Data Privacy Still A Neglected Digital Right in Africa

By Juliet Nanfuka |

In recent years, the threats to data privacy have evolved at a quicker pace than the development of regulatory frameworks dedicated to safeguarding the right to privacy, especially in the digital era. Currently, just over half of African countries have enacted privacy laws and policies. Still, the right to privacy is repeatedly under threat through the introduction of new laws  that  facilitate  surveillance  and  the  collection  of  biometric  data  and  limit  the  use  of  encryption. There are growing concerns that in several African countries, government agencies and private entities are collecting and processing personal data without adequate data protection frameworks, amidst weak oversight mechanisms and inadequate remedies.

Most African countries are parties to international human rights instruments such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) which provide for the right to privacy. However, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights does not provide for the right to privacy, although its article 9 has been interpreted to encompass the right to privacy.

Meanwhile, the continent’s model instrument on privacy and data protection, the African Union Convention on Cybersecurity and Personal Data Protection, has been signed by 14 countries and only eight countries had ratified it by June 2020. Indeed, adherence to these instruments remains low.

“In recent years, various African countries have enacted  laws  and  policies  to  regulate  the  right  to  privacy.  Many of  the  laws  enacted  do  not  measure  up to  international  human  rights  standards  and  fail  to  establish  clear  and  appropriate  oversight,  redress  and  remedy mechanisms.” CIPESA Mapping and Analysis of Privacy Laws in Africa

Increased digitalisation, which was accelerated by Covid-19, has seen rising use of  technology in health, business, education, and civic participation and engagement, necessitating greater need for progressive personal data privacy policies and practices. However, as many positive developments emerged in the region so did gaps in the respect for data protection and privacy  in the numerous state responses.

For example, Ethiopia has embarked on a national digital identification (ID) biometric-based project which it argues will support access to services for citizens and hasten trade relations with other nations on the continent. However, the country has no comprehensive data protection law.  In 2020, the government published the draft Personal Data Protection Proclamation which is yet to come into force.

In Kenya, the Data Protection Act, 2019 which establishes the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner also prohibits the sharing of data with third parties without consent of the data subjects and requires that individuals are informed when their data is being shared and for what purposes. In December, an amendment to the Central Bank of Kenya Act addresses digital lenders that share personal data of loan defaulters with third parties could have their licenses revoked. Tactics used by lenders reportedly included calling friends and family, to shame and compel their borrowers to repay the loans.

In South Africa, the data privacy debate recently surged when the Department of Basic Education stated that high school leaving exam (National Senior Certificate) results would no longer be published on media platforms, in line with the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA). However, a court ruled against the department and instructed that the results be published publicly on media platforms and newspapers. Historically, the results have been made available with students identified through their ID numbers or exam numbers. The Department argued that in order to publish the results, it would have to seek consent from every pupil per the POPIA.

Private entities in South Africa have also come under scrutiny for their surveillance systems’ compliance with privacy regulations and their data privacy practices. Among these entities is Vumacam, which in 2021 announced that it was gearing up to instal additional “hundreds of thousands of cameras” in the country. Vumacam currently has over 5,000 cameras that have been installed in Johannesburg suburbs since 2019.

The concerns raised about private surveillance actors in South Africa echo those that have emerged about state actors in Botswana, Equatorial Guinea, Kenya, Morocco, Nigeria, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe who have heavily invested in state-run video surveillance systems commonly referred to as “Safe Cities” – which in the absence of sufficient safeguards, present risks through their collection and processing of personal data.

Indeed, there are concerns on the true extent to which governments are committed to ensuring citizens’ data privacy rights. In 2019, Clément Voule, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association, stated that a surge in legislation and policies aimed at combating cybercrime had also opened the door to punishing and surveilling activists and protesters in many countries around the world.

Among the ways in which data privacy is being undermined through legislation and policy is by increasing restrictions to the use of anonymity and encryption – both of which are fundamental to upholding other rights including press freedom, access to information and freedom of expression. States fear the use of anonymisation and encryption tools will hamper their capacity to fight terrorism and crime.

