Le Parlement de la République démocratique du Congo est invité à adopter des lois qui appuient les droits des citoyens en ligne

Statement |
Les acteurs de la société civile dans la ville congolaise de Goma ont exhorté le Gouvernement de la République démocratique du Congo (RDC) à apporter des modifications à ses lois actuelles régissant les technologies de l’information et de la communication (TIC) pour les rendre favorables à la croissance de l’utilisation d’Internet, comme la vie privée en ligne, l’accès à l’information et la liberté d’expression.
Les acteurs de la société civile, y compris des journalistes, des militants des droits numériques et les blogueurs, ont également exhorté le Parlement du pays et le Ministère des TIC à offrir des moyens significatifs aux citoyens de fournir des contributions aux nouvelles lois proposées dans le secteur des télécommunications.
Le gouvernement a récemment envoyé au Parlement le projet de loi sur les télécommunications et les TIC visant à mettre à jour la loi-cadre 013/2002 sur les télécommunications, ainsi que le projet de loi sur les transactions électroniques, et une loi modifiant la loi qui a mis en place le régulateur – l’Autorité de Régulation des Postes et Télécommunications du Congo (ARPTC). Cependant, ni le Parlement ni le Ministère n’ont annoncé de possibilités pour les autres parties prenantes de faire des commentaires ou des observations sur ces projets de loi.
L’importance des consultations des parties prenantes dans les processus décisionnels en RDC a été l’une des questions qui ont émergé lors d’un atelier de formation sur les politiques et le plaidoyer autour des TIC tenu à Goma les 10 et 11 juin 2017 par Rudi International en collaboration avec Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA). Les participants ont noté que l’exclusion des acteurs, comme ceux du secteur privé, de la société civile, etc. du processus législatif pourrait conduire à l’adoption de lois qui nuisent à l’accès et à l’utilisation de l’internet dans le pays d’Afrique centrale.
À l’heure actuelle, l’adoption des TIC en RDC fait face à plusieurs défis, y compris des coûts de données déraisonnablement élevés qui ont largement contribué au faible taux de pénétration de l’Internet de 4,2% en 2016. La loi-cadre 013/2002 sur les Télécommunications et la loi 14/2002 sur le Régulateur sont les lois primaires régissant entre autres, les communications en ligne, mais elles ne prévoient pas suffisamment de garanties au sujet des droits des citoyens à la vie privée, ni ne fournissent un environnement propice aux citoyens pour jouir du droit à la libre expression sur Internet.
En outre, ces lois contiennent des clauses vagues telles que « l’intérêt public », « perturbation de l’ordre public », « vérité ultime » et « sécurité nationale » qui créent la latitude pour des abus des lois, y compris par la censure et la surveillance. Pendant ce temps, les fournisseurs de services d’Internet et de télécommunications n’ont pas de protection contre les interférences indues de l’État, comme en témoigne l’évolution des coupures de l’Internet ces dernières années.
Les nouvelles lois proposées sont les bienvenues parce qu’elles présentent l’opportunité d’expurger des articles rétrogradés des lois existantes et de remédier aux lacunes actuelles. Cependant, les projets de loi ne reflètent pas une protection suffisante pour les droits des citoyens à la vie privée et à la liberté d’expression, et ils ne prennent pas en charge adéquatement la libre circulation de l’information en ligne. Par exemple, le projet de loi sur les Télécommunications et les TIC contient plusieurs clauses problématiques, notamment en accordant au Ministre des pouvoirs excessifs sur l’interception des communications et leur interruption. Le ministre et l’organisme de régulation renforcent également leur pouvoir face aux opérations des prestataires de services. En outre, il existe de faibles dispositions relatives à la protection des données ; le projet de loi étant dépourvu de mécanismes indépendants de surveillance, en particulier en ce qui concerne l’Etat qui fait des demandes d’informations sur les abonnés aux fournisseurs de services.
Le manque de mécanismes indépendants de surveillance pour lutter contre l’abus du pouvoir excessif par le ministre ne garantit pas que les citoyens soient protégés contre l’interception injustifiée de la communication.
Bien que l’article 175 du projet de loi sur les télécommunications et les TIC reconnaisse le droit du citoyen de demander des informations sur ses données personnelles auprès de l’État ou d’une autre entité, il n’existe pas de dispositions claires sur la manière dont ces informations peuvent être demandées ou si les détenteurs de cette information sont obligés de répondre à une demande d’information dans un délai déterminé.
La communication en ligne sécurisée est prioritaire selon les articles 116-117. Cependant, des clauses qui permettent à l’Etat d’intercepter la communication privée avec des garanties limitées sont également incluses. En outre, l’article 119 comprend une disposition pour que le Procureur général désigne un magistrat en chef qui peut demander à un agent qualifié du Ministère des TIC ou d’une entreprise de télécommunications de mettre en place des mécanismes permettant l’interception de la communication en ligne des citoyens.
Au cours de l’atelier de formation, les acteurs de la société civile ont noté que ces clauses contreviennent aux normes internationales en matière de droits de l’homme énoncées dans un certain nombre d’instruments, y compris la Déclaration universelle des droits de l’homme, la Charte africaine des droits de l’homme et des peuples et la Déclaration africaine sur les droits et les libertés de l’Internet.
En tant que tel, ils ont recommandé que:

