 Development Agenda.”
The Forum serves as an opportunity to gather insights from the different stakeholders in the information society ecosystem towards promoting a free and safe internet, hence the key themes that emerge from the Forum are widely disseminated. The 2015 outcomes and recommendations were shared in spaces such as the Internet Governance Forum (Brazil), the Africa IGF (Cameroon) and the Stockholm Internet Forum, and in various national convenings.
The Forum has confirmed participants from at least 23 countries and speakers from over 46 organisations including the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School, Panos Institute Southern Africa, BudgIT (Nigeria), Article 19 (Kenya), Digital Society of Zimbabwe, the Web Foundation, Association for Progressive Communications (APC), iAfrikan, Namibia Broadcasting Corporation (NBC), Access Now, Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANET), National Information Technology Agency (NITA) Ghana, and Research ICT Africa. Others include Hivos, Nation Media Group, Africa Media Institute, Media Institute of Southern Africa Zimbabwe Chapter, Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI), Privacy International (PI) , Uganda Police, Zambia Police Service, University of Malawi, Communications Regulators Association of Southern Africa (CRASA) and the Ministry of Information, Communications and National Guidance (Uganda).
Follow the conversation at #FIFAfrica16.