Cybercrime Laws, “False News” Offences, and Online Expression in Africa

By CIPESA Writer |

As African societies become increasingly digital, governments are grappling with the balance between the protection of citizens from online harms while preserving the fundamental freedoms of free expression, access to information and freedom to participate in governance.   

The legal tools adopted to address these challenges are raising an equally pressing concern. Cybercrime and so-called “false news” laws are increasingly extending beyond their stated purpose of combating digital harm and are instead being used to regulate political speech, suppress dissent, and narrow civic space.

This emerging tension sits at the heart of CIPESA’s latest policy brief, Cybercrime Laws, “False News” Offences, and Online Expression in Africa. Drawing on legislative developments, court decisions, and recent cases from select countries, the brief examines how cybercrime legislation has evolved into one of the defining governance issues of Africa’s digital era.

Many countries have introduced offences such as “false information”, “offensive communication”, “malicious communication”, and “harmful content”. While these provisions are often justified as necessary responses to online abuse, they frequently suffer from vague drafting and broad enforcement powers. This creates uncertainty about what constitutes unlawful speech and allows authorities considerable discretion in deciding who should face criminal investigation or prosecution.

In several African countries, journalists, activists, bloggers, opposition politicians, and ordinary citizens have been arrested or prosecuted for online expression that would ordinarily fall within the boundaries of legitimate public debate. At the same time, restrictions on online speech increasingly operate alongside expanding surveillance powers, internet shutdowns, and growing state control over digital communications, reinforcing broader patterns of digital authoritarianism.

Importantly, however, this is not simply a story of shrinking freedoms. Encouraging developments in several jurisdictions demonstrate that alternative approaches are both possible and necessary. Recent constitutional decisions in Uganda and Kenya have reaffirmed that restrictions on freedom of expression must be clearly defined, proportionate, and consistent with constitutional protections. Similarly, in Nigeria legislative reforms illustrate how sustained engagement by civil society can improve legal frameworks, even if implementation challenges persist.

These developments highlight an important policy lesson as to how regulation can effectively address genuine digital harms without criminalising legitimate expression or weakening democratic accountability.

This policy brief explores these issues in greater depth, examining the emerging patterns across Africa, the evolving role of national and regional courts, and the reforms needed to ensure that cybercrime regulation strengthens both digital security and democratic governance. It concludes that the future of digital freedom in Africa will depend on how governments, courts, regional institutions, and technology companies navigate this balance.

The brief sets out concrete recommendations for four groups of actors. Governments should repeal or amend vague offences, including those relating to false information, offensive communication, and similarly broad categories, that have been used to criminalise legitimate online expression. They should prioritise civil remedies over criminal sanctions in defamation and reputation-related disputes, refrain from imposing internet shutdowns, and ensure that any restrictions on freedom of expression comply with international human rights standards.

Legislators and regulators should ensure that cybercrime and digital governance laws comply with the principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality. They should also require human rights impact assessments before introducing new cybercrime or disinformation laws and establish meaningful public participation throughout the law-making processes. Laws developed without meaningful public scrutiny and civil society engagement are more likely to undermine rights than protect them.

Regional institutions should strengthen the monitoring and implementation of regional human rights commitments and promote common standards on digital rights and accountable digital governance to guide national legal reforms across the continent.

Finally, technology platforms should invest in African language content moderation and local contextual expertise, improve transparency around content moderation decisions and algorithmic decision making, and strengthen grievance and appeals mechanisms for users in African countries, where existing processes often remain inaccessible or ineffective.

Please read the full Policy Brief here.

Human Rights Implications of Health Care Digitalisation in Kenya

Policy brief |

This policy brief draws on the key findings of a human rights impact assessment of Digital Health Services to make concrete recommendations for a human rights-based digitalisation of health care services in Kenya.

Drawing on a human rights impact assessment conducted in October-November 2024, the brief shows how the transition from the National Health Insurance Fund (NHIF) to the Social Health Insurance Fund (SHIF) has faced significant challenges that impact the right to health, particularly for vulnerable and marginalised groups and addresses broader concerns as to the role of digitalisation in health care management and its implications for service delivery. 