  • Il devrait y avoir une participation accrue de plus d’acteurs dans le processus de développement de la loi, ainsi que des engagements réguliers multipartites entre le gouvernement, les prestataires de services et la société civile;
  • Le gouvernement, en particulier le Ministère des TIC et le Parlement, devrait diffuser largement les trois projets de loi, sensibiliser à leurs objectifs et inviter des commentaires des diverses parties prenantes;
  • La législature devrait veiller à ce que les terminologies vagues, y compris la « sécurité nationale », les « illicites » et les « interférences a l’ordre public », soient bien définies avant l’adoption de ces lois ;
  • Suite au fait que, dans sa forme actuelle, le projet de loi sur les télécommunications et les TIC crée des marges d’abus en donnant des pouvoirs excessifs au Régulateur et aux Ministres de l’Intérieur, de la Défense et de la Sécurité, le pouvoir judiciaire et le Parlement devraient avoir un mandat de surveillance plus large sur le Régulateur et le Ministre.
  • Une loi spécifique sur la protection des données devrait être promulguée pour garantir la sauvegarde des données personnelles et de la vie privée des citoyens;
  • Le projet de loi sur les Télécommunications et les TIC devrait préciser les procédures pour que les citoyens demandent de l’information de l’État et la publication de ces informations par l’État;
  • Les trois lois examinées par le Parlement devraient inclure des clauses qui protègent le droit à la liberté d’expression et la libre circulation de l’information;
  • Des clauses sur la non-discrimination et l’égalité devraient être introduites dans la loi proposée sur les télécommunications et les TIC, notamment en criminalisant les actions qui favorisent le cyber-harcèlement, la pornographie de vengeance et d’autres actes qui constituent une violence en ligne contre les femmes et d’autres groupes minoritaires et vulnérables.

Ces recommandations font écho à celles faites par le CIPESA dans le rapport sur l’Etat des libertés de l’Internet en RD Congo en 2016, qui a également demandé au Parlement de travailler avec d’autres parties prenantes, y compris la société civile, les internautes, le secteur privé, les universitaires et les médias pour examiner les lois et modifier celles qui limitent et restreignent les droits des citoyens à la vie privée, à la liberté d’association, d’expression et à l’accès à l’information. Le rapport a également déclaré que la rédaction et la modification des lois devraient respecter des normes internationales acceptables en matière de droits de l’homme.

