Promoting Effective and Inclusive ICT Policy in Africa

Category Archives: News

  HomeCollaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA)  /  Blog  /  News
17Aug

West Nile Journalists and Human Rights Defenders Condemn Cyber-attacks and Internet Abuse By State and Non-state Actors

Author CIPESA Posted on

By Hafiz Bakhit |

Arua District. Internet has broken more barriers than before as the future of media continues to turn digital especially in entertainment, news, and business.

However, Journalists and Human rights defenders drawn across west Nile region during a two-day training in Arua District, noted with concern that though the Internet has brought new and exciting communication methods that allow users to share messages more quickly and across greater distances, there is need to pay much attention to the risks involved.

These Include deliberate targeting and clampdown on human rights organisation defenders by both state and non-state actors, intimidation, arrests, Cyber attacks and harassment of social media users which have all become a serious threat to Internet freedom.

Also Key in the discussions were Digital Rights in Uganda, Combating Dis/Misinformation and Hate Speech, fact-checking to fight fake news, freedom of expression, best digital security practices, laws governing Internet use and related media laws among others.

Edrine Wanyama the Legal Officer from the Collaboration on International ICT Policy in East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) the organization which organized the training called for more vigilance in dealing with the rising cases of Cyberbullying, invasion of privacy, identity theft, and exposure to offensive images.

“We have seen people uploading inappropriate content, embarrassing or provocative photos or videos of themselves or others, sharing personal information with strangers – for example, phone numbers, date of birth or location and other confidential personal data hence falling prey to hackers and scammers”, Wanyama Added.

He also mentioned state and non-state actors who tend to undermine internet freedom by legalizing surveillance and interception of communication, digital taxation, internet disruptions, collection of biometric data among others.

The journalists and human rights defenders noted that Orchestrators of fake news, online scammers and hackers are posing huge threat to the fundamental digital rights.

The participants therefore agreed that there is need to protect Internet Users against hackers, fake and harmful information by unscrupulous individuals or groups intended to abuse rights of others.

“Many women and children have fallen prey to child pornography, fraudsters and kidnappers who persuade their victims through all sorts of enticing posts, and as a result many unsuspecting people have fallen victim to the online scammers” noted Brian Byaruhanga, Technology Officer and human rights advocate working with CIPESA.

The question is who has the mandate to regulate the Digital space I Uganda?” asked William Amanzuru – a renowned environmental activist working with Friends of Zoka Forest in Adjumani who emphasized the urgent need for policy reviews and new laws to check the digital space.

“Government should not invest all its energy on tracking its critics such as we journalists and other human rights defenders as seen in the 2021 Elections and related scenarios but also focus on orchestrators of cyber violence against women, children and fraudsters or scammers online” says one of the Journalists who preferred to stay anonymous.

Brian Byaruhanga, urged online consumers to always practice encryption, data backups to protect data from possible threats while working online.

To limit online virus attacks, Byaruhanga implored the participants to install paid-for antivirus since unpaid for anti-virus can expose users to hackers. Byaruhanga also advises online users to avoid unsolicited email and links.

“Before you click on any link you first cross-check if at all it’s legitimate or owned by real company or group,” Byaruhanga added.

In the past few years, Uganda registered a wave of Gender based online abuse against a number of female celebrities targeted especially by their jilted lovers or unscrupulous people who were all out to blackmail them for money or selfish interests.

Nude Photos of the victims including Fabiola Anita, Martha Kagimba popularly known as Martha Kay, Judith Heard, Cindy Sanyu, Sanyu Robina Mweruka, Desire Luzinda, Zari Hassan, and herbalist Sylvia Namutebi popularly known as Maama Fiina were leaked through the social media.

There has also been increase in cases of fake news about purported death of prominent persons in the country.
Participants therefore agreed that for digital rights to be enjoyed freely, stakeholders need to strengthen Collaboration in advocacy of Digital rights issues at the various levels.

They said, technology presents various challenges to the protection of human rights such as the lack of adequate avenues to verify authenticity of information shared, violation of the right to privacy, respect to copyright issues and the right to anonymity among others hence with a shrinking civic space in Uganda, Human Rights Defenders need to be more vigilant in securing their digital environments.

