Blog – Page 36 of 158 – Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA)

12Oct

FIFAfrica21: Africa Must be Assertive in International Cybercrime Negotiations

CIPESA October 12, 2021

By Apolo Kakaire |

Local nuances, technology neutrality and cross-border cooperation should be at the heart of multi-stakeholder negotiations by African states as part of the United Nations (UN) process on elaborating an international convention on cybercrime. This is according to experts who brainstormed on how African stakeholders can contribute to the planned negotiations, and the role African civil society organisations can play in this process.

Speaking at a session on Africa and the Future of International Cybercrime Cooperation as part of the eighth edition of the Forum on Internet Freedom in Africa (FIFAfrica), Dr. Katherine Getao, the Chief Executive Officer of the Information and Communication Technology Authority of Kenya, stated that African countries have grown some capacity and are better equipped to negotiate in international norm-setting fora. However, she urged states not to “just send lawyers and diplomats” but assemble balanced teams including technical experts that enrich the negotiations.

According to Dr. Getao, while contexts vary between the different countries on the continent, given the complexity of cybercrime, it is imperative that African countries strategically focus on what works for their countries to ensure clarity on priorities. Moreover, she called for a local process to coordinate participation in the international process but also to ensure eventual implementation of the agreed conventions.

George-Maria Tyendezwa, the Africa Group Vice Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee to Elaborate a Comprehensive International Convention on Countering the Use of Information and Communications Technologies for Criminal Purposes, urged African countries to engage with the negotiations “irrespective of their installed capacity”. Since countries are at different levels of growth in the area of cybercrime, cooperation would enable continued peer learning.

Globally, Ransomware attacks have surged drastically with damage estimated to hit USD 6 trillion in 2021. Such attacks and other cybercrimes affect all countries, but in Africa, weak network infrastructure security especially within financial institutions, governments, and e-commerce companies makes countries especially vulnerable. In March 2021 Interpol established the African Joint Operation Against Cybercrime (AFJOC), a project to drive intelligence-led, coordinated actions against cybercrime and its perpetrators in African member countries.

Speakers at the FIFAfrica21 session acknowledged that the African cybercrimes landscape presents unique challenges related to detection and investigations, and poor technical capacity among law enforcement officials to retrieve evidence to support criminal prosecution. Given the transnational nature of cybercrime, international cooperation at infrastructure level is key in the recovery of evidence to prosecute perpetrators.

However, the regulatory framework for international cooperation on cybercrime remains weak and fraught with lack of commitment. For instance, while the Budapest Convention is 20 years old, only 66 countries have ratified it across the world. Similarly, the Malabo Convention whose implementation in Africa requires 15 ratifications has only registered eight so far.

Citing the example of the cost of cybercrime in Africa, which in comparison to other economies and the monetary threshold of cybercrime under international law may seem paltry, Michael Ilishebo, a Digital Forensic Analyst and Cyber Crime Investigator with the Zambia Police Service, emphasised that the legal framework governing cybercrime on the continent should be home- grown and resonate with the region’s crime patterns. To strengthen their bargaining power during negotiations, however, African states need to develop national and regional positions and synchronise these with the UN ad hoc committee. “We should have a consensus on [the] Malabo [Convention] before we start talking about Budapest. We should first ensure that African cyberspace is safe before we rush to the UN,” said Ilishebo.

For her part, Tatiana Tropina from Leiden University said negotiations should ensure that frameworks are technology neutral so as to deal with emerging unanticipated aspects. By defining illegal conduct irrespective of the medium, technology neutral legislation would give some certainty to criminal justice. “When the instrument at the global level says this is what should be stopped, this should trigger domestication which can vary in as much as it does not violate the agreed principles,” said Tropina.

On the multi-faceted approach to tackling cybercrime, Dr. Getao emphasised that focus should not only be on individual perpetrators but also technology service providers who expose consumers to crimes. “There are civil and criminal aspects that should be taken into account,” she said. As such, a truly global solution must be developed in a participatory way, balancing law enforcement, foreign policy and human rights interests.

Among the suggested ways to achieve the balance was consensus on key principles, clarity that emerging concerns resonate with existing principles, and human rights due diligence as part of the processes. “Vulnerable communities take the main brunt of cybercrime and this must be taken into consideration as duties of states to guarantee non-discrimination, fair trial, respect for human rights law, access to information and to legal attorney,” said Klara Jordan, the Chief Public Policy Officer of the Cyber Peace Institute. The Institute has recently launched a Multi-stakeholder Manifesto as a guide ahead of treaty negotiations at the UN.