DR Congo Parliament Urged to Pass Laws That Support Citizens’ Rights Online

Statement |
Civil society actors in the Congolese town of Goma have urged the Government of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) to make amendments to its current laws governing Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) to make them favourable to the growth of internet usage, as well as online privacy, access to information and freedom of expression.
The civil society actors, including journalists, digital rights activists and bloggers, also urged the country’s Parliament and the Ministry for ICT to offer meaningful avenues for citizens to provide inputs to proposed new laws related to the telecommunications industry.
The Government has recently sent to the Parliament the Telecommunications and ICT Bill which is aimed at updating the Framework Law 013/2002 on Telecommunications, as well as the e-Transactions Bill, and a law amending the Act that set up the regulator – the Authority of the Post and Telecommunications of Congo (ARPTC). However, neither the Parliament, nor the Ministry, have announced opportunities for other stakeholders to make comments or submissions on these draft laws.
The importance of stakeholder consultations in Congo’s policy-making processes was among the issues that emerged during a two-day ICT policy and advocacy training workshop hosted in Goma on June 10- 11, 2017, by Rudi International and the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA). Participants noted that the exclusion of private sector and civil society actors from the law-making process could lead to the passing of laws that are detrimental to internet access and usage in the central African country.
Presently, ICT adoption in DRC faces several challenges including unreasonably high data costs which have largely contributed to the low internet penetration rate of 4.2% as of 2016. The Framework Law 013/2002 on Telecommunications and the Law 14/2002 on the Regulator are the primary laws governing online communication but they do not adequately provide for citizens’ rights to privacy, nor do they provide a conducive environment for citizens to enjoy the right to free expression.
Further, these laws contain vague clauses such as ‘public interest’, ‘disruption of public order’, ‘ultimate truth’, and ‘national security’ which create the latitude for unwarranted abuse of the laws including through censorship and surveillance. Meanwhile, internet and telecommunications services providers lack protection from undue state interference as has been evidenced by the evolution of communications shutdowns in recent years.
The proposed new laws are welcome because they present an opportunity to expunge retrogressive articles from the existing laws and to address the current gaps. However, the current drafts neither reflect sufficient protections for citizens’ rights to privacy and freedom of expression, nor do they adequately support the free flow of information online. For instance, the Telecommunications and ICT Bill contains several problematic clauses, including granting the minister excessive powers over the interception of communications and interruptions to communications. The minister and the regulator also maintain strong over the operations of service providers. Furthermore, there are weak provisions related to data protection, with the bill lacking independent oversight mechanisms particularly with regards to the state making user information requests to service providers.
The lack of independent oversight mechanisms to safeguard against the abuse of the excessive power by the minister fails to ensure that citizens are protected against unwarranted interception of communication.
While article 175 of the proposed ICT and Telecommunications law recognises the right of a citizen to demand for information on their personal data from the state or another entity, there are no clear provisions on how this information can be requested or whether the holders of this information are obliged to respond to an information request within a specified timeframe.
Secure online communication is prioritised in articles 116–117. However, clauses which permit the state to intercept private communication with limited safeguards are also included. Further, article 119 includes a provision for the General Prosecutor to designate a chief magistrate who can instruct any qualified agent from the Ministry of ICT or a telecommunications company to put in place mechanisms that allow for interception of citizens’ online communication.
During the training workshop, the civil society actors noted that these clauses contravene international human rights standards as set out in a number of instruments including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the African Declaration on Internet Rights and Freedoms. As such, they recommended that:

  • There should be increased participation by more stakeholders in the law development process, as well as regular multi-stakeholder engagements between government, service providers and civil society;
  • Government, particularly the Ministry of ICT and Parliament, should widely circulate the three bills, create awareness about their objectives and invite comments on the draft laws from various stakeholders;
  • The legislature should ensure that  vague terminologies in the bills, including “national security”, “illicit” and “public order interference”, are defined before they are passed;
  • Since in its current form the Telecommunications and ICT bill creates room for abuse by giving excessive powers to the regulator and the Ministers of Interior, Defence and Security Affairs, the judiciary and Parliament should be granted wider oversight mandate over the regulator and the minister.
  • A specific law on data protection should be enacted to  ensure that citizens’ personal data and privacy are safeguarded;
  • The ICT and telecommunications bill should specify the procedures for citizens to request for information from the state, and the release of such information by the state;
  • The three laws under consideration by Parliament should include clauses that protect the right to freedom of expression and the free flow of information.
  • Clauses on non-discrimination and equality should be introduced in the proposed law on Telecommunications and ICT specifically through criminalising actions that promote cyber bullying, cyber stalking, revenge pornography, and other acts that constitute online violence against women and other minority and vulnerable groups.

These recommendations echo those made by CIPESA in the State of Internet Freedom in DR Congo 2016 report, which also called for the Parliament to work with more stakeholders including civil society, internet users, private sector, academics and the media to review laws and amend those that limit and restrict citizens’ rights to privacy, assembly, expression and access to information. The report also stated that the drafting and amendment of laws should meet acceptable international human rights standards.

Rwanda’s Communications Regulator Dismisses Electoral Commission’s Directives on Suppressing Free Speech Online