These require an awareness of the digital security threats faced by Human Rights defenders, a clear understanding and implementation of internet freedom legalization affecting their works and different digital security tools that they can use to protect their online privacy.

This article was first published on the Cross Border Net site on August 14, 2022

29Jul

Uganda: CIPESA Submits Comments on the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Bill, 2022 to Parliament

Author CIPESA Writer Posted on

By Edrine Wanyama |

The Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) has made a submission on emerging concerns from the proposed Computer Misuse (Amendment) Bill, 2022 (the Bill) to the Parliamentary Committee on Information and Communications Technology. In its submission, CIPESA analyses the changes proposed by the Bill which are a blow to online civil liberties in Uganda.

The private members Bill is seeking to amend the Computer Misuse Act of 2011and  argues that existing laws “do not specifically address regulation of information sharing on social media” or are “not adequate to deter the vice”. The objectives of the amendment are: to enhance the provisions on unauthorised access to information or data; prohibit the sharing of any information relating to a child without authorisation from a parent or guardian; prohibit the sending or sharing of information that promotes hate speech; prohibit the sending or sharing of false, malicious and unsolicited information; and to restrict persons convicted of any offence under the Computer Misuse law from holding public office for a period of 10 years.

While the amendment could be justified by advancements in technology, upsurge in cybercrime, disinformation, and hate speech (clause 4), experience has shown that the law since enactment has been used to suppress digital rights including free expression and access to information.

The underlying provisions of the bill including clause 5 which seeks to prohibit the sending or sharing of unsolicited information through a computer, and clause 6 on prohibition of sharing malicious or misleading information, could be misused and abused by the government and its agencies to curtail sharing and dissemination of information, which would limit freedom of expression and access to information. Moreover, such restriction would counter the ruling by Supreme Court in Charles Onyango Obbo and Another v Attorney General that the penalisation of the publication of false news under Section 50 of the Penal Code is unconstitutional.

The Bill also duplicates existing laws including the Regulation of Interception of Communications Act, 2010 and Data Protection and Privacy Act in as far as it relates to unlawful interception of communications and unlawful access to and sharing of personal information under clause 2 and  prohibition of processing and sharing information about children under clause 2.

Similarly, the Bill proposes the adoption of very punitive and prohibitive penalties which could not only hinder expression and access to information but also transparency and accountability in governance. The penalties proposed stretch to UGX 15 million (USD 3,900), imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or both for unauthorised access, interception, recording and sharing of information under clause 2. On the other hand, sharing information related to children (clause 3), hate speech (clause 4), unsolicited information (clause 5) and misleading or malicious information (clause 6) are punished with imprisonment not exceeding seven years.

While specifically targeting leaders, Clause 7 of the Bill seeks to bar persons convicted under the Computer Misuse Act from holding public office for a period of 10 years, and to further dismiss convicted personsfrom public offices that they were holding.  In addition to the restrictions under the  Official Secrets Act  it may discourage the disclosure of information by duty bearers where such disclosure would be necessary for enforcing transparency and accountability.

The Computer Misuse Act has been previously used to suppress digital rights including free expression and access to information. For instance, academic and social critic Dr. Stella Nyanzi was arrested for insulting the president in a social media post. In 2019, she was convicted of cyber harassment contrary to section 24 of the Act but acquitted of offensive communications, which is proscribed under section 25. Other individuals who have suffered the wrath of the same law include former presidential aspirant Henry Tumukunde who was arrested over alleged treasonable utterances in radio and television interviews, the Bizonto comedy group who were arrested over alleged offensive and sectarian posts, and author Kakwenza Rukirabashaija who was arrested, detained and prosecuted over offensive communication against the president and his son.

While the need for amendment of the Computer Misuse Act might be eminent to address emerging technologies, the proposed provisions are unfounded and redundant, and stipulate highly punitive penalties. They fail to address existing retrogressive provisions including section 24 on cyber harassment and section 25 on offensive communication, which have been used to criminalise freedom of expression. Moreover, trolling, cyber harassment, unauthorised sharing of intimate images, and other forms of online violence against women and girls are not addressed.