Ultimately, cybercrime should be considered beyond law enforcement and include the perspectives of civil society who also have a role to play in the implementation of conventions and yet also happen to be victims. “Civil society and individuals being part of the solution is very key and governments must open up,” said Jordan.

30Sep

How State Surveillance is Stifling Democratic Participation in Africa: State of Internet Freedom in Africa Study Findings

CIPESA Writer September 30, 2021

FIFAfrica21 |

As African countries embrace digital technologies, there is growing concern that the rising state surveillance, which is partly being enabled by the same digital technologies, is undermining African citizens’ digital rights and hindering their willingness to meaningfully participate in democratic processes.

One of the “democratising effects” of the internet was that it had provided a safe and alternative engagement platform that could help circumvent and diminish the repressive state’s control over the means of communication, thereby enabling greater organising and expression of dissenting opinions. However, autocrats in the region have appropriated the power of digital technologies to stifle dissent and to ramp up their capabilities to snoop on, punish, and silence critical and dissenting forces.

According to the 2021 State of Internet Freedom in Africa report by the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA), surveillance has become a principal threat to digital rights in Africa, a weakening force to civil society and independent voices, and ultimately a driver of authoritarianism. The study maps the prevalent forms of surveillance, the laws that aid surveillance, and the impact of state surveillance on the ability of individuals and organisations to organise, mobilise, and engage in democratic processes.

Both physical surveillance and digital surveillance have for several years been prevalent in the countries studied. However, the study shows that digital surveillance is expanding in scope, with several countries now deploying spyware, drones, and video surveillance (CCTV), as well as social media monitoring, mobile phone location tracking, and the hacking of mobile phones, messaging, and email applications.

The abuse of surveillance is rife in countries with high levels of impunity for rights violations and a low level of accountability for the actions of the government and its institutions. In virtually all countries studied, not only has surveillance become commonplace but the right to communicate anonymously in digital spaces has been profoundly eroded through mandatory SIM card registration and creation of inter-linked databases for national ID, voters’ registers, and other services provisions.

Government critics including leading opposition leaders, human rights defenders and activists who do human rights and governance work, as well as investigative journalists, remain prominent targets of state surveillance.

Enablers of State Surveillance

Many countries have enacted various laws that permit surveillance, mandate telecommunication intermediaries to facilitate the interception of communication, stipulate the mandatory collection of biometric data, limit the use of encryption, require the “localisation” of personal data, and grant law enforcement agents broad search and seizure powers.

In countries such as Chad, Malawi, Senegal, Tanzania, Tunisia and Zambia, laws prohibit offering encryption services without licensing, and in other cases, encryption service providers are required to decrypt any encrypted information that they hold to aid lawful interception. Moreover, while all countries have laws that facilitate lawful surveillance, many of these laws have pervasive flaws, are partially implemented, indiscriminately applied, and widely abused.

While democratic participation is based on free will and freedom, the study found that the law has been instrumentalised in many countries including Uganda, Rwanda, Nigeria, Ghana, and Tanzania, to intimidate and to carry out arbitrary arrests and detention, prosecution, and persecution of individuals. The limited oversight over surveillance activity, where the actions of those who conduct illegal surveillance remain shrouded in secrecy with limited accountability for their actions, or redress for victims of surveillance, remains of concern.

Impact on Democratic Participation

The overreach effect of increased surveillance across the region is the curtailment of rights to freedom of expression, access to information, association and assembly, and diminished appetite for participation in democratic processes.

Undermining the Right to Freedom of Expression and Access to Information

The rights to freedom of expression and access to information are critical to meaningful democratic participation and civic engagement. The inability to freely express oneself has a direct impact on democratic participation since it limits an individual’s engagement in political discussions and the capacity to influence others, especially during periods of political contestation, as well as limiting engagement in civic spaces.

The fear of repercussions associated with surveillance curtails the rights of individuals who have been victims of surveillance to freely express themselves. The study shows that this fear has forced human rights defenders, activists, government critics and journalists into self-censorship, to be less vocal, and to limit expression of their opinions especially on debates on political affairs.

Infringing on the Right to Privacy of Communications

Surveillance intrudes on the privacy of individuals and has become a means through which fear is instilled in political activists, the opposition, HRDs and the public. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the right to privacy is not only impacted by the examination or use of information about a person by a human or an algorithm. Rather, even the mere generation and collection of data relating to a person’s identity, family or life already affects the right to privacy, as through those steps an individual loses some control over information that could put his or her privacy at risk.