By Ashnah Kalemera |
The Rwanda Utilities Regulatory Authority (RURA), the body that regulates telecommunication services, has dismissed a statement by the country’s electoral body regarding vetting of social media posts by candidates in the upcoming elections. This principled move by RURA needs to be commended, and just like the authority has steadfastly held service providers to their licensing obligations and protected digital technology users’ interests, RURA stands well positioned to be the champion of the free flow of information and ideas online in Rwanda.
“The National Electoral Commission (NEC) has no mandate to regulate or interrupt the use of social media by citizens,” reads RURA’s May 31 statement. The authority goes on to state that as the body in charge of communications, it has not had any discussions with NEC on the matter and to “reaffirm the right of citizens express themselves on social media and other ICT [Information and Communication Technologies] platforms, while respecting existing laws.”
The statement by RURA follows a directive by the electoral body requiring that campaign posts by candidates, including text, photographs and videos must be sent to a team of analysts prior to publishing on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, WhatsApp, Instagram or on candidates’  websites.
“The candidates will have to send their messages to our team 24 hours before the time they expect to post them – and then they give us another 24 hours to give them feedback,” a NEC official is quoted as having told journalists. The commission head stated that candidates risked having their social media accounts blocked if they failed to comply with the instructions. According to officials, NEC’s directive was “not censorship”, but rather, aimed at ensuring that “messages posted on social media are not poisoning people.”
The electoral body’s move deserves condemnation for infringing on free speech and aiming to curtail the free flow of information and opinion in the lead up to presidential elections scheduled for August 2017. Article 38 of the Rwanda constitution guarantees freedom of the press, of expression and of access to information. The Media Law of 2013 further extends these rights to the media, including online platforms, as provided for under Article 19.
Whereas these rights need to be respected at all times, it is especially critical to uphold them at election times to enable politicians easily reach out to voters and for citizens to have ample access to competing ideas so as to make informed choices of who to vote for as their leaders. This is why RURA’s dismissal of the electoral body’s overtures to curtail free expression online is particularly welcome, and yet there is need to work on other fronts to ensure that the country’s laws, and the practices of its institutions and leaders, promote free expression online.
Presently, there are gaps in laws such as the 2013 Media Law, the Penal Code, and the law on interception of communications which pose a threat to the online operations of media and civil society. Over the years numerous blogs and websites with content deemed critical of the state have been blocked Recent years have also seen some online publishers being arrested and charged, with some fleeing into exile. See 2017 report on Safeguarding Civil Society: Assessing Internet Freedom and Digital Resilience of Civil Society in East Africa.
Nonetheless, RURA’s statement is a positive development in the country that has put ICT at the forefront of its socio-economic development. As of December 2016, Rwanda had a mobile phone penetration rate of 79%, while internet penetration stood at 37%, according to RURA’s 4th quarter 2016 report.
In October 2015, Rwanda launched its ICT Master Plan – Vision 2020. Among the priority areas is improved ICT access especially via mobile. Meanwhile, Rwanda’s Universal Service Fund, which is aimed at extending connectivity to rural and underserved communities, is funded by up to 2% levy of operator turnover.
Meanwhile, the RURA actively enforces operator licensing requirements and regulations, and issues notices and penalties for non compliance with quality of service obligations. In June 2016 notices to MTN Rwanda and Airtel Rwanda, the operators were ordered to comply with obligations within 15 calendar days and submit to the authority short term implementation reports and in the longer term, implementation plans. The notice to MTN also stipulated a penalty of approx. USD 6,300 per day for “major network outage and service degradation.”
To fully realise the benefits of these initiatives, citizens need to be free to express themselves online and to have trust in using online tools and platforms without fear for their privacy and safety.
Established under the 2001 law governing telecommunications, RURA’s mandate was extended under a 2013 amendment to include “telecommunications, information technology, broadcasting and converging electronic technologies including the Internet and any other information and communication technology.”
 
 
 

Zambia’s Mixed Record on ICT Access and Free Expression Online

By Ashnah Kalemera |
The first-ever Lusaka Internet Forum (LIF17) was hosted in Zambia’s capital on May 10-11 as a platform for discussing the various factors impacting internet use in the country, particularly in driving agricultural sustainability, gender equality and freedom of expression online.
The southern African country presents a mixed record: ICT access is growing (a mobile phone penetration rate of 75% and internet penetration rate of 32%), but is undermined by high data and voice usage costs that entrench the digital divide between men and women and between rural and urban areas. Moreover, while the country is investing in extending services to rural and underserved areas, national laws largely undermine free expression and the communications regulator is criticised for undermining citizens’ rights to free expression.
In the last two decades, Zambia has recorded some firsts on internet use – both positive and negative. In 1996, one of the first documented acts of government censorship of online content in Africa happened when Zambia’s government ordered the take down of content from the online edition of The Post newspaper, after threatening to prosecute the country’s main Internet Service Provider (ISP), Zamnet.