Notably, Kenya’s journey towards a rights-based digital health system requires a coordinated approach that addresses infrastructure, regulatory enforcement, gender equality, and resource allocation and management. By adopting the recommendations found in this brief, Kenya can create a digital health environment that not only advances healthcare service delivery but also protects, promotes and respects the rights of all its citizens, particularly those most at risk of exclusion.

Recommendations on the NHIF-SHIF Transition

1. Enhance digital infrastructure: Fully operationalize the SHA platform and integrate it with existing systems like Kenya Health Information System and Kenya Electronic Medical Records.

2. Conduct public awareness campaigns: Educate citizens on SHA benefits and processes to dispel misinformation and encourage enrolment.

3. Expedite empanelment of facilities: Increase the accreditation of healthcare providers to ensure uninterrupted access to services.

4. Strengthen National-County coordination: Align roles, resources, and responsibilities to streamline service delivery under the devolved healthcare framework as stipulated under the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution.

5. Review contribution models: Adjust means-testing mechanisms to ensure affordability, especially for vulnerable and marginalized populations.

6. Prioritize capacity building: Train healthcare workers and Community Health Promoters to effectively navigate the transition and support beneficiaries.

7. Incorporate stakeholder feedback: Deliberately establish clear communication channels and include healthcare workers, vulnerable and marginalized groups in the design and implementation of SHA systems to promote inclusivity.

8. Clarify referral pathways: Define roles for various healthcare levels under the Primary Health Care Act to simplify patient navigation.

9. Ensure accountability and transparency: Regularly audit the transition to address and mitigate inefficiencies and restore public trust.

Read the full policy brief here.

Research Partners

The research into the human rights impacts of digital health services in Kenya was conducted in partnership between the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights – Kenya’s National Human Rights Institution, CIPESA – The Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa which works to promote effective and inclusive ICT policy, and the Danish Institute for Human Rights – Denmark’s national human rights institution which works internationally to address the human rights implications of technology use.

Report Documents A Decade of Internet Freedom in Africa

Announement | The Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) is proud to announce the launch of its 2023 edition of the State of Internet Freedom in Africa report titled, ‘A Decade of Internet Freedom in Africa: Recounting the Past, Shaping the Future of Internet Freedom in Africa’. This year marks a decade since the first State of Internet Freedom in Africa report was produced. Similarly, it marks a decade of the Forum on Internet Freedom in Africa (FIFAfrica) which has since 2014 served as the platform for the launch of every State of Internet Freedom in Africa report. 

This special edition honours the efforts of various state and non-state actors in the promotion of internet freedom in Africa. The report takes a deep dive into the dynamic landscape of internet freedom on the African continent and offers contextual information and evidence to inform ICT policymaking and practice, creates awareness on internet freedom issues on the continent, and shapes conversations by digital rights actors across the continent. 

Through a series of essays, authors in this special issue of the report reflect on the past 10 years on the state of Internet freedom in Africa, exploring various thematic issues around digital rights, including surveillance, privacy, censorship, disinformation, infrastructure, access, advocacy, online safety, internet shutdowns, among others. Authors featured in the report include, Admire Mare, Amanda Manyame, Blaise Pascal Andzongo Menyeng, Rima Rouibi, Victor Kapiyo, Felicia Anthonio. Richard Ngamita, Nanjala Nyabola, Professor Bitange Ndemo, Paul Kimumwe, and Edrine Wanyama.

The report maps the way ahead for digital rights in Africa and the role that different stakeholders need to play to realise the Digital Transformation Strategy for Africa and Declaration 15 of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development on leveraging digital technologies to accelerate human progress, bridge the digital divide, and develop knowledge societies.

The report was unveiled at the closing ceremony of the FIFAfrica which this year was held in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. 
Find the full report here.

Litigating Internet Disruptions in Africa: Lessons from Sudan

By CIPESA Writer |

Internet disruptions continue to be registered across Africa, despite efforts by local and international actors to demonstrate to telecommunications regulators and governments that it is counterproductive to human rights, the economy and democracy to disrupt digital communication networks.

In 2021, up to 12 African countries experienced state-ordered internet disruptions. These included Burkina Faso (November), Chad (February), Republic of Congo (March), eSwatini (June), Ethiopia (various), Niger (February), Nigeria (June), Senegal (March), South Sudan (August), Sudan (June and October), Uganda (January), and Zambia (August).

