News Archives – Page 70 of 129 – Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA)

04Mar

Silencing Critical Voices: Our Online Civic Space is Shrinking

admin March 4, 2020

By Digital Shelter |

Somalia had recorded steady growth in telephone penetration – with 7.6 mobile subscribers. However, internet penetration remains low – 2% as at 2017, according to the International Telecommunications Union (ITU). The adoption of technology has expanded civic space in the post conflict era, with social media platforms and blogs empowering journalists, activists and human rights defenders to document and report human abuses, mobilize public opinion, campaign for reforms, share relevant content and information, and build networks at national and global level.

However, the past three years have seen a rise in threats against online freedom of expression, such as the arrest and intimidation of several journalists and social media campaigners for comments posted on social media. There are reports of dissenting social media accounts being hacked, while others have deactivated their accounts due to fear of attacks. A culture of censorship prevails, amidst a rise in sponsored trolls spreading misinformation and propaganda to counter factual narrative reported by journalists, human rights defenders and activists online.

It is against this background that Digital Shelter hosted a panel discussion on the shrinking online civic space in Somalia and the growing digital threats faced by media professionals, bloggers and human right defenders in the digital space on February 13, 2020. The event was part of series of activities under the theme “Protect our Online Space”, supported by the Africa Digital Rights Fund (ADRF) – an initiative of the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA).

Among the panelists was Mohamed Irbad, a prominent blogger and researcher known for his critical writings on governance, human rights, freedom of expression and censorship on social media platforms. In early 2019, after publishing an article titled “Media Censorship In Somalia: A Nation Risk Into Information Darkness” on his personal blog, Mohamed faced serious online and physical threats which forced him to flee the country for six months due to fear for his safety.
“All critical voices, particularly individuals who are based inside Somalia have been silenced with online and physical threats altogether. For instance, when your raise critical issue on Twitter or Facebook you have two options, you either end up battling with anonymous trolls in their hundreds by answering to their toxic comments or you feel intimidated and sacred of writing about certain issues, hence, your remain silenced . And that is exactly what happened to me after writing that article. And therefore, it is fair to stay that we are witnessing the worst shrinking of our online/offline civic and democratic spaces” Mohamed Irbad.
Also speaking at the event was Hassan Ali Osman, a journalist, with the New Humanitarian newsletter. Hassan actively uses Twitter to disseminate local and international news as it breaks for his 90,000 followers. He shared that he has been constantly attacked by trolls merely because of reporting the truth on social media platforms.
Highlighting the issue of online violence against women was Sucdi Dahir Diriye, a passionate community volunteer and member of CaawiWalaal loosely translated as “HelpYourBrother” – a digital campaign launched three years ago to support local communities affected by droughts in Somalia. As in most of the world, the internet has provided a platform for Somali women to amplify their voices. However, it has also enabled perpetuation of different forms of online violence against women including harassment, doxing, threats, stalking and blackmail, sometimes leading to physical violence. The targets of these attacks are women that are vocal on issues such as gender equality, sexual violence, free expression, or challenging the patriarchal structure of the society. This has created a hostile online environment for women and girls in Somalia, fraught with shaming, intimidation and degrading, leading to withdraw of from the online space.
As part of her work, Sucdi documents cases of online blackmailing and extortion against young girls in Mogadishu and other regions of Somalia. She stated that limited recognition of the existence of online violence and harassment against women in Somalia is allowing the abuse to continue inexorably. Relevant policies to address online violence against women need to be put in place and more women and girls need to be skilled in digital safety and security.
Based on their personal and professional experiences, the panelists stressed the need for counter measures against the prevailing threats. Among the recommendations made was increased digital security skills and knowledge building among activists, bloggers and media professionals. Specialized training on gendered online harassment was encouraged. Panelists also emphasized a dual approach in voice amplification – online and offline to reach wider audiences. Furthermore, more stakeholder dialogue to raise awareness on online civic space and digital rights, including data protection and privacy inline with Somalia’s growing technology sector. Other recommendations included research undertakings on current digital threats in Somalia, to inform advocacy and policy interventions; and establishment of a solidarity network to support victims of online attacks.
“Digital Shelter is proud to be in a unique position to amplify voices in the most difficult time where the online civic space is shrinking in Somalia”, said Abdifatah, co-founder of Digital Shelter in the closing remarks of the forum.
Digital Shelter continues its “Protect our Online Space” drive during March 2020 with series of trainings on digital security. Digital Shelter is also planning to host other forums on expanding online civic space in Somalia.

