Uganda Again Blocks Social Media to Stifle Anti-Museveni Protests

By Juliet Nanfuka |
A day before Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni was inaugurated for another five-year term, access to social media platforms including Whatsapp, Facebook and Twitter was blocked on instructions of the regulator, the Uganda Communications Commission (UCC). The directive came less than three months after a four-day blockage initiated on Election Day (February 18) that drew local and international condemnation.
During the February 18 elections, social media in Uganda was shut down following a directive from UCC to internet service providers to disable all social media and mobile money services due to a “threat to public order and safety.” Tech-savvy Ugandans turned to Virtual Private Networks (VPN) in a bid to access and to share information on the elections.
On May 11, internet service providers in the country used social media to inform their customers of the second instruction issued by the communications regulator. They indicated that the regulator had cited “national security” as the reason for the shutdown. The present social media blockage comes on the heels of a May 5 ban on live media coverage of opposition-led activities in protest against what they consider the rigged re-election of Museveni, who has been in power since 1986. Earlier on May 3, journalists and artists decried the declining state of freedom of expression at the national celebrations to mark World Press Freedom Day.
Untitled1Untitled2
Screenshots of the MTN and Airtel Uganda Twitter accounts announcing the directive received from the Uganda Communications Commission
Last February, CIPESA joined several civil society groups based in Uganda and internationally to submit a joint letter to the African Union, African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) Secretariat, New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) Secretariat, Uganda Communications Commission, and the Uganda Ministry of Information and Communications Technology, among other authorities. The letter called for “immediate action to condemn the internet shutdown in Uganda, and to prevent any systematic or targeted attacks on democracy and freedom of expression.” To-date, no response has been received.
It is unclear when the social media blockage would end. However, at the time of writing social media activity has remained rife through hashtags such as #M7SwearsIn. Analysis of Ugandan Twitter interaction during the February blockage revealed mixed emotions among Ugandan Twitter users with fear, joy and anger featuring amongst the top sentiments that emerged from the tweets shared with the hashtag #UgandaDecides. See this Analysis Of Twitter Activity On Election Eve And Election Day Uganda 2016 and Analysis of Twitter Activity During the 2016 Presidential Debates in Uganda.

Ugandan Artists, Journalists Decry Declining Freedom of Expression

By Ashnah Kalemera |
As the world celebrated World Press Freedom Day (WPFD), the media and artists in Uganda spoke in unison about declining levels of freedom of expression in the country. Media practitioners challenged the constitutionality of Uganda’s 20-year press law and the impartiality of the national media ombudsman. Meanwhile, artists cited a growing trend of self-censorship among their community due to a fear of backlash from the state.
Musician Robert Kyagulanyi a.ka. Bobi Wine, an outspoken proponent for free expression, explained that communicating social issues through music was both “exciting and annoying” to audiences. Kyagulanyi said over the years he had experienced backlashes for making songs critical of state authorities. In 2012, the Uganda Communications Commission (UCC) allegedly banned radio airplay of Kyagulanyi’s song which criticised the Kampala City Council Authority Executive Director. Earlier this year, there were reports that UCC had once again banned another of Kyagulanyi’s songs – this time with content related to elections. It could not be verified whether the commission indeed banned radio stations from playing the song titled Ddembe. The singer stated that state-owned media had on numerous occasions declined to play some of his music that criticised the government.
“Much as censorship does not come direct, we must acknowledge that it exists for artists,” said Kyagulanyi at an event in Kampala to mark WPFD.
Kyagulanyi’s sentiments were echoed by another prominent Ugandan musician, Irene Ntale, who said she and many others often found themselves “limited” to making commercial music that is “easily saleable and sustains livelihoods” and refraining from critical songs.
“If I want to sing about the political situation in Uganda, I am afraid. Am I going to get into trouble?” said Ntale. She added that other forms of her expression, such as the attire she wears while performing, were also under threat from the Anti-Pornography Act (2014). The Act outlaws the publication and consumption of real or simulated sexual activities, or representation of sexual parts of a person.
Uganda, like many other African countries, lacks a comprehensive legal framework to promote creative, artistic and cultural expression. The country has a national Culture Policy (2006) and ratified to the 2005 UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expression in 2015. However, protections are not guaranteed and there have been reports of abuse and infringements on artists’ rights when their work challenged political, religious and social norms. In 2012, screening of a Ugandan play titled “State of the Nation” was cancelled by the Media Council because of its subject matter of corruption and poor governance, while in 2013, Daniel Cecil, a British theatre producer, was deported from Uganda following work on a play that had a gay character.
Both Kyagulanyi and Ntale called for the media to offer more support to the creative sector when artists’ freedom of expression is under attack. However, the media itself is experiencing rising attacks, and the Press and Journalist Act (1995), which regulates the media, is “antithetic to media freedom and democracy”, according to Makerere University journalism lecturer  Adolf Mbaine . He said the Media Council established under this law had led to “direct government control over what journalists can and can’t do”. This had contributed to an engrained fear among journalists and other actors on how to exercise their freedom of expression.
Mbaine also contended that freedom of the media was not a “professional right” and should therefore not be regulated. “Media belongs to everyone including the public through media,” he said.
Meanwhile, Peter Magellah of Chapter Four pointed out that there were no provisions in Uganda’s Press and Journalists Act relating to online publications and new media platforms. Under the Uganda Communications Act (2013), the Uganda Communications Commission (UCC) has the mandate to regulate telecommunications services including broadcast and online media. In February 2016, the UCC issued a statement calling for “professional and responsible behaviour among broadcasters and users of social media” during elections that were held the same month.
The chairman of the Uganda Law Society, Francis Gimara, called for more “legal challenges” to the 1995 law as well as other matters related to the rule of law with an impact on freedom of expression in Uganda. Other recommendations made included:

