Zimbabwe’s Digital Activism Amidst Disproportionate Government Control of the Internet

By Juliet Nanfuka |
In 2016, activism in Zimbabwe took on a new persona through various social media campaigns that also transformed into offline activity.  In a move which critics believe is intended to suppress activism on social media, the national telecoms regulator known as the Postal and Telecommunications Regulatory Authority of Zimbabwe (Potraz) recently drove up internet access prices by up to 500% but following online uproar, the information ministry moved to reverse the decision.
As at the third quarter of 2016, Internet penetration in Zimbabwe stood at 50%. However, increased online use is threatened by a state keen to control online narrative similar to how it has controlled traditional media. Intimidation and arrests are likely to hurt internet freedom in a country where citizens are increasingly using online platforms to criticise the political and economic malaise in the southern African state.
Like many other African countries, internet access remains costly in Zimbabwe. The presence of a Universal Access Fund (USF) meant to reduce internet access costs and fund infrastructure across the county has not helped matters. POTRAZ manages the USF and has been criticised for under-utilising the fund and lacking transparency about its expenditures.
Increased  access at lower cost  has  partly been enabled by  service providers  offering mobile internet data bundles accompanied with subsidised or “zero rated” access to social media applications such as Whatsapp and Facebook.  However, in August 2016, at least three service providers  discontinued various promotions  following a directive from POTRAZ .  The directive was issued shortly after the regulator warned against increasing “abuse” of social media.

“Government is literally, deliberately or accidentally, suffocating the digital revolution by cutting off the lifeblood of the revolution, which is affordable digital and social media access to give citizens an alternative voice.”

TechZim News Blog

According to the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in Zimbabwe report, recent activities by state agencies have breached citizens’ rights guaranteed by the constitution. Proposed laws such as the Data Protection Bill and the Electronic Transaction and Electronic Commerce Bill could further undermine citizens’ rights to free expression and privacy. In addition, the draft Computer Crime and Cybercrime Bill provides for mass surveillance of citizen communications.

In the absence of a cyber law, the Criminal Law and Codification Act (CODE), popularly known as the “insult law”, has been the government’s weapon of choice against critics both online and offline. The law was widely used during the protests in 2016 to invoke harassment and arrest of “trouble-makers”, namely those who oppose or criticise President Mugabe.
Extracted from State of Internet Freedom in Zimbabwe | 2016 report

The report by the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) narrates cases of Zimbabweans arraigned before the courts over their online activities. Among the stated trumped-up charges are “criminal nuisance“, “insulting and undermining the president’s authority” and issuance of “treasonous” communiqué criticising Mugabe’s leadership.
Section 61 of the Zimbabwe Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of expression: “Every person has the right to freedom of expression, which includes … freedom to seek, receive and communicate ideas and other information.” While Zimbabwe has no specific law related to internet rights, the constitution also provides for access to information and privacy without explicitly mentioning the online domain.
 

LATEST: Maxence Melo Released on Bail

By CIPESA Writer |
After five days in police custody, Jamii Forums founder Maxence Melo has been released today (December 19). Melo, who was detained at a police station in the Tanzanian capital Dar es Salaam, was granted interim release with six individuals standing as surety for a bond amount of 6 million Tanzanian shillings (USD 2,700).
Melo was last Friday charged with three offences stemming from his alleged refusal to release user data from the popular news and discussion portal Jamii Forums. He is faced with two counts of not complying with a disclosure order under Section 22 (2) of the Cyber Crimes Act of 2015 and one count of managing a domain that is not registered in Tanzania under Section 79(c) of the Electronic and Postal Communications Act (2010).
For each charge, two individuals stood surety for the accused at 1 million Tanzanian shillings (USD 450) each. According to his lawyer, another bail condition set for Melo is that he should not travel outside of Dar es Salaam without court’s permission.
The case is scheduled to be heard  in court on December 29, 2016.