The content was banned under the Preservation of Public Security Act for allegedly containing a report based on leaked documents that revealed secret government plans for a referendum on the adoption of a new constitution. A presidential decree warned the public that anyone caught with the banned edition, including the electronic version, would be liable to prosecution.
Since 1996, a number of interruptions to online communication have been reported. Access to some online news outlets, such as the Zambia Watchdog, has been blocked at different intervals, particularly between 2012 and 2014, over publication of content critical of the government. This alongside physical intimidation, arrests and seizure of devices such as journalists’ laptops and mobile phones. Meanwhile, in August 2016, internet connectivity interruptions were reported during the election period but these could not be verified as deliberately orchestrated by the state or service providers.
Despite these affronts to freedom of expression, in 2014 Zambia was the first African country to implement Facebook’s Free Basics initiative that allows users to access prescribed sites without the need for data. Ongoing initiatives by the Zambia Information and Communication Technology Authority (ZICTA) to promote access include the establishment of ICT training centres, acquisition of equipment for ICT-based learning and examinations under the education ministry, and the development of a computer assembly plant.
This mixed record on ICT access and internet freedom formed the backdrop of the discussions at LIF17, during which participants cited gender barriers, high illiteracy and poverty levels, and high data costs as undermining internet use in the country.


Some participants stated that the country’s laws appear to target curtailing citizens’ rights, and faulted the regulator for lacking independence and failing to protect users from abuses by service providers and government agencies such as the police. “Let’s use the laws progressively not to block access to information or to [unjustifiably] control how the media work,” said a blogger. He noted that the ICT Act of 2009 does not speak to current realities, with some of its provisions criminalising freedom of expression.
There are also widespread perceptions of unwarranted surveillance of citizens’ online communications. The right to privacy is threatened by the mandatory registration of SIM cards provided for under the ICT Act and the Statutory Instrument on the Registration of Electronic Communication Apparatus of 2011. Registration requires subscribers to provide their personal details and identity cards, in the absence of a data protection and privacy law.
The Electronic Communications and Transactions Act of 2009 provides for lawful interception of communications upon issuance of a court order, and online monitoring of information in the public domain. Nearly 15 years since tabling a draft freedom of information bill, it is yet to be enacted.
Meanwhile, activists criticised the Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA) director general for misusing their extensive powers to curtail media freedom. Last August, the IBA suspended the broadcasting licences for Muvi TV, Komboni Radio and Itezhi Tezhi Radio for “unprofessional conduct posing a risk to national peace and stability”. Activists also reported increasing attacks on individuals who use radio and TV stations to voice opinions critical of the government.
As such, following the LIF17, CIPESA led an ICT policy training workshop for human rights defenders, activists, media and social media enthusiasts to increase their understanding of relevant ICT policies in Zambia and how these affect human rights online. The workshop entailed developing their strategies in advocating for a free, open and secure internet through the innovative use of both traditional and new media.
During the training, participants were taken through mechanisms for policy engagement such as stakeholder submissions, the analysis of bills and continued activism and campaigns online including through documentation and reporting of internet freedom violation incidents.


LIF17 was organised by the Swedish Embassy in Zambia and partners including the Zambia Governance Foundation as a satellite event in the lead up to the Stockholm Internet Forum. Thematic sessions on agriculture, gender, and freedom of expression were hosted by the technology innovation hub Bongo Hive, the Asikana Network, the Swedish Programme for ICT in Developing Regions (Spider) and CIPESA.
Read more about internet freedom in Zambia in CIPESA’s State of Internet Freedom in Zambia 2016 report.
CIPESA’s work in Zambia is supported by AccessNow and the Mozilla Foundation.
 

South Africa to host Forum on Internet Freedom in Africa

Save The Date Announcement |
The Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) and the Association for Progressive Communication (APC) are happy to announce the date and location for the Forum on Internet Freedom in Africa (FIFAfrica) 2017.
This year’s edition of the Forum will held be in Johannesburg, South Africa, on September 27-29, 2017,  thus expanding the physical footprint of the Forum which has since inception in 2014 been held in Kampala, Uganda.
This landmark event convenes various stakeholders from the internet governance and online rights arenas in Africa and beyond to deliberate on gaps, concerns and opportunities for advancing privacy, access to information, free expression, non-discrimination and the free flow of information online.
The Forum brings together human rights defenders, journalists, government officials, private sector players, global information intermediaries, bloggers, developers, the arts community, law enforcers and regulators – all of whom have a role to play in advancing internet freedom in Africa.
Highlights at FIFAfrica include the launch of the annual State of Internet Freedom in Africa research report as well the commemoration of the International Day for Universal Access to Information (IDUAI) that falls on September 28.
In the coming weeks, we will release more details of the Forum, including how to participate and to suggest topics for inclusion in the event programme.
Visit the Forum page for more information on previous Forums and updates over the coming weeks.
You can also contribute thoughts and ideas through the #InternetFreedomAfrica hashtag.
If you would like to support FIFAfrica17 please get in touch:
Send an email to Wakabi ([email protected]), Ashnah ([email protected]) or Sekoetlane ([email protected]) and ([email protected]) with any queries.