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

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 judicial control. 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.

En suspens : la liberté de la presse en ligne et hors ligne en Guinée

Par Simone Toussi

Le paysage médiatique de la Guinée compte plus de 70 médias, y compris les médias en ligne, la radio, la télévision et la presse écrite. Pourtant, le pays ne se classe pas très bien sur les indices internationaux de la liberté de la presse – il est classé 107e sur 180 pays dans l’indice mondial de la liberté de la presse 2019. Néanmoins, sa pénétration croissante d’internet passée de 0,4% en 2010 à 33% en 2018, est favorable à la libre circulation de l’information sur les plateformes en ligne telles que les blogs et les réseaux sociaux. Avec une croissance aussi rapide des utilisateurs, – de 42 000 utilisateurs en 2010 à quatre millions d’utilisateurs en 2019 – l’internet devient rapidement le principal mode d’accès à l’information pour la grande partie de la population guinéenne. Cependant, les contrôles autoritaires exercés par le gouvernement sur les médias traditionnels s’étendent à la sphère de la presse en ligne, comme en témoignent une série d’arrestations et de détentions arbitraires, associées à la persécution et au harcèlement judiciaire des journalistes et des blogueurs.

Une persécution continue des journalistes et des médias

En août 2019, le gouvernement guinéen a placé sous contrôle judiciaire deux journalistes, l’animateur d’une émission de Lynx FM Souleymane Diallo et le PDG et journaliste de Lynx FM, Boubacar Alghassimou Diallo. Les deux hommes ont été accusés de “complicité dans la diffusion de données susceptibles de troubler la sécurité publique”. Les allégations proviennent d’une émission de radio interactive, au cours de laquelle un auditeur a accusé un haut cadre du gouvernement guinéen d’avoir détourné des primes militaires liées à une mission dans le Nord du Mali. Sous contrôle judiciaire, il est interdit aux deux journalistes de voyager en dehors de la capitale guinéenne, Conakry, sans l’autorisation d’un juré. Ils ne sont également pas autorisés à animer l’émission de radio en question jusqu’à nouvel ordre et doivent comparaître devant le tribunal trois fois par semaine. Au cours du même mois, plusieurs associations de presse ont manifesté contre la répression exercée sur les médias par l’Etat.

Plus tôt en mars 2019, Lansana Camara, journaliste à conakrylive.info, a été convoqué pour «diffamation par voie de presse» à la suite d’une plainte du Ministère des Affaires étrangères et des Guinéens de l’étranger. Ce journaliste a été placé en garde à vue pendant une semaine sur des allégations de publication d’un article portant atteinte au gouvernement guinéen. L’article (supprimé après son arrestation) fait état d’un détournement présumé de deux milliards de francs guinéens (GNF), équivalant à 215 700 dollars américains (USD), qui avaient été inscrits au budget pour le carburant dudit département ministériel.

Martine Condé, Présidente de la Haute Autorité de la Communication (HAC) – l’observateur et régulateur national indépendant des médias constitué en vertu de la loi N ° L / 2010/002 / CNT / du 22 juin 2010 – a dénoncé l’incarcération du journaliste Lansana Camara comme une violation flagrante de la loi sur la liberté de la presse. Une riposte similaire pour la violation de la liberté de la presse a été émise par l’Association Guinéenne de la Presse en Ligne (AGUIPEL) en juin 2018 après l’arrestation et la détention de Mamadou Saliou Diallo, fondateur de Nouvelledeguinee.com, sur des accusations de «diffamation et calomnie» suite à une plainte du ministre de la Justice, Cheick Sako.

Cependant, la HAC ne semble pas toujours agir dans l’intérêt de la liberté de la presse, car elle a décidé en 2017, de suspendre pendant sept jours une station de radio privée, Espace FM, l’accusant de diffuser «des informations susceptibles de porter atteinte à la sécurité de la Nation, au moral des forces armées et à l’ordre public». Cette décision de la HAC était en application des articles 39 et 40 de la loi N ° L / 2010/002 / CNT / du 22 juin 2010 relative à la liberté de la presse qui prévoit ceci : «La Haute Autorité de la Communication exerce un droit de contrôle général sur les secteurs public, privé et les médias communautaires […]. Lorsque les dispositions de la loi sur la communication ne sont pas respectées, [elle] peut prendre les mesures suivantes: avertissement, mise en demeure, suspension, retrait définitif. » La même année, une dizaine de journalistes agressés par des forces de l’ordre, rapporte avoir subi la destruction de leurs équipements de travail et la torture.