UPDATE: Maxence Melo Charged with Obstruction of Investigations and Operating a Domain Not Registered in Tanzania

By CIPESA Writer |
Jamii Forums Founder, Maxence Melo has been charged with three offences before a court in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The charges are:
1: Management of a domain not registered in Tanzania under Section 79(c) of the Electronic and Postal Communications Act (2010).
2: Obstruction of investigations under Section 22 (2) of the Cyber Crimes Act  of 2015 for not complying with an order of disclosure of data in his possession. This followed an order by the Tanzania Police Force to release data pertaining to electronic communications published on his Jamii Forums site between April 10, 2016 and December 13, 2016.
3: Obstruction of investigations under Section 22 (2) of the Cyber Crimes Act  of 2015 for not complying with an order to disclose data in his possession. This follows an order by the Tanzania Police Force to release data pertaining to electronic communications published on his site between May 10, 2016 and December 13, 2016.
Section 79 of the Electronic and Postal Communications Act (2010) provides for the regulation of all electronic communication numbering and electronic addresses by the Tanzania Communications Regulatory Authority (TCRA). Part C of the section mandates the authority to perform oversight role of management of the country’s code Top Level Domain (ccTLD).
Meanwhile, Section 22 of the Cyber Crimes Act 2015 relates to unlawful interference with investigations and refusal to comply with an order under the Act.
Max was arrested on Tuesday December 13. He remained in police custody until his arraignment before court this morning. According to his lawyer, a bail application has been denied.

PRESS RELEASE: Tanzania Should Immediately Release Digital Rights Activist Maxence Melo

By CIPESA Writer |
The police in Tanzania has detained Maxence Melo, a freedom of expression activist and co-founder of the popular online discussion platform, Jamii Forums. Although no charges have been brought against Melo, who was arrested at 1pm on Tuesday, December 13, his lawyer says the detention is an intimidation tactic on the backdrop of an ongoing case before the courts on the constitutionality of the Cybercrime Act of 2015.
The Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) strongly condemns this unjustifiable arrest, and urges Tanzanian authorities to immediately release Melo and henceforth cease any intimidation of Jamii Media (the company under which Jamii Forums is run), its staff, and other social media users. Melo’s arrest extends the steady and worrying deterioration in media freedom and internet freedom since President Pombe Magufuli took the reins of power at the end of last year. As one user on the platform noted, Jamii Forums provides Tanzanians with an alternative source of information in addition to “relying on traditional media outlets, which are increasingly becoming state-controlled.”
According to Melo’s lawyer, Benedict Alex Ishabakaki, the activist was arrested because of Jamii Media’s refusal to comply with police demands for disclosure of the identities of users who posted “sensitive information” on the platform. Last July, police officials issued a letter to Melo indicating intention to sue him for criminal liability for failure to comply with disclosure notices. In the letter, police put Melo on notice under Section 22 of the Cybercrimes Act 2015 for obstruction of investigations.
Section 22 of the Act states:
(1) A person who intentionally and unlawfully destroys, deletes, alters, conceals, modifies, renders computer data meaningless, ineffective or useless with intent to obstruct or delay investigation commits an offence and on conviction, is liable to a fine of not less than three million shillings or to imprisonment for a term not less than one year or both.
(2) A person who intentionally and unlawfully prevents the execution or fails to comply with an order issued under this Act, commits an offence and is liable, on conviction, to a fine of not less than three million shillings or to imprisonment for a term of not less than one year or to both.
See Cybercrimes Act 2015
A number of Tanzanian social media users have been charged under this law that took effect in September 2015. According to Ishabakaki, Jamii Media’s refusal to comply with the police disclosure notices was partly informed by a lack of regulations governing the Act. “At the time [the notices were issued], there were no mechanisms in place or procedures for disclosure of the requested information,” said Ishabakaki. Moreover, he added, “We refused to disclose the information because it is against the constitutional guarantees of individuals’ right to privacy under Article 18.”
In April 2016, after being issued with eight letters by Tanzanian police demanding the disclosure of the Internet Protocol (IP) addresses of users, Jamii Media went to court challenging the disclosure orders by the law enforcement agency. The users whose identities authorities sought were linked to bringing to light corruption scandals in the oil and banking sectors. According to the State of Internet Freedom in Africa 2016 report, the disclosure notices indicate a bias towards protecting notable figures implicated in scandals or against whom users have used profanities.
In its petition, Jamii Media challenged the arbitrary letters from the police and specifically the provisions of Section 32 and 38 of the Cybercrime Act that appear to infringe the right to be heard, the right to privacy and freedom of expression as provided for under the constitution. Initially, the government responded by raising six preliminary points of objection against the petition, which it termed frivolous and vexatious. The government stated that Jamii Media should explore other remedies rather than file a constitutional petition. During preliminary hearings, judges dismissed the objections and the case proceeded in court. A ruling on the case is due on February 20, 2017.
According to Ishabakaki, Melo’s detention tantamounts to police interference in the ongoing case, the issues of which are still before the constitutional court. “Police officers are misusing their power,” he said.
Prior to his arrest, Melo was summoned to appear in court, by way of telephone call. Upon arrival at the court, an officer told him to appear at a police station, where he was immediately detained.
“No charges have been filed. We were unable to apply for bail yesterday as the law requires detention for 24 hours before formal application of bail,” Ishabakaki told CIPESA on the morning of December 14. He added that police officials had indicated that Melo would appear in court this morning but as at 11am local time, this had not happened. “They are not prepared. It is just harassment. They want information from him,” said the lawyer.
Back in 2008, Melo, along with Jamii Forums co-founder Mike Mushi, were detained and interrogated by police for 24 hours in Dar es Salaam in what was believed to be a politically motivated attempt to shut down their site. Police confiscated computers used to host the website, causing it to go off air for five days while the equipment remained in police custody.
In September 2015, the Tanzania Human Rights Defenders Coalition (THRDC) filed a case challenging the constitutionality of some provisions of the Cybercrime Act, which it contends infringe constitutional provisions on freedom of expression, right to information, and privacy.
The Tanzanian government is accordingly urged to refrain from applying this law, or any other of the repressive laws that remain on its statute books, to gag legitimate expression by citizens be it in the online or offline domain.