Anonymity and encryption protect privacy, and without effective protection of the right to privacy, the right of individuals to communicate anonymously and without fear of their communications being unlawfully detected cannot be guaranteed. Whether used to protect sensitive information or to verify identities, individuals and corporations alike benefit from cryptographic software in a world that is becoming increasingly networked.

In the absence of robust oversight, legal and practical safeguards, and the selective application of data protection laws, data privacy remains a primary concern for digital users in several African countries.  This is compounded by  governments who continue to encourage and support an enabling environment that facilitates efforts by state and non-state actors to undermine privacy-related rights at the cost of numerous digital rights in Africa.

—————————————————————————————————————-

This Data Privacy Day (January 28), the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) reaffirms its commitment towards advancing effective policy that shapes and informs a progressive data privacy landscape in Africa. See some of our blogs and indepth research reports on data privacy and protection in Africa.

The Disproportionate Exclusion of Persons With Disabilities in Sub-Saharan Africa

By Evelyn Lirri |

For Persons with Disabilities, access to Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) can be an enabler for social and economic inclusion. Yet across Africa, despite the various laws and policies that have been passed and adopted by countries, persons with disabilities continue to lag behind in terms of access and use of digital tools.

Barriers such as low levels of ICT skills, high illiteracy levels, poverty and the high cost of assistive technologies such as screen readers, screen magnification software, text readers, and speech input software, and digital inaccessibility of websites and mobile applications and services are shared across Sub-Saharan Africa. These barriers are often accompanied by limited clarity on what actions are being taken by states and companies to address these gaps.

The digital inclusion of marginalised and vulnerable communities was among the issues discussed at the September 2021 Forum on Internet Freedom in Africa (FIFAfrica). In a panel discussion titled Technology and Disability, various speakers noted that persons with disabilities continue to face numerous barriers that have prevented them from fully benefiting from the opportunities that technology enables, including access to crucial information and services such as education and health, civic engagement, and employment.

Speaking at the Forum, disability rights activist Clodoaldo Castiano from the Forum of Disabled Persons Organisation in Mozambique noted that despite the country being a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), it has not set a specific agenda to enable ICT accessibility. The CRPD requires states to undertake measures which ensure that persons with disabilities have access to ICT, including assistive technologies and resources to realise the right to access.

“Although we have ratified the CRPD, the government has not been able to define a specific legal and policy agenda to address the obligations of the Convention,” said Castiano, adding that ICT accessibility for persons with disabilities also remains largely unregulated. He further added that although Mozambique has a Universal Access Fund, it does not include programmes that benefit persons with disabilities.

Some countries are, however, trying to put more effort into addressing the disability digital divide. Uganda’s State Minister for Disability Affairs, Hellen Grace Asamo, noted that the country has introduced a number of initiatives to support the promotion, inclusion and accessibility of ICT tools for persons with disabilities. In addition to laws such as the Persons with Disabilities Act, 2020 which recognise the rights of persons with disabilities, the Ministry of ICT and National Guidance has drafted the ICT and Disability Policy as an intervention to close gaps in the use of ICT by persons with disabilities.  Furthermore, the Uganda Communications Commission (UCC) has made it a requirement for television stations to have sign language interpreters to facilitate access and inclusion of people with hearing impairment.

“In Uganda where we have 16 per cent of people living with a form of disability, it is critical that we have programmes that ensure they are not left out. We have made available access to Braille and we are working to ensure that all government Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) have sign language interpreters,” said the minister.

The discussion also noted that the Covid-19 pandemic had amplified the gaps in digital access for marginalised and vulnerable communities including persons with disabilities. This resonated with a CIPESA report, ‘Access Denied: How telcom operators in Africa are failing persons with disabilities’ which investigated how operators have made minimal efforts in addressing the needs of consumers who are also persons with disabilities.

Across the world, the pandemic forced many activities to go online which disproportionately affected persons with disabilities especially in developing countries where it only served to further alienate them from access to information, public health updates and online civic participation. In countries where data costs are high, the drop in economic activity also  served to further isolate the community from accessing the internet due to prohibitive costs.

