Promoting Effective and Inclusive ICT Policy in Africa

Category Archives: Online Freedoms

  HomeCollaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA)  /  Blog  /  Online Freedoms
15Jun

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

Author admin Posted on

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.

07Jun

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

Author admin Posted on

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.”
 
 
 

25May

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

Author admin Posted on

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.
 

28Apr

South Africa to host Forum on Internet Freedom in Africa

Author admin Posted on

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.
 

26Apr

Tanzania Court Deals a Blow to Intermediary Liability Rules

Author admin Posted on

By Ashnah Kalemera |
A court in Tanzania has dealt a blow to the rules governing the country’s internet intermediaries, after ruling that requests for disclosure of user information for law enforcement purposes pursuant to the Cybercrimes Act (2015) are not arbitrary. In a March 8, 2017 ruling, three judges of the court in Dar es Salaam also ruled that the absence of regulations to govern the enforcement of the Act did not render the controversial law unconstitutional.
The ruling dismissed a petition filed by Jamii Media, proprietors of the popular Jamii Forums discussion platform, who argued that Section 32 of the Cybercrimes Act was arbitrary and contrary to citizens’ right to privacy guaranteed by article 16 (1) of the country’s constitution. Jamii filed the petition last April, after receiving three notices from police demanding that it discloses the personal details of up to four users who had posted on the forum information on political tensions among members of the ruling party Chama Cha Mapinduzi, and scandals in one of the country’s leading banking institutions.
The notices, issued during January and February 2016 pursuant to Section 32 of the Act, demanded disclosure of the names of the users, their emails and Internet Protocol (IP) addresses. Last December, Jamii Forums founder Maxence Melo was charged with obstruction of investigations under Section 22 of the Cybercrimes Act for failure to comply with the disclosure notices.

Section 32 of the Cybercrimes Act provides:
(1) Where the disclosure of data is required for the purposes of a criminal investigation or the prosecution of an offence, a police officer in charge of a police station or a law enforcement officer of a similar rank may issue an order to any person in possession of such data compelling him to disclose such data.
(2) The order issued under subsection (1) shall be granted to a law enforcement officer who shall serve the order to the person in possession of the data.
(3) Where the disclosure of data cannot be done under subsection (1), the law enforcement officer may apply to the court for an order compelling:
(a) a person to submit specified data that is in that person’s possession or control; or
(b) a service provider offering its services to submit subscriber information in relation to such services in that service provider’s possession or control.
(4) Where any material to which an investigation relates consists of data stored in a computer system or device, the request shall be deemed to require the person to produce or give access to it in a form in which it is legible and can be taken away.

In its petition, Jamii Media argued that no procedures were in place to enforce Section 32 as required under Section 39 (2) of the Act to govern the circumstances and procedure of disclosure by intermediaries. Section 39 (2) states that the Minister for Information and Communication Technology shall “prescribe the procedures for service providers to avail competent authorities, at their request, with information enabling the identification of recipients of their services”.
However, the judges noted that, often, for laws that provide for putting in place regulations by the Ministers responsible, “it takes a while before the said regulations are formulated.” This implied that intermediaries were obliged to honour disclosure notices in the absence of the regulations.
In their defense, the Tanzania Police argued that they had the duty to carry out investigations and prosecution of offences and maintained that the disclosure notices issued to Jamii Media were “justified”. According to the state attorney, the disclosure notices did not infringe upon citizens’ right to privacy because they were “intended to obtain the names of people who have published information that may turn out to be relevant to some offences under investigation”. The state attorney added that the Cybercrimes Act did not require the police to disclose to the recipient of the disclosure notices the offences under investigation.
Meanwhile, Jamii Media also argued that under sub-section 32 (4), the 2015 Act confers powers upon authorities to require the surrender of devices on which information is contained, without any safeguards. “If an investigator takes away one such device in order to access one piece of information relevant to a particular investigation, there is no guarantee that by taking the same, the investigation will not access other pieces of information contained in the same device and [which are] irrelevant to the matter being investigated,” it argued.
Judges ruled that Section 32 (4) did not empower the police to take away the devices as contended. “Our understanding of that section is that the person to whom the request has been made, like the petitioner in this case, may print the information such that it can be read and/or taken away by the investigators in printed form,” the judges stated.
Citing jurisprudence including provisions under Article 19 (2) and (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the judges considered that Section 32 of the Cybercrimes Act was “proportional” for balancing individual human rights on the one hand and public interest on the other.
Lawyers representing Melo in the ongoing case plan to file submissions for police to seek court’s intervention for mandatory disclosure pursuant to provisions of the Act and dismiss the obstruction charges.
For more on the government’s tactics to stifle citizens’ digital rights in Tanzania see the State of Internet Freedom in Tanzania 2016 report.
 

1 … 22 23 24 25 26 … 41