Read CIPESA’s full submission!

the-africa-digital-rights-fund-le-fonds-africain-pour-les-droits-numeriques-fund
28Jul

How the ADRF is Building Capacity and Traction for Digital Rights Advocacy in Africa

Author CIPESA Posted on

By Apolo Kakaire |

Three years since it was launched and with USD 649,000 disbursed to 52 beneficiaries across 39 African countries, the Africa Digital Rights Fund (ADRF) is powering digital rights policy advocacy and engagement across the continent. According to several beneficiaries, the ADRF is a unique funding initiative that has broken ranks with traditional funders’ structures, and to considerable effect.

The Fund is lauded for adopting a simple application process, allowing for flexibility in implementation, breaking barriers for little-known actors, enabling grantees to build on previous initiatives to ensure greater reach and impact, and supporting local context-specific and responsive projects. This, according to grantees and collaborators who were part of a June 2022 virtual convening on ADRF advocacy experiences which was aimed at promoting learning and best practice.

The ADRF was launched in April 2019 in recognition of the growing role of technology in fostering democracy and promoting equity on the African continent amidst rising arrests of activists, network disruptions in several countries, and restrictive legislation that stifled innovation and human rights online. Moreover, assessments at the time had found that many digital rights interventions were limited in scope, thinly spread across the continent, faced resource limitations, and were often inconsistent in their engagement with digital rights work. 

“The situation called for partnerships to bring together different competences to advance digital rights on the continent through seed funding,” said Ashnah Kalemera, the Programme Manager at the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA), the administrators of the ADRF.  Those partnerships required provision of flexible and rapid response funding to a range of entities that did not have the ability to attract funding from traditional funders, who have stringent application requirements and lengthy grant application processing times. 

With grants ranging between USD 1,000 and USD 20,000,  ADRF beneficiaries have undertaken various initiatives focused on technology in society, the public and private sectors. Besides the funding, grantees have also received capacity building in data-driven advocacy and impact communication and media relations. Across the continent, the Fund has helped to strengthen capacity in evidence-based research, collaborative advocacy and impactful policy engagements responsive to regulatory and practice developments that affect the internet freedom landscape.

At the June convening, select initiatives in Kenya, Namibia and Somalia supported by the Fund shared their advocacy experiences. In Somalia, the ADRF-supported work of Digital Shelter has seen a major breakthrough in stakeholder dialogue and engagement on hitherto undiscussed digital rights subjects such as digital inclusion, online civic space, gender-based violence online, digital entrepreneurship, civic participation and data protection and privacy. 

“Prior to ADRF’s support, people in the country had no appreciation for digital rights and the consequences of internet shutdowns. The Fund helped us to engage the government to talk about policies and legislation and when the conversation started, the Minister [of Communications and Technology] was very open and he was surprised that there was a local group addressing these issues,” said Ayaan Khalif, Co-founder of Digital Shelter. “The ADRF was an eye opener and helped us partner and link with other organisations and to understand what works in other countries.” 

Aayan added that applying for the ADRF funding was an easy process. She said: “We were almost giving up on donor funding after so many rejections. The ADRF process was simple. Some donors complicate things. The [application templates] are in English but sometimes it is as if it is in another language.”

The inroads made by Digital Shelter underscore the importance of collaboration and partnership in advancing digital rights in the region. Zakarie Ismael, the eGovernment Implementation Advisor in Somali’s Ministry of Communications and Technology, stated that the government of Somalia, through the ministry has responded to the appeals of Digital Shelter and other actors by prioritising the technology sector, including through the ICT Policy and Strategy 2019-2024. That government responsiveness has been crucial to the work of digital rights activists. As Ayaan noted, “It makes it easy to make inroads when you have people backing you up in policy advocacy. Our partnership with the government has been very practical in this regard.”.