This article was first published by the Digital Shelter on March 04, 2020

21Feb

La nouvelle loi du Mali sur la cybercriminalité potentiellement problématique pour les droits numériques

admin February 21, 2020

Par Simone Toussi |
Le 5 décembre 2019, le président du Mali a promulgué la loi n° 2019-056 portant Répression de la Cybercriminalité. Bien qu’opportune et pertinente, certaines de ses dispositions constituent des menaces potentielles à la vie privée et la liberté d’expression en ligne, en particulier, compte tenu des défaillances démocratiques du Mali et de son faible classement en matière de liberté de la presse.
La nouvelle loi s’applique à « toute infraction commise au moyen des technologies de l’information et de la communication (TIC) en tout ou partie sur le territoire de la République du Mali, toute infraction commise dans le cyberespace et dont les effets se produisent sur le territoire national » (article 2). Elle fait partie d’un cadre législatif jugé nécessaire pour soutenir les réformes dans le secteur des TIC, conformément à la Déclaration de politique sectorielle des télécommunications du Mali, de l’année 2000.
Des atteintes à la vie privée à l’autoritarisme numérique
La Constitution du Mali garantit la confidentialité des communications en vertu de l’article 6, une disposition qui est renforcée par l’article 5 de la loi portant protection des données à caractère personnel de 2013 l’article 1^er de la loi régissant les télécommunications de 1999. La loi sur la cybercriminalité est malheureusement en conflit avec ces prédispositions en faveur du droit à la vie privée.
Les articles 74 à 78 de la loi sur la cybercriminalité autorisent la perquisition et la saisie informatique de données dans les procédures d’enquêtes criminelles. En outre, en vertu de l’article 75, les données peuvent être copiées et stockées lorsque « la saisie du support ne paraît pas appropriée ». La loi ne prévoit pas comment les données copiées doivent être stockées, traitées ou supprimées à l’issue des enquêtes. Cela sape le principe de protection des données énoncé dans l’article 7 de la loi sur la protection des données à caractère personnel – selon lequel les données à caractère personnel ne doivent être conservées que pour une période et un objectif précis.
De plus, les articles 83 à 86 suggèrent une surveillance en temps réel par l’interception des communications. Les prestataires de services sont tenus de coopérer avec les autorités, notamment en veillant à ce qu’ils disposent des moyens techniques nécessaires pour faciliter l’interception des communications. Ces pouvoirs étendus doublent ceux qui sont accordés aux autorités en vertu de l’article 4 de la loi sur les télécommunications. Ce dernier stipule : « Lorsque la sécurité publique ou la défense du territoire du Mali l’exige, le gouvernement peut, pour une durée limitée, réquisitionner tous les réseaux de télécommunications établis sur le territoire du Mali, ainsi que les équipements qui y sont connectés et / ou interdire la fourniture de services de télécommunications. » Cet article a été utilisé par le passé, lorsque le gouvernement a ordonné des perturbations de réseaux sociaux en 2016 lors des manifestations publiques, et plus récemment, une coupure d’Internet lors des élections de 2018.
En outre, les prestataires de services de communication sont tenus de mettre en place des mécanismes de contrôle des systèmes d’activités illégales potentielles. Tout refus d’informer les autorités de ces activités illégales est passible d’une peine de prison allant de six mois à deux ans, une amende de 500 000 à 2 000 000 francs CFA (830 à 3 318 dollars américain – USD) ou les deux (article 25).
Des alertes pour la liberté d’expression