  • Industry-led regulation of journalists with active stakeholder participation. This would, among others, advance increased accountability of the media on issues of ethical conduct.
  • Media should become activists of press freedom and freedom of expression.
  • Media should cover more societal issues that artists portray instead of tending to focus on the lifestyles of the artists.
  • Increased documentation and reporting on violations of creative and artistic expression akin to documentation of violation of freedom of expression for journalists and activists.

The WPFD celebration was organised by the African Centre for Media Excellence (ACME) jointly with other partners. The dialogue explored the right to freedom of expression and the right to information through online and offline media as fundamental pillars of democracy.
Follow the online conversation on WPFD with the hashtags: #WPFD16 and #ThisIsFreedom
 
 

Is Tanzania Becoming an Internet Freedom Predator?

By Juliet Nanfuka |
Tanzania appears to be steadily sliding into a predator of critical social media users, as state authorities continue to arrest and prosecute users for expressing what many see as legitimate opinions. In recent months, the country’s newly elected government has used  a controversial new law  to prosecute at least seven social media users, in spite of  constitutional guarantees of free speech.
Tanzanian netizens are falling foul of the Cybercrimes Act enacted last year, whose stated goal is “criminalizing offences related to computer systems and Information Communication Technologies”. The law has been used to charge citizens for “publication of false information” in accordance with Section 16 of the Act. It states: “Any person who publishes information or data, presented in a picture, text, symbol or any other form in a computer system knowing that such information or data is false, deceptive, misleading or inaccurate and with intent to defame, threaten, abuse, insult or otherwise deceive or mislead the public or councelling the commission of an offence, commits an offence, and shall on conviction be liable to a fine not less than five million shillings or to imprisonment for a term not less than three years or to both.“
On April 15, 2016 Isaac Habakuk Emily was appeared in court for the publication of false information using a computer system – in this instance Facebook. In a post, Emily referred to President Pombe Magufuli as an imbecile that could not be compared to the country’s founding leader, Julius Nyerere.  He appeared in court for insulting the president after his post was reported to the Tanzania Communications Regulatory Authority (TCRA).
See report on State of Internet Freedom in Tanzania 2015
Since the Cybercrimes Act took effect last September, Tanzanian social media users have “gone a little quiet”, according to journalist Joseph Warungu. And for good reason, as Emily is not the first individual against whom the law has been used. In October 2015, Benedict Angelo Ngonyani was charged for “spreading misleading information” after he posted on Facebook that Tanzania’s Chief of Defence Forces, General Davis Mwamunyange, had been hospitalised following food poisoning. In the same month, Sospiter Jonas was charged for posting to Facebook content stating that Tanzanian Prime Minister Mizengo Pinda “will only become a gospel preacher.” The following month, four staff of an opposition party were charged for publishing “inaccurate” election results on Facebook and Twitter.
The stated objective of the Cybercrimes Act was to fight rising incidents of cybercrime such as bank fraud, mobile money theft, phishing attacks, website hacking and spoofing. However, even as it was being debated, human rights defenders warned that the government would use the law to suppress critical voices. As one activist stated, “We usually use various internet platforms to communicate our information—Twitter, Facebook, blogs, SMS, WhatsApp, etc. The use of all these forms will be rendered useless by the Act which in part criminalises transmission of any information deemed misleading, defamatory, false or inaccurate by the government.”
The Cybercrimes Act was reportedly passed in the middle of the night and has been criticised for disregarding press freedom and freedom of expression, granting excessive powers to police, and offering limited protections to ordinary citizens.
Clamping down on social media users is a trend that has been increasingly witnessed in East Africa and beyond.  In Kenya, Section 29 of the Kenya Information and Communications Act (2013) has been used to charge up to 10 social media users for “the improper use of a telecommunication system” in 2016 alone. In Uganda, Section 25 of the Computer Misuse Act bears similar language and states, “Any person who willfully and repeatedly uses electronic communication to disturb or attempts to disturb the peace, quiet or right of privacy of any person with no purpose of legitimate communication whether or not a conversation ensues commits a misdemeanor.” In the lead up to the February 2016 general elections, a series of arrest were made which saw social media users charged using this law.
Further afield, South Africa’s Cybercrimes and Cybersecurity Bill (2014) also bears similar vague clauses that muzzle opinion of the media, bloggers and other independent actors that promote freedom of expression and increased state transparency. In Nigeria, the Frivolous Petitions Bill (2015), popularly known as the Social Media Bill, threatens to muzzle public expression online.
The Cybercrimes Act is one of several laws Tanzania  enacted in the lead up to the October 2015 general elections despite public outcry that these laws granted excessive powers to the police criminalised  expression and access to information, and did not provide clear legal recourse to citizens.
As affronts to citizens’ online rights in Tanzania and other countries continue, self-censorship is likely to prevail which in turn would have a negative impact on citizen participation, transparency and accountability in governance.
NB: Section 16 of the Cybercrimes Act 2015 has been adjusted to reflect the fine of not less than five million shillings or to imprisonment for a term not less than three years or to both.