Despite progressive legislative efforts in some countries, while a number of laws and policies have been enacted in various African countries to ensure access to services for persons with disabilities, their implementation continues to lag behind. This, coupled with the lack of awareness by persons with disabilities of their rights has made it difficult for them to demand for ICT-friendly and affordable services.

Robert Nkwangu, the Executive Director of the Uganda National Association of the Deaf, spoke to this issue.  “Majority of people with disabilities have not gone to school and many do not know their rights. Similarly, digital rights are not seen to them as a challenge because they don’t know,” he said. “We need to do more capacity building of members to give them a firm ground to demand for what is rightfully theirs.”

To address these challenges, participants at the Forum acknowledged that increased domestic funding by governments for digital innovations that support people with disabilities will be critical.  This echoes recommendations in a CIPESA report which called for the relevant government agencies such as communication regulators and consumer protection units to enforce legislation on accessible communication products and services. The report also called for more vigilance in enforcing implementation of national disability laws, codes of practice, consumer rights regulations, and ICT and disability policies. More vigilance is also needed in monitoring compliance to avoid empty claims when in reality products and services are still inaccessible.

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

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:

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

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

One Year into his Reign, Burundi’s President Evariste Ndayishimiye has a Mixed Media Freedom Record

By CIPESA Writer |

A year into his presidency, Evariste Ndayishimiye has posted a mixed scorecard for media freedom in Burundi. Having experienced harsh restrictions under Ndayishimiye’s predecessor, the late Pierre Nkurunziza, there was optimism among media practitioners and activists that once sworn in, Ndayishimiye would usher in progressive reforms in the country.

Since taking office on June 18, 2020, Ndayishimiye has actively engaged the media, leading to the lifting of some sanctions. Notable actions have seen the pardon of jailed journalists, lifting of bans against online publishers such as Iwacu, Isanganiro and Ikirihoo as well as broadcasters including the BBC and Radio Sans Frontières Bonesha (RSF Bonesha). However, these have only been partial reliefs as many independent media houses remain banned, while the culture of self-censorship and civil society oppression prevails. 

A History of Repression

In May 2015, Nkurunziza’s bid for a new term in office triggered contestation, with opposition parties and civil society organisations protesting against what they considered an unconstitutional third term in office. The ensuing public demonstrations led to a deadly political crisis, with widespread reports of police brutality, physical destruction of radio and televisions stations, and the arrest of several journalists. The events were preceded by a government order to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to block access to social media platforms such as Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter, and Viber.

Nkurunziza eventually had his way and won the 2015 elections, after which he set upon systematically shrinking civic space. The period until his death in June 2020 saw an escalation in the crackdown on independent media and journalists, both offline and online, forcing many to flee to exile.

In July 2016, Jean Bigirimana, an independent online journalist, went missing and his whereabouts remain unknown. Witness testimonies allege that Bigirimana was abducted by officials of Burundi’s national intelligence services. Although authorities have denied any involvement in Bigirimina’s abduction, further reports indicate that his family received death threats, forcing his wife and children to flee into exile.

As of October 2017, access to the websites of independent local news publishers http://www.iwacu-burundi.org, http://www.isanganiro.org, and http://www.ikiriho.org was blocked from within Burundi except through use of circumvention methods. Isanganiro’s radio station and Iwacu’s weekly print newspaper remained operational and in circulation, respectively. The management of Iwacu contacted the National Communication Council (CNC) as well as the telecommunication regulatory authority regarding the website blockage, but the authorities denied responsibility, arguing that it could be a technical issue at the Internet Service Provider level. In order to keep its services accessible, Iwacu set up an alternative website (https://iwacu.global.ssl.fastly.net/). Meanwhile, a letter from Ikiriho to the CNC requesting for its website to be unblocked went unanswered.

In May 2018, the CNC issued warnings to Radio Isanganiro, Radio CCIB FM+, and Radio France Internationale, and suspended the licenses of the BBC and Voice of America (VOA) for six months on allegations of not verifying sources and broadcasting unbalanced news. Months later in October 2018, the government suspended the operations of international non-governmental organisations, accusing them of violating the 2017 General Framework for Cooperation between the Republic of Burundi and Foreign NGOs, which requires recruitment of national staff by ethnic quotas. 