Bien que la constitution du Mali garantisse la liberté d’expression et d’opinion (article 4), la loi portant régime de la presse et délit de presse (2000) est vague car elle ne garantit pas explicitement la liberté de la presse ou le pluralisme médiatique, ni ne définit les délits de presse. Elle ne contient pas non plus des dispositions sur les médias en ligne. Cela constitue un vide qui précède la loi sur la répression de la cybercriminalité qui, pour sa part, contient des dispositions qui affectent directement la liberté d’expression et d’opinion.
Les articles 20 et 21 de la nouvelle loi punissent les menaces et les insultes faites par le biais d’un système d’information, avec des sanctions allant de six mois à 10 ans d’emprisonnement, et une amende de 1 000 000 à 10 000 000 CFA (1 680 à 16 800 USD), ou les deux. Sans définir ni clairement détailler les éléments constitutifs de la « menace » ou de l ‘ « insulte », ces dispositions sont sujettes à des interprétations pouvant entraver la liberté d’expression. Cela est d’autant plus critique que ces termes ne sont pas non plus définis par la loi portant régime de presse et délit de presse, dans son article 33 sur l’incitation et l’article 38 sur la diffamation.
De plus, les articles 55 et 56 condamnent la « diffusion publique » de « tous imprimés, tous écrits, dessins, affiches, gravures, peintures, photographies, films ou clichés, matrices ou reproductions photographiques, emblèmes, tous objets ou images contraires aux bonnes mœurs. » Les sanctions correspondantes vont de six mois à sept ans d’emprisonnement, une amende de 500 000 à 10 000 000 CFA (840 à 16 800 USD), ou les deux.
L’article 54 de la loi sur la cybercriminalité stipule que les infractions de presse, commises par le biais des technologies de l’information et de la communication, à l’exception de celles commises par la presse sur Internet, sont punies par les peines de droit commun ». Étant donné que la loi sur la presse ne comporte pas de disposition pour la presse en ligne, la distinction entre les délits de presse via les TIC et les délits de presse via internet n’est pas claire. En outre, il y a un manque de précision quant à déterminer si une infraction relève de la loi sur la cybercriminalité, du droit commun ou de la loi sur la presse.
L’article 23 prévoit une amende de 200 000 à 2 000 000 CFA (de 332 à 3 318 dollars américain), une peine d’emprisonnement de six mois à un an, ou les deux, pour les faux signalements d’activités ou contenus illicites, « dans le but d’en obtenir le retrait ou d’en faire cesser la diffusion par un prestataire de services de communications au public par voie électronique ». Cependant, les activités et contenus considérés comme illicites et donc soumis à dénonciation, ne sont pas définis par la loi.
Les mesures à prendre
La loi est bien orientée pour garantir une utilisation sûre et sécurisée des TIC au Mali. Elle entre cependant en vigueur dans un contexte fragile. Les dispositions relatives au traitement des données dans les procédures d’enquêtes criminelles présentent un risque important pour l’intégrité, la sécurité et la confidentialité des données personnelles. En outre, la loi impose une lourde charge aux intermédiaires de télécommunications pour suivre et surveiller l’activité du réseau, et tient ces intermédiaires responsables des actes de leurs clients. Les dispositions relatives aux délits de presse en ligne sont incompatibles avec la législation sur les médias à l’ère du numérique. La nouvelle loi et les lois connexes existantes nécessitent donc des révisions pour sauvegarder et faire respecter les garanties constitutionnelles de la liberté d’expression et de la vie privée, en ligne et hors ligne.

