Promoting Effective and Inclusive ICT Policy in Africa

Category Archives: Internet Governance

  HomeCollaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA)  /  Blog  /  Internet Governance
21Feb

How the MTN Group Can Improve its Digital Human Rights Policy and Reporting

Author CIPESA Posted on

CIPESA Writer |

These proposals are made to the MTN Group in respect of its Digital Human Rights Policy. The proposals commend the positive elements of the Policy including the proclamation to respect the rights of users including in privacy, communication, access and sharing information in a free and responsible manner. The submission points to areas where the telecoms group can further improve its role in the protection of human rights.

The United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) enjoin corporate entities to act with due diligence to avoid infringements on human rights. They also provide ways through which adverse impacts on human rights can be addressed. It is therefore commendable that MTN developed a Digital Human Rights Policy and is open to commentary and suggestions for  strengthening its implementation. It is imperative that MTN takes proactive and consistent measures to comply with international human rights instruments such as the UNGPs, the leading global framework focused on business responsibility and accountability for human rights, which were unanimously endorsed by States at the United Nations in 2011.

Some of the Principles that MTN needs to pay close attention to include the following:

 Principle 11: Business enterprises should respect human rights. This means that they should avoid infringing on the human rights of others and should address adverse human rights impacts with which they are involved.

Principle 13: The responsibility to respect human rights requires that business enterprises (a) Avoid causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts through their own activities, and address such impacts when they occur; (b) Seek to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts that are directly linked to their operations, products or services by their business relationships, even if they have not contributed to those impacts.

Principle 15. In order to meet their responsibility to respect human rights, business enterprises should have in place policies and processes appropriate to their size and circumstances, including:

(a) A policy commitment to meet their responsibility to respect human rights;

(b) A human rights due diligence process to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how they address their impacts on human rights;

(c) Processes to enable the remediation of any adverse human rights impacts they cause or to which they contribute.

Principle 23:  In all contexts, business enterprises should:

  1. Comply with all applicable laws and respect internationally recognised human rights, wherever they operate;
  2. Seek ways to honour the principles of internationally recognised human rights when faced with conflicting requirements;
  3. Treat the risk of causing or contributing to gross human rights abuses as a legal compliance issue wherever they operate.

Respect for digital rights is also stipulated in the Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information in Africa of 2019 which MTN needs to be cognisant of as part of efforts to ensure that it upholds respect for human rights.

CIPESA Proposals to the MTN Group
The MTN Group is a market leader in various service areas in several countries where it has operations. It is also a key employer and tax payer, and by facilitating the operations of other sectors,  MTN is a key contributor to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and to the health of the respective countries’ economies. It is crucial that the company develops and effects a robust Digital Human Rights Policy. Notably, MTN has trailed other operators, such as Orange, Millicom and Vodafone in rolling out a digital rights policy, and in transparency reporting.

While MTN last year issued its inaugural transparency report as part of its annual reporting, there are areas of concern for which we make the following recommendations:

  1. Provide more granular and disaggregated data about the number and nature of requests MTN receives from government agencies. At present, it is not clear how many of those requests relate to the release of users’ identifying data, how many were on metadata, and how many were on rendering support to communication monitoring and interception. Besides providing such a breakdown, MTN should also explain how many requests, if any, were not adhered to and why. Further, the report should indicate which particular government departments made the requests and whether all their requests were backed by a court order.
  2. Provide more nuanced information in reporting on the Digital Human Rights Policy to enable the contextualisation of country-specific explanations of government requests. In the last report, for instance, it is difficult to comprehend the information on government requests from Uganda. Given that Uganda is one of the countries where MTN has the largest number of subscribers, and given that country’s human rights record, the numbers are inexplicably few (12 in total) compared to Congo Brazzaville (1,600), eSwatini (3,661), Ghana (1,642), Guinea Conakry (6,480), Ivory Coast (4,215), Nigeria (4,751), Rwanda (602), South Africa (15,903), South Sudan (1,748), Sudan (5,105), and Zambia (8,294).
  3. In its transparency reporting on implementation of its Digital Human Rights Policy, MTN should reflect on the role of local laws and regulations in enabling or hampering the realisation of digital human rights. What elements are supportive and which ones are retrogressive? Which grey areas need clarification or call for repeal of laws?
  4. Include in the MTN transparency report a detailed and analytical section on network disruptions, as these are highly controversial and have wide-ranging economic, public service and human rights impacts yet they are becoming endemic in many of the countries where MTN operates. Further, MTN should include information on whether it received (or demanded – as we propose it should) written justifications from regulators (or government officials and bodies who issue shutdown orders) for the shutdown orders, including citation of the specific laws and provisions under which they are issued and the situation that warranted invoking the disruption. Additionally, the MTN Group should commit to scrutinise each demand, order or request and challenge them if they are not clear, specific, written, valid or do comply with national laws. It should also keep a written record of such demands, orders or requests.
  5. The MTN Policy and reporting should have a section and actions dedicated to inclusion of marginalised groups, a key area being enabling access and accessibility for persons with disabilities. Research conducted by CIPESA showed that, in countries where it operated, MTN had not taken any deliberate efforts to make its services more accessible to persons with disabilities. Beyond the additional section, MTN should appoint / designate Inclusion and Human Rights Ambassadors, and build the capacity of internal teams to facilitate engagement and compliance with digital accessibility obligations.
  6. MTN should take a proactive stance in making its Digital Human Rights Policy, including country-specific transparency information, well publicised among users, civil society and government officials in the respective countries. This will aid the growth of knowledge about MTN policies, inspire other companies to respect human rights, and draw feedback on how MTN can further improve its human rights policies and practices.
  7. MTN should develop relationships with, and have proactive and sustained engagements with civil society, consumer groups and governments on the implementation of its Digital Human Rights Policy. Such engagements should not only be post-mortem after-the-fact reviews of reports after their publication but should be continuous and feed into the annual reporting. This engagement should also include external experts and stakeholders in the conduct of regular human rights due diligence as envisaged by Principle 15 of the UNGPs. Such engagements could also relate to raising concern on the national laws, policies and measures which pose a risk to digital rights.
  8. As part of due diligence, MTN should periodically assess and examine the impact of its enforcement of its terms and service, policies and practices to ensure they do not pose risks to individual human rights, and the extent to which they comply with the UNGPs and are consistent with its Digital Human Rights Policy. Such assessments are essential to determining the right course of action when faced with government requests and other potential human rights harms.
  9. MTN should add to its Policy and make public its position on network disruptions and outline a clear policy and the procedures detailing how it handles information requests, interception assistance requests, and disruption orders from governments.
  10. Support initiatives that work to grow access, affordability, and secure use of digital technologies, and speak out about any licensing obligations and government practices that undermine digital rights.
  11. Join key platforms that collaboratively advance a free and open internet and respect for human rights in the telecommunications sector, such as the Global Network Initiative (GNI), endorse the GSMA Principles for Driving Digital Inclusion for Persons with Disabilities, and align with local actors on corporate accountability (such as the Uganda Consortium on Corporate Accountability).
  12. MTN should at a minimum, provide simple and clear terms of service, promptly notify users of decisions made affecting them, and provide accessible redress mechanisms and effective remedies.
  13. MTN should institutionalise its commitment to digital rights by putting in place a governance structure at the country level with oversight at a senior level, train its employees on the policy, and create awareness among its customers to ensure the realisation of the policy.

CIPESA stands ready to continue to engage with MTN on ways to improve and effect its Digital Human Rights Policy. We can be contacted at [email protected].

27Jan

Data Privacy Still A Neglected Digital Right in Africa

Author CIPESA Writer Posted on

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.

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

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.

See this Mapping and Analysis of Privacy Laws in Africa

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.

See this Policy Brief on How African States Are Undermining the Use of Encryption

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.

16Nov

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

Author CIPESA Posted on

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.

28Jul

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

Author CIPESA Posted on

By Evelyn Lirri |

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Audience Q&A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resources:

19Jul

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

Author CIPESA Writer Posted on

By Ashnah Kalemera |

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the full submissions:

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

1 2 3 4 5 … 22