As internet disruptions have become more prevalent on the continent, strategic litigation against governments that order themand intermediaries, such as telecom operators and internet service providers (ISPs), that effect them, has gained recognition as a push back tool. Strategic litigation can lead to significant legal precedents by publicly uncovering inequalities and highlighting human rights violations, raising awareness, and bringing about reforms in legislation, policy, and practice.

However, as this brief argues, there are several obstacles to the successful litigation of internet disruption cases, including weaknesses among groups and individuals that submit applications, and case backlogs that impede timely adjudication of cases. Indeed, few cases of strategic litigation on internet disruptions have succeeded. Cases in Cameroon, Chad, and Uganda have been dismissed. In Zimbabwe, while the court in 2019 declared that an internet shutdown ordered during protests that year was illegal, the case was decided on procedural grounds without addressing the litigants’ grounds, such as rights violations due to the shutdown.

A notable progressive decision was the June 2020 ruling by the court of justice of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), which held that an internet shutdown ordered by the Togolese government during protests in 2017 was unlawful and violated the applicant’s right to freedom of expression. The court also ordered the Togolese government to pay two million CFA francs (USD 3,400) compensation to the applicants for the violation of their rights.

Litigating against shutdowns in Sudan

Perhaps more than any other African country, Sudan has made legal precedents arising from litigation against disruptions. Of note too, is that Sudan is only perhaps rivalled by Ethiopia in the number of shutdowns it has experienced in the last three years. Since 2019, the north African country has experienced six internet disruptions.

Former president Omar al-Bashir’s regime initiated internet disruptions during public protests calling for his overthrow, but the government that succeeded him has been more prolific in utilising shutdowns in response to criticism and protests. The longest disruption was recorded in 2019 and lasted 37 days, during which the country lost an estimated USD 1.9 billion. Over 100 protesters were reportedly killed during the time the shutdown was initiated. The latest shutdown started on October 25, 2021 and lasted 25 days. It was instituted after the military declared a state of emergency in the country and seized control of the government. The shutdown was ended by a court order.

The 2019 and 2021 disruptions were both challenged in court. In June 2019, Sudanese lawyer Abdelazim Hassan lodged a lawsuit against the internet shutdown that had been instituted earlier that month. Within two weeks of filing the case, court on June 23 ordered his service provider, Zain, to restore his internet service, which the ISP promptly did. However, service was only restored for the litigant’s SIM card, with the block on access maintained for the rest of Zain’s customers. This was because Hassan had filed the case in a personal capacity as a Zain customer.

Hassan then launched a class action suit, and on July 9, 2019 the court ordered MTN, Sudani and Zain to restore services for all their customers. The telecom providers complied promptly. In September 2019, court ordered Sudani and MTN to apologise to customers for disrupting access to their networks at the behest of the military authorities in June of that year.

Another win for litigants against internet disruptions came on November 11, 2021, when the general court of Khartoum ordered ISPs to restore internet services to all subscribers in response to a lawsuit raised by the Sudanese Consumer Protection Organisation. On the same day, the Telecommunication and Post Regulatory Authority (TPRA) insisted on maintaining the shutdown despite the court order, citing “national security” and a “State of Emergency” as justification. The authority argued that it was necessary to maintain the shutdown as ordered by “the higher leadership”, provided the state of emergency and threats to national security persisted.

The TPRA decision declining to restore internet connectivity cited article 6(j) and article 7(1) and article 7(2)(a) of the law of TPRA of 2018. Article 6(j) provides that one of TPRA’s mandate is “protecting the national security and the higher interests of Sudan in the field of Telecommunication, Post and ICT”. Articles 7(1) and 7(2)(a) state that among the powers of the TPRA is to protect the state’s obligations and requirements in the field of national security and defence, and national, regional and international policies, in coordination with the competent authorities and licensees.

The judge dismissed that argument and issued an arrest warrant for the chief executive officers of the telecom companies for not restoring internet access. On November 18, 2021, the telecom companies restored internet access for all subscribers. The various restoration orders and arrest warrants bring to four the key decisions taken by courts in Sudan that held the regulator, ISPs and the government to account. Further, unlike the Togo case which was adjudicated in the aftermath of the disruption, in Sudan the court issued orders during the disruption and brought it to an end.