Overall, surveillance has undermined the ability of democracy actors to use digital communication channels – some have stopped using the channels to communicate altogether or have restricted their communications. Further, it has increased their costs on communication and operations generally..

Curtailing Freedom of Assembly and Association

The right to freedom of assembly and association is intricately linked to the rights and ability to freely express oneself, seek information, and mobilise. The curtailment of these freedoms can be felt in the individuals’ withdrawal from active engagements with peers, their representatives to parliament and other political actors. The study shows that the rights to assembly and association have been limited for victims of state surveillance and other democracy actors.

The study found that victims of surveillance and those who closely work with or associate with them, tended to take an overly cautious approach due to fear of repercussions such as being arbitrarily arrested, prosecuted, and detained.

The ability to organise and mobilise for activities, especially political meetings, is among the aspects that have been adversely affected by state surveillance. Some actors have resorted to organising meetings online as opposed to physically, and only with trusted individuals, which has affected the reach and effectiveness of such meetings and the mobilising power of such actors.

Effect on the Work of Organisations

According to the report, state surveillance has adversely affected the work of organisations, making it difficult for them to achieve their goals including gathering information and mobilising for activities. Some organisations were affected by disruptions of their activities, including being evicted from their offices by landlords at the request of state officials.

In addition, the costs of running the organisations had gone up, due to the level of financial investments made towards implementing safety and security measures. Organisation staff lost precious energy and time worrying about surveillance, and felt controlled and less free in undertaking their work. Some organisations scaled down their work especially on governance issues.

Impact on Personal Life and Relations

The impact of surveillance goes beyond affecting peoples’ ability to meaningfully participate in democratic processes, to their personal life and relations. Individuals who were targets of state surveillance had relationships with their family, friends and society affected. Many of them lamented their lack of a social life as they could no longer make new friends, visit their old friends or family members, invite them to their homes, or be seen with them in public.

The research found widespread fear among the respondents, including their families, friends, and colleagues because of the surveillance they had experienced, or due to the apprehension of ongoing or future surveillance. Surveillance of their communication, lives and work had affected their psychological well-being and mental health in various ways. The mental toll of surveillance had resulted in constant and increased feelings of anxiety, anguish, stress, worry, depression, paranoia, fear, isolation, danger, risk, hurt, and insecurity.

There was widespread fear among respondents of repercussions for expressing opinions, in the form of threats, harassment, arrest, attacks, abduction, detention, prosecution, death, and making their family, friends and associates targets of state action.

The study makes the following key recommendations:

Governments should repeal, amend or review existing laws, policies and practices on surveillance, interception of communication, biometric data collection, and limitations on the use of encryption to ensure compliance with the established international minimum standards on human rights and communications surveillance.
Judiciaries and Parliaments need to proactively check the excesses of the state and its agencies in surveillance to ensure accountability and transparency of the executive arms of government.
Civil society organisations (CSOs) should continue to investigate, document, and expose data and privacy breaches such as unauthorised access, surveillance and non-compliance by data collectors, controllers and processors.
CSOs should engage in strategic public interest litigation through collaborative efforts to challenge laws, measures and acts that violate privacy rights and push for policies and practices reforms that uphold privacy.
Organisations under threat of surveillance should enhance their internal digital capacity and build capacity of their staff in digital literacy, cyber hygiene, physical and digital security and data protection measures; and how to manage new surveillance measures and other emerging threats to digital rights.
Intermediaries should regularly publish, update and widely disseminate privacy policies and transparency reports and inform users about the collection, use, handling, sharing and retention of their data and the measures taken to protect their right to privacy.

27Sep

Africa Law Tech Festival 2021: CIPESA Underscores Strategies to Cutting Through Common Emerging Barriers To Access To Justice Despite the Covid-19 Pandemic

CIPESA September 27, 2021February 11, 2023

By the Lawyers hub |

At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, governments across Africa implemented measures to curb the spread of the virus that greatly disrupted judicial processes, slowing down access to justice. Such measures include suspension of all in- person court activities like mentions, hearings and appeals as well as execution of court judgements. Gradually, courts looked to adopting technological measures to aid in the delivery of justice; measures which despite the noble intentions, had to be grounded in law.