#KeepitOn: Joint letter on the internet and the election in Gambia

Joint Letter |
President Yahya Jammeh
cc: Gambia Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA)
Gambia Permanent Mission to the United Nations
African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights
30 November 2016
Your Excellency,
We are writing to urgently request that you ensure the stability and openness of the internet during the forthcoming elections in Gambia on December 1. Elections represent the most critical moment in a democracy, and the internet enables free expression and the fulfillment of all human rights.
However, we have received unconfirmed reports through a variety of sources that your government intends to shut down the internet. We implore you to keep the internet on.
Research shows that internet shutdowns and state violence go hand in hand. [1] Shutdowns disrupt the free flow of information and create a cover of darkness that allows state repression to occur without scrutiny. Worryingly, Gambia would be joining an alarming global trend of government-mandated shutdowns during elections, a practice that many African Union member governments have recently adopted, including:  Burundi, Congo-Brazzaville, Egypt, Sudan, the Central African Republic, Niger, Democratic Republic of Congo. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]
Internet shutdowns — with governments ordering the suspension or throttling of entire networks, often during elections or public protests — must never be allowed to become the new normal.
Justified for public safety purposes, shutdowns instead cut off access to vital information, e-financing, and emergency services, plunging whole societies into fear and destabilizing the internet’s power to support small business livelihoods and drive economic development. In addition, a study by the Brookings Institution indicates that shutdowns drained $2.4 billion from the global economy last year. [9]
International Law
A growing body of jurisprudence declares shutdowns to violate international law. The United Nations Human Rights Council has spoken out strongly against internet shutdowns. In its 32nd Session, in July 2016, the Council passed by consensus a resolution on freedom of expression and the internet with operative language on internet shutdowns. The resolution, A/HRC/RES/32/13, “condemns unequivocally measures to intentionally prevent or disrupt access to or dissemination of information online in violation of international human rights law and calls on all States to refrain from and cease such measures.” The Council intended this clear declaration to combat the blocking and throttling of networks, applications, and services that facilitate the freedoms of expression, opinion, and access to information online. In addition, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights stated in its November 2016  Resolution on the Right to Freedom of Information and Expression on the Internet in Africa that it was “Concerned by the emerging practice of State Parties of interrupting or limiting access to telecommunication services such as the Internet, social media and messaging services, increasingly during elections.” [10]
In 2015, various experts from the United Nations (UN) Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), Organization of American States (OAS), and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR), issued an historic statement declaring that internet “kill switches” can never be justified under international human rights law, even in times of conflict. [11] General Comment 34 of the UN Human Rights Committee, the official interpreter of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, emphasizes that restrictions on speech online must be strictly necessary and proportionate to achieve a legitimate purpose. Shutdowns disproportionately impact all users, and unnecessarily restrict access to information and emergency services communications during crucial moments.
The internet has enabled significant advances in health, education, and creativity, and it is now essential to fully realize human rights including participation in elections and access to information.
We humbly request that you use the vital positions of your good offices to:

  • Ensure that the internet, including social media, remains on in Gambia throughout the election and beyond
  • Publicly declare your commitment to keep the internet on, including social media
  • Encourage telecommunications and internet services providers to respect human rights, including through public disclosures and transparency reports.

We are happy to assist you in any of these matters.
Sincerely,
Access Now
Association for Progressive Communications (APC)
CIPESA
Heliopolis Institute
Human Rights Foundation
iFreedom Uganda
Internet Sans Frontières
Media Foundation for West Africa
Paradigm Initiative Nigeria
Social Media Exchange (SMEX)
Strathmore University Centre for IP and It Law (CIPIT)
Unwanted Witness Uganda
 
[1] Sarah Myers West, ‘Research Shows Internet Shutdowns and State Violence Go Hand in Hand in Syria’ (Electronic Frontier Foundation, 1 July 2015)
<https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/06/research-shows-internet-shutdowns-and-state-violence-go-hand-hand-syria> accessed 18 February 2016.
[2] ‘Access urges UN and African Union experts to take action on Burundi internet shutdown’ (Access Now 29 April 2015) <https://www.accessnow.org/access-urges-un-and-african-union-experts-to-take-action-on-burundi-interne/> accessed 18 February 2016.
[3] Deji Olukotun, ‘Government may have ordered internet shutdown in Congo-Brazzaville’ (Access Now 20 October 2015) <https://www.accessnow.org/government-may-have-ordered-internet-shutdown-in-congo-brazzaville/> accessed 18 February 2016.
[4]  Deji Olukotun and Peter Micek, ‘Five years later: the internet shutdown that rocked Egypt’ (Access Now 21 January 2016) <https://www.accessnow.org/five-years-later-the-internet-shutdown-that-rocked-egypt/> accessed 18 February 2016.
[5] Peter Micek, ‘Update: Mass internet shutdown in Sudan follows days of protest’ (Access Now, 15 October 2013) <https://www.accessnow.org/mass-internet-shutdown-in-sudan-follows-days-of-protest/> accessed 18 February 2016.
[6] Peter Micek, ‘Access submits evidence to International Criminal Court on net shutdown in Central African Republic’(Access Now 17 February 2015) <https://www.accessnow.org/evidence-international-criminal-court-net-shutdown-in-central-african-repub/> accessed 18 February 2016.
[7] ‘Niger resorts to blocking in wake of violent protests against Charlie Hebdo cartoons.’ (Access Now Facebook page 26 January 2015) <https://www.facebook.com/accessnow/posts/10153030213288480> accessed 18 February 2016.
[8] Peter Micek, (Access Now 23 January 2015) ‘Violating International Law, DRC Orders Telcos to Cease Communications Services’ <https://www.accessnow.org/violating-international-law-drc-orders-telcos-vodafone-millicon-airtel/> accessed 18 February 2016.
[9] Darrell West, (Brookings Institution, October 2016) “Internet shutdowns cost countries $2.4 billion last year” https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/intenet-shutdowns-v-3.pdf
[10] African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, (November 2016) ‘362: Resolution on the Right to Freedom of Information and Expression on the Internet in Africa – ACHPR/Res. 362(LIX) 2016’ http://www.achpr.org/sessions/59th/resolutions/362/
[11] Peter Micek, (Access Now 4 May 2015) ‘Internet kill switches are a violation of human rights law, declare major UN and rights experts’ <https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2015/05/04/internet-kill-switches-are-a-violation-of-human-rights-law-declare-major-un> accessed 18 February 2016.

This join letter first appeared on the Access Now website