As legislative and oversight bodies, national parliaments have a key role in advancing  digital inclusion and rights-respecting digital policies and practices. Indeed, some grantees, including Mzalendo Trust in Kenya, have dedicated efforts to promoting citizen-parliamentary engagement on digital rights. With the suspension of parliamentary proceedings in Kenya at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, the ADRF supported functionality upgrades to the Dokeza and Bonga Na Mzalendo platforms. The upgrades enabled citizen participation through remote annotation and submission of memoranda on bills including on the controversial Huduma Initiative. 

Mzalendo Trust has also worked to promote an inclusive digital economy in Kenya. Like Ayaan, Slyvia Katua, a Programme Officer at Mzalendo Trust, lauded the ADRF for using a simple and straightforward application process. “The application requires you to outline what issues you are targeting, what solutions you offer and what impact you foresee,” she said. 

Meanwhile, Josephat Vijanda Tjiho, from the Internet Society (ISOC) Namibia Chapter, appreciated the ADRF grant process for allowing them to build from one project to another. “We organised forums on digital media and elections, then stepped up to privacy and data protection especially around the Covid-19 pandemic and thereafter a campaign against online violence against women and children. Our ideas [which the ADRF supported] were building from one to the other and this made our application process quite smooth,” Tjiho said. 

ISOC Namibia conducted research and convened engagements with different stakeholders on data protection, gender-based violence online and access to information. “Based on our engagements, the Namibia Access to Information (ATI) Act was passed in June 2022 and this was partly made possible through support from the ADRF,” stated Tijho. For its campaign against gender-based violence, ISOC Namibia successfully collaborated with prominent personalities including a technologist, musician and pageant as part of the 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence. The campaign fed directly into work on research and workshops on gender-based violence in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region for which ISOC Namibia partnered with CIPESA, Meta, Pollicy, Genderlinks and University of Pretoria Centre for Human Rights.

According to Neema Lugangira, a Member of Parliament (MP) in Tanzania, undertaking digital rights advocacy without involving parliament has created huge gaps in ensuring that policy and legislation around digital rights are rights-respecting and are effectively implemented. She faulted civil society organisations seeking policy reforms for concentrating on other arms of the government and ignoring parliaments yet they play a key role in policy formulation and oversight. She urged ADRF grantees and other digital rights actors to actively engage MPs as part of their programming. “We should prioritise capacity building for MPs because they are ignorant about digital rights,” said Lugangira.

The experiences of ADRF grantees indicate the potential of rapid response and flexible funding in positively shaping the digital rights landscape in Africa through targeted research, advocacy and movement building.

08Jul

DataBytes: Strengthening the Data Confidence of Africa Digital Rights Fund Grantees

Author CIPESA Writer Posted on

By Data4Change |

“Numbers? Yes, but I was never very good at maths.”
“Data? Sure, but I don’t know how to use spreadsheets.”

Mathematical anxiety is real. These expressions are often heard from people who think data isn’t for them. For advocates, data-driven storytelling and investigations can support powerful campaigns to raise awareness and engage relevant stakeholders. Data4Change has designed an immersive and practical introduction to using data for advocacy. Dubbed DataBytes, the four-week remote programme shows data advocacy is for everyone, and that sometimes all you need is a pen and paper.

Image: Visual prototypes designed by participants in the Sketch a Data Story workshop

DataBytes itself uses a unique data-led approach. In the preparatory stage, participants take a Data Personality Quiz and chat with “Dot the Bot.” The data generated through these two activities helps the Data4Change facilitators understand the key strengths and potential areas of work for each specific participant.


Image: Data4Change’s quiz calculates a data personality type for respondents

DataBytes was piloted by Data4Change and the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) as part of institutional capacity building efforts under the Africa Digital Rights Fund (ADRF). The ADRF provides rapid response and flexible grants to initiatives advancing digital rights in Africa.

Targeting grantees of the fifth round of ADRF, the programme combined interactive questionnaires, games, offline self-study courses and live sessions (with simultaneous translation to French) to boost data confidence among participants.

“Numbers help understand the urgency and magnitude of the problem. It helps to legitimise our advocacy and creates more impact in our reporting” – DataBytes participant

The 16 participants, representing nine countries – the Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya, Malawi, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Tanzania, Togo and Uganda – gained hands-on experience in getting, cleaning, understanding and communicating with data.