28Jan

Advancing Collaborations in Strategic Litigation for Digital Rights in East Africa

admin January 28, 2020February 13, 2023

By Edrine Wanyama |

Strategic litigation has gained recognition as a tool for pushing back against restrictions on rights to privacy, access to information and freedom of expression, assembly and association in the digital sphere in Africa. Notable cases have been recorded in Burundi, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Cameroon, Gambia, Zimbabwe, and Sudan.

However, litigation for digital rights remains under-utilised across the continent due to lack of effective collaboration between actors such as lawyers, activists, academia, civil society organisations and other technical experts.

At the 2019 Forum on Internet Freedom in Africa (FIFAfrica19) in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, a workshop was hosted to promote best practices for more effective collaboration across disciplinary silos in digital rights litigation. The session also aimed to raise the visibility of the outcomes and lessons learned from three recent digital rights cases and campaigns in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, alongside global experiences by Access Now, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the Media Legal Defense Initiative (MLDI), so as to inform future intervention. It was attended by 22 participants comprising of parliamentarians, lawyers, academics, journalists, digital rights activists, civil society actors and representatives of government agencies.

The workshop and case analysis were premised on the catalysts for collaboration which outline 12 principles in advancing digital rights campaigns using litigation.

Various issues emerged during the workshop and in many instances echoed the experiences of cases in East Africa and beyond. In his presentation, “Litigating Digital Rights and Online Freedom of Expression in East, West and Southern Africa”, Padraig Hughes from MLDI explored internet regulation and international human rights instruments provisions related to digital rights, including data protection and privacy, the right to be forgotten, encryption, anonymity and cybercrime. He noted that whereas countries across the world were party to many of the instruments, case law on internet regulation in Africa was not as advanced as in other continents. Indeed, a study of the case of The Bloggers Association of Kenya (BAKE) v Hon. Attorney General & Three Others in Kenya indicates that due to limited precedent and case law on strategic litigation in Africa, BAKE had to rely heavily on European Union case law as a reference point.

BAKE’s petition challenged the Computer and Misuse Act, 2018, stating that it violated, infringed and threatened fundamental freedoms protected in the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. In May 2018, a judge granted interim conservatory orders, suspending 26 clauses in the Act. To-date, a hearing date is yet to be set for the case. However, the orders granted remain in force pending the hearing.

The EFF’s Corynne McSherryn presented collaborative cases which challenged border device search and seizures in the United States of America, as part of which border and pocket guides have been issued to help travellers in securing their digital data before travelling. The publicity and awareness approach of the guides is similar to that adopted in pushing back against a social media tax in Uganda by encouraging the use of Virtual Private Networks (VPNs). A case related to this pushback is the Cyber Law Initiative (U) Limited and Five Others Versus The Attorney General of Uganda and Two Others.

On July 2, 2018, Cyber Law Initiative (U) Limited and four individuals – Opio Daniel Bill, Baguma Moses, Okiror Emmanuel and Silver Kayondo – sued the Attorney General, the Uganda Communications Commission (UCC), and the Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) in the Constitutional Court over an amendment to the Excise and Duty Act. The amendment introduced a tax of Uganda Shillings (UGX) 200 (USD 0.05) per day in order to access Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter, and Viber, among other social media platforms. The case relied heavily on print, broadcast and online media to raise public awareness and push back against the tax through encouraging use of Virtual Private Networks (VPNs). It is over a year since the case was filed and all relevant submissions have been tabled before court. However, a hearing date has not been fixed. Efforts to have the case hearing date fixed have included a petition to the Deputy Chief Justice with an annexation of over 400 signatures, to no avail.

Aaron Kiiza, part of the legal team on the Uganda social media tax case, noted that collaborative litigation remains a major challenge due to group dynamics and unforeseen circumstances. This was the case in Tanzania where three collaborators withdrew from Legal and Human Rights Center and Two Others v. The Minister for Information, Culture, Arts and Sports, the Tanzania Communications Regulatory Authority and the Attorney General, which demoralised the group and was deemed as the “starting point of defeat” in the case.

The Legal and Human Rights Centre, Media Council of Tanzania, Tanzania Media Women Association (TMWA), Jamii Media, Tanzania Human Rights Defenders Coalition (THRDC), and the Tanzania Editors Forum (TEF) filed a case in the High Court of Tanzania challenging enforcement of the Electronic and Postal Communications Act (EPOCA) (Online Content Regulations) of 2018. The applicants argued that the regulations were promulgated in excess of power, illegal, against the principles of natural justice, unreasonable, arbitrary and ambiguous. However, three applicants (Jamii Media, TAMWA and TEF), later withdrew from the case. TAMWA and TEF’s withdrawal from the case was attributed to waning interest, while that of Jamii Media was due to separate criminal proceedings against its Executive Director, which had already put a strain on the organisation’s operations.

On May 4, 2018, the Court issued a temporary injunction preventing the implementation of the Regulations which were to take effect the following day on May 5, 2018. However, the government of Tanzania appealed against the decision, and Court overturned the injunction and dismissed the case, with each party bearing its own costs.

Meanwhile, in the Zimbabwean case against the network disruption of January 2019, Kuda Hove from the Media Institution of Southern Africa (MISA) Zimbabwe observed that collaborative litigation sometimes leads to delays which can affect justice. In the Kenyan case, time constraints required BAKE to draft and file the petition, under certificate of urgency, with only two days left before the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act, 2018 came into force. Hove noted that there is always the need to strengthen communications among parties and collaborators who may fail on their duties and obligations during the litigation.

Participants also highlighted the lack of digital rights knowledge, skills and competencies amongst judges and lawyers – a shared experience across all three cases studied. Resource constraints which affect evidence gathering are another shared challenge.