The African Declaration is Key to Reach a Common Understanding of Online Rights Policy

By APC |
“A fundamental challenge in need of urgent resolution in the digital age is how to protect human rights and freedoms on the Internet, and the African continent is no exception.” This is the introduction to the African Declaration on Internet Rights and Freedoms, an initiative joined by a diversity of organisations and individuals from the region to protect human rights in the context of the internet and digital technologies.

Ugandans Turn to Proxies, VPN in Face of Social Media Shutdown

| By CIPESA Writer
On the morning of the highly anticipated general elections in Uganda, citizens woke up to no access to social media platforms Facebook, Twitter and Whatsapp. The popular mobile phone-based financial transaction service commonly known as Mobile Money was also offline.
Tech-savvy Ugandans keen to keep information on the electioneering process flowing turned to sharing information on proxies and apps that enable circumventing the blockage through Virtual Private Networks (VPN).
Within hours, as more and more citizens got back online, there was a spike in social media activity. By 1pm local time, the hashtag #UgandaDecides recorded 35,000 tweets. Three hours later at 4pm, the number of tweets with this hashtag had jumped to 56,000. By 5pm, the hashtag boasted over 64,000 tweets. As at 7pm, the figure stood at over double that of 1pm and was still growing.
Incumbent President Yoweri Museveni, who has been in power since 1986, is standing in the current elections and faces perhaps the strongest electoral challenge ever to his three-decade rule. Ugandan citizens’ level of online civic engagement was sparked by the first ever televised presidential debates, the first of which was held in January and the second just last week. During both debates, #UgandaDecides alongside #UGDebate16 trended, raising some level of trust in the electioneering process.
But this trust seems to have been turned on its head today. Internet services in various areas of the country have been intermittent, leaving many unable to access information. Leading telecommunications service provider MTN issued a statement confirming that Uganda Communications Commission (UCC), the regulator, had “directed MTN to disable all social media and mobile money services due to a threat to public order and safety.” There has been no communication from any of the other service providers including Vodafone, which has championed disclosure of government requests for user information and surveillance support through its annual Transparency reports.
An official at the communications regulator confirmed to the local Daily Monitor newspaper that they directed ISPs to block access to social media sites over “national security” concerns related to the “sensitive” elections period.
As the day progressed, growing numbers of citizens were able to share updates on late arrivals of voting materials at various stations, reports of election malpractice, and provisional election results.
Previous election periods in Uganda have seen a crackdown on social media, voices critical of the ruling party, and independent media in the guise of promoting public order and unity as well as preventing the spread of false information. The 2011 elections were marked with filtering of short message services (SMS) which contained certain words.
Today’s blockage is for an indeterminate period.
See also State of Internet Freedom in Uganda reports 2014 and 2015.