Participants also learned to read datasets and develop data communication techniques as they produced their own bar and line charts, range plots, choropleth maps and scatter plots to uncover trends and patterns.

Image: A selection of charts created in Datawrapper by DataBytes participants

The programme closed with a much-needed conversation around Data Values and Data Ethics which explored the issues of data extractivism, real consent, and the ethics around data collection and processing. These complex topics were interrogated through a game of “Fortunately, Unfortunately” where participants collaboratively analysed possible scenarios where data collection ethics could be at stake.

Image: One of the “Fortunately, Unfortunately” scenarios created by DataBytes participants

The DataBytes programme builds on earlier joint efforts by CIPESA and Data4Change in strengthening data advocacy among digital rights actors in Africa. Previous efforts, targeted at the first and second round of ADRF grantees, featured capacity assessments followed by data workflow and visualisation workshops – foundational and advanced levels. Two ADRF grantees – the Mozambique Disabled Person’s Organisation (FAMOD) and Digital Shelter – went on to be supported to develop data-driven campaigns. FAMOD’s campaign promotes web accessibility for persons with disability in Mozambique, while that of Digital Shelter is on women’s inclusion and safety online in Somalia.


Images: A selection of screenshots from campaigns co-created with FAMOD and Digital Shelter

Furthermore, CIPESA and Data4Change conducted a data-driven Sketchathon for digital rights at the 2021 Forum on Internet Freedom in Africa (FIFAfrica) targeting actors in Lesotho, Mozambique, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

Image: The cover of the Sketching Shutdowns workbook

Image: Sketches created during the Sketching Shutdowns Workshop

22Jun

New Report: Disinformation Pathways and Effects on Democracy and Human Rights in Africa

Author Evelyn Lirri Posted on

By Simone Toussi |

Disinformation is on the rise in Africa, spurred by increased internet connectivity and social media usage. In 2021, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) estimated that 33% of the continent’s population of 1.37 billion had access to the internet, with about 255 million individuals active on Facebook. YouTube, Twitter, Pinterest, Instagram, and LinkedIn are the other platforms with large numbers of users. 

This rapid adoption of online platforms has led to shifts in political discourse, enabling strong public participation, organising, and online protests that have in some cases, such as Sudan and Algeria, contributed to the overthrow of autocratic leaders. Consequently, many governments in the region consider the internet and social media a threat and have unleashed repressive strategies to curtail their use, including retrogressive legislation, internet shutdowns, and disinformation campaigns. 

A new report by the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) explores the nature, perpetrators, pathways and effects of disinformation in Cameroon, Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria and Uganda and shows how contextual similarities have underpinned the proliferation of disinformation. These countries are classified as ‘Not Free’ or ‘Partly free’ in terms of speech and internet freedom and are largely authoritarian with a penchant for constraining the digital space.

According to the report, elections and armed conflicts are key drivers of disinformation. Yet authoritarianism has played a big part too, as governments have used both disinformation and the response to it to entrench themselves in power, shrink civic space, and target opponents and critics.

The increased use of digital technologies, low media literacy levels, the lucrative nature of disinformation, the fractious politics (Kenya and Uganda), conflict situations (such as in Ethiopia, Cameroon and Nigeria), and the closure of civic space that makes offline speech dangerous (Uganda, Ethiopia, Cameroon) fuel disinformation.

Common tactics used by disinformation actors include mass sharing, which leverages the viral power of social media and the lucrative nature of disinformation for “influencers for hire”. There is also a significant rise in political astroturfing, mass brigading and the use of fake and pseudonymous social media accounts. Coordinated Inauthentic Behaviour (CIB) on Facebook and Twitter is prevalent too, and between 2019 and 2021, Facebook dismantled several such schemes, some of which perpetuated disinformation, with many linked to French and Russian actors. 

The main disinformation instigators are political actors including governments, ruling parties and opposition parties, while key spreaders are social media “gurus” or digital “influencers” that are often paid to create or spread disinformation.