Furthermore, the slow nature of legal processes was acknowledged. The cases in East Africa have been fraught with setbacks, including case backlog and judiciary transfers leading to fatigue of both the legal counsel and the general public.

The workshop and case analysis were carried out as part of a CIPESA-MLDI project aimed at increasing the availability of information on digital rights cases in Africa and lessons learned to inform future intervention for effectiveness, creativity and resilience of cases. The documenting of the case studies was conducted by CIPESA in partnership with the Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) and Tanzania Human Rights Defender’s Coalition (THRDC), and involved expert consultations, literature review and interviews.

10Jan

Joint CSO Letter to United Nations and African Commission Special Rapporteurs on the arrest and detention of Tanzanian Human Rights Defender Tito Elia Magoti

admin January 10, 2020

Letter |

The Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) has joined 27 other organisations in submitting a public letter to the United Nations and African Commission Special Rapporteurs in the case of the arrest of Tanzanian human rights defender Tito Magoti.

The joint letter requests that the respective offices urgently intervene in the cases of human rights defenders and journalists in Tanzania, who are facing criminal prosecution for exercising their fundamental rights and urge the government to immediately drop these charges. It further urges that the state be reminded to ensure that all citizens, from the moment of their arrest for any crime, are afforded the full due process of the law without derogation.

See the letter here.

29Dec

Hanging in the Balance: Online and Offline Freedom of the Press in Guinea

admin December 29, 2019

By Simone Toussi |

Guinea’s media landscape boasts over 70 media outlets including streaming media, radio, television and print media. Yet still, the country does not score highly on international press freedom indices – it is ranked 107 out of 180 countries in the 2019 World Press Freedom Index. Nonetheless, the country’s growing internet penetration from 0.4% in 2010 to 33% in 2018 is favourable for the free flow of information through online spaces such as blogs and social networks.

Given the rapid growth of Internet users – from 42,000 users in 2010 to four million users in 2019 – the internet is fast becoming a primary mode of accessing information for many people in the country. However, the government’s high-handed controls over traditional media are extending into the online sphere, evidenced by a series of arbitrary arrests and detentions, coupled with the persecution and judicial harassment of journalists and bloggers.

A continuing persecution of journalists and the press outlets

In August 2019, the Guinean government placed two journalists, Lynx FM talk show host Souleymane Diallo and Lynx FM CEO and journalist Boubacar Alghassimou Diallo, under j udicial contro l. The two were accused of “complicity in disseminating data likely to disturb public safety”. The allegations stem from an interactive radio show, during which an auditor accused a Guinean official of embezzling military bonuses related to a mission in Northern Mali. Under judicial control, the two journalists are prohibited from travelling outside of Guinea’s capital Conakry without authorisation from a judge. They are also not allowed to host the radio show in question until further notice, and are required to appear in court three times per week. In the same month,, several press associations demonstrated against the state- led suffocation of the media.

Earlier in March 2019, Lansana Camara, a journalist with conackrylive.info, was summoned for “defamation by the press” after a complaint by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and elements in the Guinean diaspora. Camara was placed in custody for a week on allegations of publishing an article undermining the Guinean government. The article (deleted following his arrest) reported an alleged diversion of two billion Guinean Francs (GNF), equivalent to USD 215,700, that had been budgeted for fuel for the Guinean Department of Foreign Affairs.

Martine Condé, the President of the High Authority of Communication (HAC) – the national independent media observer and regulator constituted under Law N° L/2010/002/CNT/ of June 22, 2010 – denounced Camara’s incarceration as a flagrant violation of the law on freedom of the press. A similar press freedom reprimand was issued by the Guinean Association of Online Press (AGUIPEL) back in June 2018 after the arrest and detention of Mamadou Saliou Diallo, founder of Nouveleteeguinee.com, on accusations of “defamation and slander” following a complaint by Cheick Sako, the Minister of Justice.

But the HAC does not always appear to act in the interests of media freedom. In 2017, the HAC took a decision to suspend a private radio station, Espace FM, for seven days, accusing it of disseminating “information likely to undermine the security of the nation, the morale of the armed forces and public order”. HAC’s decision was pursuant to articles 39 and 40 of Law N° L/2010/002/CNT/ of June 22, 2010 on freedom of the press which states: “The High Authority of Communication exercises a right of general control over public, private and community media […]. When the provisions of the law on communication are not respected, [it] can take the following measures: warning, notice of default, suspension, permanent withdrawal.” The same year, a dozen journalists were assaulted by law enforcement officers, with reports of destruction of equipment and torture.