Plus tôt en 2016, la presse guinéenne s’est vue ébranlée par l’assassinat d’El Hadj Mohamed Diallo, journaliste au site d’information Guinee7.com, lors d’un rassemblement politique du principal parti d’opposition guinéen, l’Union des Forces Démocratiques de Guinée (UFDG). À ce jour, l’affaire n’est toujours pas résolue, malgré les enquêtes.

Un cadre législatif inadéquat et bafoué

La Constitution guinéenne garantit le droit à la liberté d’expression, d’opinion, de croyance et de pensée, ainsi que la liberté de la presse comme étant inviolables, inaliénables et imprescriptibles. Elle garantit également le droit d’accès à l’information publique. Selon l’article 7, chacun est libre « d’exprimer, de manifester, de diffuser ses idées et ses opinions par la parole, l’écriture et l’image, […] de s’instruire et de s’informer à partir de sources accessibles à tous. La liberté de la presse est garantie et protégée. La création d’une presse ou d’un média d’information politique, économique, sociale, culturelle, sportive, récréative ou scientifique est gratuite. Le droit d’accès à l’information publique est garanti au citoyen. » Cependant, un certain nombre de lois et de politiques portent atteinte à ces droits et libertés garantis par la Constitution.

La loi organique N ° 002/22/06/2010 sur la liberté de la presse promulguée en 2010, fixe les conditions de la liberté de la presse et de la création d’une presse libre et indépendante en Guinée. L’article 1 garantit explicitement la liberté de «la presse écrite, la presse en ligne, l’édition, l’impression, la librairie, l’audiovisuel, la photographie, le cinéma et toutes les autres formes de communication ». Les infractions commises par la presse ou par tout autre moyen de communication sont décrites aux articles 98 à 122. Les seules sanctions prévues par la loi, en cas de condamnation, sont le paiement d’une amende (le maximum étant de 20 millions GNF, équivalent à 2200 USD), et la suspension ou le retrait d’une licence de média, avec possibilité de recours devant la Cour Suprême.

Aucune disposition de cette loi ne prévoit l’emprisonnement éventuel de journalistes. Par exemple, la loi stipule que «la diffamation, par l’un des moyens énoncés à l’article 98, envers les cours, les tribunaux, les corps militaires et paramilitaires, les corps constitués et les administrations publiques, est punie d’une amende de 1 000 000 GNF à 5 000 000 GNF (108-540 USD). ”

Cependant, la loi sur la presse et le Code pénal (1998) entrent en conflit pour certains délits de presse. L’article 99 de la loi sur la presse prévoit que l’incitation au vol, au meurtre, au pillage et aux atteintes à la sécurité de l’État, est une infraction punie d’une amende ; et si l’incitation est suivie d’effet, « les auteurs sont punis comme complices » conformément aux articles 271 et 273 du Code pénal. L’article 271 du Code pénal prévoit des peines de prison allant de 10 à 20 ans tandis que l’article 273 prévoit des peines d’emprisonnement de 16 jours à six mois, une amende de 50 000 à 100 000 GNF ((5,5 USD à 10,9 USD) ou les deux. Notamment, ni la loi sur la presse ni le code pénal ne sont cités lors des poursuites judiciaires à l’encontre des journalistes et des blogueurs. Au lieu de cela, les autorités se basent sur la loi sur la cybersécurité et la protection des données personnelles.

La loi n ° 037 sur la cybersécurité et la protection des données personnelles a été adoptée en juillet 2016, « pour définir les règles et mécanismes visant à lutter contre la cybercriminalité et créer ainsi un environnement favorable, propice et sécuritaire dans le cyberespace». Cependant, elle est critiquée comme une menace pour la démocratie et les droits numériques des citoyens Guinéens car elle légitime la censure en ligne et semble criminaliser les lanceurs d’alertes. En effet, c’est cette loi, et non la loi sur la presse, qui est actuellement utilisée pour persécuter les journalistes. Selon Mohamed Traoré, ancien président de l’Association du barreau guinéen, la loi sur la cybersécurité est « inapplicable » car elle n’a pas été enregistrée et publiée au Journal officiel de la Guinée.