These developments informed the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA)’s masterclass at the second edition of the Africa Law Tech Festival, a five-day annual conference that convenes different stakeholders in Africa to deliberate on digital policy issues. In line with this year’s theme, ‘Digital Policy for Economic Growth’, the class explored The Role of Lawyers and Courts digital access to Justice amidst the Covid 19 Pandemic. CIPESA affirmed that for many African countries, the basis for e-justice can be founded on the supreme law- the Constitution. In July 2020, the Supreme Court of Nigeria ruled in favour of virtual courts and dismissed suits by Lagos and Ekiti States in which they sought to have virtual courts declared unconstitutional and null and void.

Since the emergence of COVID-19, the African Judicial system has greatly changed. Courts have developed guidelines and practice notes for development of virtual courts and adopted online case management systems. As at December 2020, at least 20 African states had adopted e-filing and e-service and incorporated virtual hearings. Despite these successes, there are various challenges inhibiting the growth and adoption of virtual courts in Africa including:

The costs of acquisition of hardware and software needed for virtual courts. Africa has the lowest internet penetration rate caused by high cost of services and connectivity devices. In 2020, the Alliance for Affordable Internet reported that Africa had the least affordable smart devices globally costing about 62.8% of individual monthly income. Unaffordable devices raise the cost of connectivity for most Africans, pushing many offline. Conversely, those offline are not able to effectively utilize and participate in virtual courts, thus limiting access to justice. In Uganda, the judiciary obtained support from the UNDP to purchase zoom licenses. In Kenya, the judiciary partnered with the Ministry of ICT to acquire licenses for teleconferencing facilities and technical officers to provide support in respective court stations.

Africa’s increasing digital divide has further degenerated access to justice. The International Telecommunication Union reports that Africa has the lowest percentage of persons using the internet globally. Moreover, urban areas have twice as much home internet access than rural areas. Despite having internet access, the reliability may be affected by constant power outages. Other justice actors like prisons would also need to be meaningfully connected. Previous efforts to implement the e-filling system and virtual courts by the judiciary in Kenya were slowed down due to lack of digital infrastructure and unreliable electricity in courts. As the adoption of virtual courts becomes widespread, it is crucial to ensure accessibility for all by addressing issues of digital infrastructure, device and broadband affordability otherwise justice would be discriminatory and a violation of their right to access to justice.

Law and policies regulating the internet are not favourable. For instance, taxation of the internet leads to high data costs which in most cases aggravates digital exclusion. In 2021, Uganda replaced the unpopular social media tax of 200 shillings (USD 0.02) by introducing a 12% excise duty on the internet. In 2018 Zambia introduced a daily tax of USD 0.03 on internet voice calls following research that 80% of the citizens were using internet voice calls like WhatsApp, Skype and Viber. Recently, Kenya raised excise duty on internet services by from 15% to 20% further raising the cost of internet. Such tax raises the cost of the internet, decreasing affordability for most citizens. Limitation on access and usage stifles innovation and ultimately access to justice as litigants would also be required to meet these high costs whether directly or indirectly.

While digital security is important for a safe digital space, there has been a rise in cybercrimes during the COVID-19 pandemic. This includes malware that was previously dormant. The Communication Authority of Kenya reported a 152.9% increase in cybercrimes during the pandemic as cyber criminals exploit vulnerable computer systems. With recent cyberattacks in Uganda’s financial system as well as South Africa’s healthcare, there is concern over capacity to deal with cyberattacks given the sensitivity of judicial proceedings. Cyberattacks and crime are usually associated with a chilling effect on the use of digital platforms.

Meanwhile lack of the required digital skills pose a challenge to use of ICTs. While the goal remains to leave no one in Africa offline, African participation may be hindered by lack of digital skills. According to a study by the International Finance Corporation, by 2030, over 200 million jobs in Africa will require digital skills. This means that Africans should strive to have the basic skills required that allows for full participation in virtual court system such as the filing of documents or attendance of virtual hearings. This is especially so in critical times like the pandemic where isolation could cause one to be away from those with the digital skills.

From the aforementioned highlights, it is necessary to undertake practice measures that harness access and use of technology for justice. This would in turn lead to maximization of the benefits of e-justice. Similarly, governments should undertake a favourable licensing policy and legal frameworks that encourage investment and connectivity in ICTs.

27Sep

Africa Law Tech Festival 2021: CIPESA Demystifies the Role Of Lawyers And Courts In Ensuring Digital Access To Justice Amidst The Covid-19 Pandemic

CIPESA September 27, 2021February 11, 2023

By the Lawyers hub |

The Collaboration on International ICT Policy for Eastern and Southern Africa (CIPESA) administered a masterclass at the Africa Law Tech Festival 2021, which is hosted yearly by the Lawyers Hub. The CIPESA team was represented by Edrine Wanyama and Prof. Anthony Kakooza, who discoursed the effects of COVID-19 on the Justice sector. The session interrogated the various responses by different African States; the challenges faced, and possible recommendations to ensure timely access to justice for all, amidst the pandemic.