Lessons from Sudan’s experience

  • Leaders of telecom companies can and should be held individually liable for actions of their companies. In Sudan’s case, an arrest warrant against leaders of telecom companies yielded compliance with a restoration order in spite of the telecom regulator’s directive to maintain the shutdown.
  • Powers of telecom regulators, who often cite vague grounds of national security in ordering disruptions, can be challenged in court even if the regulators cite the law in ordering an internet disruption.
  • It is essential for courts of law to adjudicate swiftly on internet shutdown cases. In Sudan’s case, it took two weeks of filing a case for court to order restoration of service to the litigant. In another two weeks, the court had ordered service providers to restore services to all customers.
  • Litigation’s target actions and actors need to be well-defined. Sudan has lessons on litigation that benefits individuals and others that benefit groups of users. Further, the targets of litigation action are varied, to include the regulator, a particular ISP or all ISPs, and other state bodies.
  • Intermediaries have appeared helpless in the face of government orders and have acquiesced to government orders even when their lawfulness is questionable. Holding them liable for losses to customers, such as the order by the Sudanese court that they apologise to customers, could make them think twice before implementing shutdown directives.

Towards an Accessible and Affordable Internet in Africa: Key Challenges Ahead

By Paul Kimumwe |

Over the last few years, Africa has experienced exponential growth in internet access spurred by mobile internet, which stood at 28% penetration  in 2020. However, internet access and affordability are still a major challenge for the majority of Africans, especially the rural poor, women, and persons with disabilities.

According to the State of Mobile Internet Connectivity 2021, Sub-Saharan Africa has the largest coverage gap (those living in areas without mobile broadband coverage) at 19%, which is more than three times the global average. While internet access has become more affordable, particularly through mobile phones, costs are still high and unaffordable to many in the region, who remain offline.

A new brief by CIPESA explores some of the retrogressive measures that undermine citizens’ rights to access a reliable and affordable internet in Lesotho, Mozambique, Tanzania, Uganda, Zimbabwe, and Zambia. Some of these measures include digital taxation that has led to increases in internet costs, registration and licensing of online users that imposes high licensing fees and tough penalties, network disruptions including internet shutdowns that lead to inaccessibility of the internet, and the failure to provide enabling infrastructure that exacerbates the digital divide.

Many governments have been eager to increase their tax base, particularly from the telecommunications sector and over-the-top (OTT) services, which they claim are eating into the revenues of licensed operators. Several other governments have slapped taxes on mobile phone handsets and other devices. These costs are passed on to consumers, thereby raising the cost of owning and using a mobile phone and accessing the internet.

In addition, the lack of an enabling infrastructure, including lack of access to reliable electricity, has been a major hurdle to broadband adoption in many African countries. It is  estimated that 45% of Africans live farther than 10 kilometres from the network infrastructure essential for online education, finance and healthcare services.

Network disruptions including internet shutdowns, internet throttling and social media blockages have recently become endemic in several African countries, and present yet another hurdle. Governments have sometimes shut down or restricted access to the internet or to social media platforms in an attempt to limit or control conversations online and prevent mobilisation for potential pro-democracy protests. The disruptions have mostly been initiated around election times, public protests, and during national exams.

Various countries have also adopted the registration and licensing of online users on whom they impose high licensing fees and tough penalties. This has forced many online users to abandon their platforms due to the high costs and threats of prosecution. Many of those who are online routinely practice self-censorship for fear of attracting reprisals.

The lack of internet access requires immediate counter action by several countries especially given the overbearing effects of digital exclusion caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. Countries with better access to online platforms for business and education are reaping faster economic rebounds compared to unconnected economies. The internet plays a vital role in the realisation of human development and facilitates the enjoyment of several human rights and freedoms, including the right to freedom of expression and information, the right to education, the right to assembly and association.

According to the brief, African governments need to recognise and nurture the true potential of the internet in driving inclusive economic growth and development, as well as digital transformation, especially in the post-Covid pandemic era. This calls for robust investments in internet infrastructure, digital literacy and refraining from taking actions that undermine the transformative potential of digital technologies.

See the full brief here.