Entre-temps, le projet de loi sur l’accès à l’information publique a été approuvé par le Conseil des ministres le 26 juillet 2019, mais aucune autre mesure n’a été prise depuis lors. L’absence d’un cadre d’accès à l’information a un impact négatif sur le journalisme, la transparence et la gouvernance responsable. L’adoption du projet de loi faciliterait la mise en place de sources d’information fiables aussi bien pour le journalisme d’investigation que pour la recherche, et améliorerait la participation civique.

Quelle voie pour une presse libre en Guinée?

La loi sur la liberté de la presse et le délit de presse en Guinée reflète la volonté politique de garantir des médias libres, indépendants et pluralistes dans le pays. De plus, la pénétration croissante de l’internet a facilité la diversité médiatique. Cependant, les actes de répression et d’intimidation persistants à l’encontre des journalistes et des blogueurs méprisent entièrement les dispositions de la loi sur la liberté de la presse qui dépénalise les délits de presse, et les critiques en ligne restent exposés à des sanctions sévères émanant de la loi sur la cybersécurité. En outre, l’insuffisance actuelle du cadre juridique de soutien et la stagnation du projet de loi sur l’accès à l’information publique limitent la contribution des médias à la gouvernance démocratique. Pour assurer le déploiement d’un environnement propice à la liberté d’expression en Guinée, il est impératif que le gouvernement adopte un cadre juridique adéquat et garantisse son application à tous les niveaux.

Call For Proposals: Operations, Strategic Communication and Capacity Building Support for the African Internet Rights Alliance (AIRA)

Call for Proposals |
The African Internet Rights Alliance (AIRA) – an alliance of ten civil society organizations based in Uganda, Nigeria, Kenya, South Africa and Senegal – are pleased to issue this open call for proposals for a consultancy to support the operation, strategic planning and communications capacity building of the Alliance. Members of the Alliance agree to work in collaboration with each other to advance a positive environment around Digital Rights on the African continent within the next three to five years.
Further information on the call can be found here.
 

End of Politeness: African Feminist Movements and Digital Voice

FIFAfrica19 |
Feminism movements online face audience aggression and are often misunderstood. Nonetheless, in recent years, the voice and presence of African feminists online is growing and reinforcing decades long offline efforts aimed at shifting norms, perceptions and power tilted against women and vulnerable communities. As such, growing feminist movements are contributing to narratives which previously did not feature much in mainstream media and in online spaces.
One rising player in these movements is AfricanFeminism.Com which is an online collective of feminist writers from across the continent who are documenting the struggles and achievements of women and other minorities while also amplifying the work of feminists on the continent. Since its origins in 2011, the site has grown to become a channel for driving feminist narratives in online spaces in Africa. These are in turn contributing to debates on issues such as women representation and inclusion, cyber-violence against women and other human rights.
This year, AfricanFeminism.Com will assemble actors in the African feminist movement at the Forum on Internet Freedom in Africa 2019 (FIFAfrica19). In a session titled “End of Politeness: African Feminist Movements and Digital Voice”, the collective will illustrate how the current pan-African feminism movement is thriving on access to technologies that earlier generations did not have, to advance women’s right to self-expression and access to information.
The session will bring experiences and lessons from across the continent on how feminist movements are being defined and the online backlash that many young women have to face in order to make themselves heard. The African experience of internet freedom greatly mimics freedoms offline including through the gender divide, literacy, economics and even politics. This session will show trends of how African feminist online communities are pushing for greater equity and equality including through various forms of advocacy such as the radical expression of Uganda’s Dr Stella Nyanzi.
Moderator: Rosebell Kagumire | Editor, AfricanFeminism.com
Panelists:

  • Nana Akosua Hanson | Director, Drama Queens Ghana
  • Beatrice Mateyo | Executive Director, Coalition for the Empowerment of Women and Girls (CEWAG) Malawi
  • Selam Mussie | Media and Communications Consultant, Ethiopia
  • Lugain Mahmoud | Activist, Fifty (Women Representation) Campaign, Sudan
  • Jeanne Elone | Human Rights & Social Impact, Africa Public Policy, Facebook

Follow the conversation using #FIFAfrica19 and #InternetFreedomAfrica.