On the legislative front, on May 11, 2018, Nkurunziza assented to a new interception of communications law, with sweeping powers granted to government agencies carrying out investigations to intercept electronic communications and seize computer data. The law was passed within two weeks of first being tabled –  in contravention of the constitution.

Meanwhile,  YouTube block in Burundi was documented by the Open Observatory of Network Interference during December 2019 without official explanation. Leading up to the alleged restriction on YouTube, the Burundian government suspended the comments section on the YouTube channel of Nawe, an independent media outlet, and prohibited new channel uploads. Initially, Nawe’s website and Twitter remained active but both have been inactive since August 2020. Moreover, Nawe is no longer listed among CNC’s licensed online media houses. 

The onset of the Covid-19 pandemic presented even bigger challenges. In May 2020, Burundi expelled officials of the World Health Organisation for challenging the country’s Covid-19 response, amidst a looming election. Whereas the country reported some Covid-19 statistics, there was criticism of under-reporting and gagging of civil society and health workers. 

A New Dawn

Under the new head of state Ndayishimiye, who won the 2020 polls by 67%, the repression has eased somewhat. Four Iwacu journalists were released from prison in December 2020 by way of a presidential pardon after serving 14 months of a two-and-a-half year jail sentence for “complicity in undermining state safety.” The charges related to coverage of clashes between the Burundian army and militia from neighbouring Democratic Republic of Congo. Prior to their release, various organisations, including the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), had petitioned Ndayishimiye, arguing that the four journalists’ conviction was unjust.

In another positive development, Ndayishimiye held a dialogue with Burundi journalists in January 2021, during which he said that the media are a strong pillar for democracy and development and urged the country’s media regulatory body CNC to urgently engage with media houses that were banned or sanctioned to explore possible reopening.

Following the president’s directive, the CNC invited Léandre Sikuyavuga, Editor-in-Chief of Iwacu, for a meeting on February 11, 2021. Sikuyavuga was informed that the CNC was in talks with the relevant technical service providers to reinstate access to the Iwacu website in Burundi. The ban on the discussion forum of the website, which was imposed back in April 2018, was also revoked. However, at the time of writing, Iwacu remains inaccessible within Burundi.

Also in February, the President of the CNC held a press conference during which he announced the end of all restrictions against RSF Bonesha FM. The broadcaster was one of the independent radio stations destroyed in 2015 and its operating license was indefinitely revoked in 2017. Within four days of the press conference, the station resumed broadcasting. While expressing his joy at the lifting of the sanctions, Leon Masengo, the Director of Bonesha FM, said a lot of their equipment was destroyed in 2015, but the station would start airing in the capital Bujumbura initially and later countrywide once the necessary equipment was replaced. The estimated cost of replacing the damaged equipment was USD 60,000.

More recently, on June 16, 2021, the CNC lifted the ban on Ikiriho and the BBC. In order to resume operations, the BBC is required to apply for a new license. For its part, Ikiriho immediately resumed operations including posts via its Twitter account which had been dormant since October 2018. However, its website remains inaccessible. 

Nonetheless, many other broadcasters including VOA, Radio Publique Africaine (RPA), and Radio Télévision Renaissance remain off air. In order to overcome the national ban, RPA and Radio Télévision Renaissance, whose journalists live in exile, maintain active Youtube channels (Radio Publique Africaine Ijwi ry’Abanyagihugu and Tele Renaissance), whose daily news editions are widely circulated among Burundians via Whatsapp. 

Further, more than 70 journalists who fled the country during the 2015 crisis for fear of their lives are still living in exile as reported by the Le Monde. Meanwhile, self-censorship and civil society repression persists.

 The Next Four Years

In order to rejuvenate the media landscape and civic space to its dynamism prior to 2015, Ndayishimiye must show commitment to uphold media and internet freedom by unconditionally lifting bans on all media houses, including granting amnesty to all journalists currently living in exile. The practice reforms should be matched with policy reforms including amendments to laws that grant undue powers to authorities to conduct unwarranted surveillance and censorship. Ndayishimye should also desist from interrupting access to the internet and social media.