Weaponising Disinformation Laws

In the countries studied, governments have weaponised disinformation laws to silence critical voices. Rather than serving to counter the ills of disinformation, related laws have in most cases been used to target political critics while government officials complicit in promoting disinformation are protected. 

Moreover, the retrogressive laws enacted to combat disinformation have been used to further stifle legitimate expression while hampering access to critical and pluralistic information. Instructively, some of these laws are vague and ambiguous and fail to distinguish between disinformation or falsified information, often making their enforcement open to the subjective interpretation of law enforcement agencies, who become the arbiters of the truth. The laws have been used to arrest, charge and prosecute individuals, thereby promoting censorship and undermining legitimate speech.

Cameroon’s Law on Cybersecurity and Cybercrime and the law governing electronic communications are often cited in actions against spreaders of “false news”, while Nigeria has employed the Criminal Code Act and the Cybercrimes Act 2015. Ethiopia enacted the problematic Hate Speech and Disinformation Prevention and Suppression Proclamation in 2020. Without a specific disinformation law, Uganda relies on the Penal Code Act, the Computer Misuse Act of 2011 and the Communications Act of 2013 to target “false news”. Kenya relies on the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act 2018, the Kenya Information and Communications Act, 2013 (KICA) and the National Cohesion and Integration Act, 2008. 

Impact of Disinformation on Democracy and Human Rights

Disinformation erodes trust in democratic institutions, hampers citizens’ ability to make informed decisions, and affects the right of citizens to hold individual opinions without interference. Disinformation can therefore hijack the political discourse and undermine elections by limiting access to credible, factual and pluralistic information about candidates, parties, and issues, in order to make informed choices. 

When it occurs in an election context, disinformation affects electoral processes by fuelling politically motivated violence and preventing citizens and democracy actors from accessing credible, timely, and reliable information. In times of socio-economic or political crises, disinformation uses existing ethnic divisions to further divide, and perpetuates tribal antagonisms through hate speech. 

The existence of countermeasures such as unclear legal provisions further creates a climate of fear that leads to self-censorship, in the same way that internet shutdowns and content takedowns ordered by governments to limit the spread of false information instead limit access to pluralistic information. In turn, these counter-measures further restrict the participation of many citizens in online political discourse and limit their ability to express themselves without fear of retaliatory attacks. 

Across all the five study countries, platforms’ remedial measures to tackle misinformation and disinformation remain ineffective and inadequate.

Recommendations

Governments:

  • Desist from selectively applying laws on countering disinformation to targeting critics, media, the political opposition and human rights groups. 
  • Repeal repressive laws and amend existing ones such as Kenya’s Computer Misuse Act, Uganda’s Communications Act, Ethiopia’s Hate Speech and Disinformation Prevention and Suppression Proclamation, and Cameroon’s Law on Cyber Security and Cybercrime, to provide clear definitions of disinformation and ensure they conform to international human rights standards. 
  • Train law enforcement agencies as to what constitutes disinformation and how to combat it without stifling citizens’ rights.

Intermediaries:

  • Deepen collaboration with local media and civil society groups in African countries to identify, debunk and moderate disinformation. 
  • Work to reduce the processing and response times for complaints regarding disinformation content reported to encourage reporting and to minimise the circulation of disinformation.
  • Increase transparency in content moderation measures and conduct periodic reviews of policies with broad public consultations.

Media:

  • Build the capacity of journalists and editors on fact-checking and countering disinformation online. 
  • Work closely with fact-checkers to identify and expose disinformation.
  • Institute in-house systems to enhance fact-checking and information verification.

Civil Society:

  • Undertake strategic litigation to challenge retrogressive laws and practices that undermine access to the internet and digital rights under the guise of fighting disinformation. 
  • Advocate against laws and practices that hamper the ability of journalists to provide accurate information, and hamper citizens’ rights to information and free expression. 
  • Monitor, report and hold states accountable for their violations of international human rights principles including restrictions on the enjoyment of digital rights.

Read the full report: Disinformation Pathways and Effects: Case Studies from Five African Countries. 

1 … 33 34 35 36 37 … 117
en en