Are Malawians Sleep-Walking into a Surveillance State?

By Jimmy Kainja |
In the last three years, the Malawi government has passed a lot of legislation, among these, is the National Registration and Identification System (NRIS), which according to the National Registration Bureau, is aimed at addressing the lack of universal and compulsory registration – the NRIS allows Malawians to have a national ID.
According to UNDP, one of the main funders of the exercise, 9 million Malawians have registered as of October 2019. This shows that Malawians have generally welcomed the exercise. Meanwhile, the registration in on going all District Offices where anyone turning 16 years can register and have their ID card issued.
Reasons for the general acceptability of the ID registration differ and in absence of any survey it is difficult to generalise the reasons but it can be speculated that among the reasons is that the majority of Malawians lacked any form of ID to do daily transactions. Majority Malawians do not have a passport or driver’s license and yet advance in technology, mobile banking for example, has increased demand for IDs in the country.
Following the NRIS exercise, the national ID has become increasingly become the only form of identification for most public transactions and registrations. In 2018 Malawi government through its telecoms regulator, MACRA, rolled out mandatory SIM Card registration, this is provided for in PART XI of Communications Act, 2016. The voter registration for 2019 tripartite elections required the national ID as a form of identification; and now commercial banks in the country have rolled out what they are calling “know your customer” (KYC) exercise, in which clients have to update their personal information with the banks. This time the banks are only accepting the national ID as a form of identity for Malawians, and passport for none Malawians.
This means that in a very short space of time Malawians have given away a lot of their personal data to both private and public institutions. All the data is tied to one’s national ID. This includes our communication data through our SIM Card enabled communication – internet, text messages and voice calls. But who how safe is this personal data? During the voter registration exercise did we not hear of Malawi Electoral Commission found abandoned in Mozambique? How do we ensure that our personal data is safe? How can we be sure that no third parties have access to our personal data? Who should be held accountable in case of any data breach?
These are legitimate questions, especially as any breach of personal data has implications on personal privacy. Privacy is inviolable right and it is constitutionally provided for under article 21 of Malawi constitution. Often people argue that you should not worry about privacy if you have nothing to hide. Yet, privacy does not mean that you have something to hide.
Journalist, Glenn Greenwald observes that privacy is important because we all need places where we can go to explore the issue without the judgmental eyes of other people being cast upon us. He argues that their people have all kinds of things they want to keep a secret that has nothing to do with criminality. He adds:
“only in a realm where we’re not being watched can we really test the limits of who we want to be. It’s really in the private realm where dissent, creativity and personal exploration lie… When we think we’re being watched, we make behaviour choices that we believe other people want us to make … it’s a natural human desire to avoid societal condemnation. That’s why every state loves surveillance — it breeds a conformist population.”
In the wake of mass personal data collection, Malawi needs personal data protection legislation, and this legislation should have been in place before the NRIS and what has followed that exercise. Data protection is important in order to prevent third parties from accessing personal data and also stopping the authorities abusing personal data they collected in good faith.
Personal data protection is crucial for freedom of choice and freedom of expression. People are unable to express themselves freely in the presence of watchful eye on everything that you are doing, browsing on the Internet for example. Inevitably, this has a chilling effect on activists, human rights defenders and other vulnerable communities as these groups can easily be targeted by both state and non-state actors.
The mass collection of personal data in the absence of data protection law should be of concern to all Malawians as it has the capacity to allow state surveillance. Furthermore, the mandatory SIM card registration in the absence of data protection laws means that our private communication, online and offline can easily be violated by both state and non-state actors. As with the mandatory SIM card registration, governments usually use security to introduce laws and policies. But you cannot protect people on one hand while violating other rights and freedoms on the other. Security and civil liberties can and do coexist and it is the obligation of the state to balance the two.
*Note: this article is informed by Internet freedom and digital rights training for CSOs I coordinated and co-facilitated in Lilongwe (30-31st July 2019) on behalf of The Collaboration on International ICT Policy in East and Southern Africa (CIPESA).
This article was originally published in The Nation