Previously in 2016, the Guinean press was shaken by the assassination of El Hadj Mohamed Diallo, a journalist for the news website Guinee7.com, during a political rally of Guinea’s main opposition party, the Union of Democratic Forces of Guinea (UFDG). To-date, the case remains unsolved, despite investigations.

An inadequate and flouted legislative framework

The Guinean Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of expression, opinion, belief and thought, as well as freedom of the press as being inviolable, inalienable and imprescriptible. It also guarantees the right of access to public information. According to Article 7, everyone is free “to express, to manifest, to disseminate their ideas and opinions by speech, writing and image, […] to educate and inform themselves from sources that are accessible to all. Freedom of the press is guaranteed and protected. The creation of a press or media outlet for political, economic, social, cultural, sporting, recreational or scientific information is free. The right of access to public information is guaranteed to the citizen.”

However, there are a number of laws and policies that undermine the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution.

The Organic Law N ° 002/22/06/2010 on the Freedom of the Press enacted in 2010, sets the conditions for press freedom and the creation of a free and independent media in Guinea. Article 1 explicitly guarantees the freedom of “the written press, the online press, publishing, printing, bookstore, audiovisual, photography, cinema and all other forms of communication”. Offenses by the press or by any other means of communication are outlined under Articles 98-122. The only penalties provided for under the law, upon conviction, are the payment of a fine (the maximum being 20 million GNF, equivalent to USD 2,200), and the suspension or withdrawal of a media outlets’ license, with possibility of appeal before the Supreme Court.

There are no provisions for possible imprisonment of journalists. For instance, the law states that, “defamation, by one of the means set out in Article 98, against the courts, the military and paramilitary bodies, the constituted bodies and the public administrations, is punishable by a fine between 1,000,000 GNF and 5,000,000 GNF (USD 108-540).”

However, the press law and Penal Code (1998) conflict with each other on some press offences. Article 99 of the press law states that incitement to theft, murder, looting and offenses against the security of the state, with incitement followed by effect, is an offence and “perpetrators are punished as accomplices” in accordance with Articles 271 and 273 of the Penal Code. Article 271 of the Penal Code provides for prison sentences of between 10-20 years while Article 273 provides for penalties of imprisonment of 16 days to six months, a fine of 50,000 to 100,000 GNF ( (USD 5.5 to USD 10.9) or both. Notably, neither the press law nor the Penal Code are cited during the prosecution of journalists and bloggers. Instead, authorities rely on the cyber security law.

Law No. 037 on cyber security and the protection of personal data was adopted in July 2016, “to define the rules and mechanisms to fight against cybercrime in Guinea and thus create a favourable, conducive and secure environment in cyber space”. However, it is criticised as a threat to democracy and the digital rights of Guinean citizens because it legitimises online censorship and appears to criminalise whistle-blowing. Indeed, it is this law, and not the press law, which is currently being used to persecute journalists. According to Mohamed Traoré, former president of the Guinean Bar Association, the cyber security law is “unenforceable” because it has not been registered and published in the Official Gazette.

Meanwhile, the Bill on Access to Public Information was approved at the Council of Ministers on July 26, 2019, but there has been no further action on it since then. The lack of an access to information framework negatively impacts journalism, and transparency and accountability in governance. Passing the bill into law would facilitate reliable sources of information for investigative reporting, as well as research, and enhance civic participation.

Which way for a free press in Guinea?

Guinea’s press law reflects the political will to ensure a free, independent and pluralistic media in the country. Further, growing internet penetration has facilitated media diversity. However, persisting acts of repression and intimidation of journalists and bloggers are in total disregard of the Freedom of the Press Act which decriminalises press crimes, and online critics remain exposed to harsh penalties emanating from the cyber security law. In addition, the current inadequacy of the supporting legal framework, and stagnation of the bill on public access to information, limit media’s contribution to democratic governance. For a conducive freedom of expression environment to thrive in Guinea, it is imperative for the government to adopt an adequate legal framework and ensure its enforcement at all levels.

Previous page 1 … 68 69 70 71 72 … 129 Next page

Category Archives: News