While lawyers and courts, including court officials, play an important role in facilitating access to justice, COVID-19 and the ardent restrictions that came with it, fundamentally affected this role. Courts could no longer be physically accessed; clients could not fulfill their obligations and witnesses could not undertake their roles. In the circumstances, technology-based alternatives for enhanced access to justice have emerged.

Over the past year there have been multiple opportunities and initiatives for innovation in the justice sector in Africa. Edrine Wanyama began by pointing out that the advent of COVID-19 has seen a shift from the traditional approaches of administering justice to E-Justice approaches which do not necessarily require physical interface and meetings.

In Kenya, the courts were quick to embrace the use of digital technology with the Practice Directions on Electronic Case Management being gazetted as early as 24th March 2020.[1] The electronic case management system’s interface allows lawyers, law firms and individuals to register through the e-filing portal on the Judiciary website or through e-citizen portal while also allowing judicial officers access to court documents and issue rulings through the portal or email. The use of video and audio conferencing through virtual platforms such as Zoom or Skype has also been integrated into the system.[2]

Nigeria’s National Judicial Council (NJC)[3] issued Guidelines for Court Sittings and Related Matters in COVID19 Period to guide the courts in implementing remote justice systems, amongst other COVID-19 related measures. Rwanda’s judiciary also outlined an Integrated Electronic Case Management System. The Online Cases Division clearly outlines the purpose of the Integrated Electronic Case Management System, benefits, account creation, case filing and follow up, a self-service user manual and video recording on how to access the system.[4].

Prof. Kakooza further delved into the various tech-innovations which have been motivated by COVID-19 to promote access to justice despite the associated challenges. The professor stated that the use of online court systems and videoconferencing to hear and determine cases had narrowed the gap between the courts and the affected individuals who no longer have to travel to courtrooms to have their matters heard. Further, the use of Online Records Management systems has made the process more efficient and accelerated the adjudication of matters and rendering of judgments via email. This has thus cut down on the case backlog and undoubtedly promoted access to justice.

However, the adoption of tech facilitated justice has not come without its challenges. In Kenya, for instance, most people do not have access to the internet and neither are they familiar with the technology in use by the courts.[5] As of January 2021, only a mere 26% of the Ugandan population used the internet[6] and as a majority of the country was unable to access the internet and geographical discrepancies forced courts to transfer cases to those capable of facilitating smooth video conferencing facilities.

While video conferencing has acted as a substitute for physical court appearances, the assessment of non-verbal cues such the defendants’ emotions and eye movements to gauge credibility is limited when compared to physical court appearance.[7] Additionally, virtual court appearances do not allow for proper detection of signs of torture and ill-treatment of accused persons and may also potentially skew the criminal justice system against persons deprived of freedom as they may feel intimidated and lack confidence when they are not able to physically appear before a judge. This would ultimately lead to a breakdown in the justice process and negatively contribute to access to justice across the region.

Furthermore, due to the digital divide and increased exclusion, access to justice for certain groups has not been possible. Exclusion on the continent is facilitated by factors such as high internet costs,[8] not being able to afford the right technology like a laptop or smartphone, lack of access to information or communication and weak ICT infrastructure[9]. Additionally, unreliable internet connectivity and provision is prevalent in remote localities, resulting in virtual courts being out of reach for rural and marginalized communities in Africa.[10]

In addition to the fore highlighted challenges, data protection and privacy has become a major concern for tech users across the continent with laws falling short of robust protection standards such as for Botswana,[11] Kenya[12], Lesotho[13], Nigeria,[14] Rwanda,[15] Uganda,[16] and Zambia[17] among others. For instance, there are data security concerns which potentially stem from the use of virtual courtrooms, digital storage of case records and the protection of personal information relating to litigants and witnesses and the evidence they provide in the courtroom.

In spite of the challenges that come with access to justice in the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, the need to build a versatile technological adaptation and resilience of our judicial systems is critical for the promotion of access to justice on the Continent. The embrace of technology is indeed the path towards a digital legal ecosystem. It is also one that will require proactivity from all the stakeholders involved and the strengthening of cross-border interactions that support access to justice in Africa. The adoption of policies that contribute to lower internet costs, and embrace as well as facilitate the use of technology across the internet is indeed no less a venture to embark on. Public private partnerships and the integration of uniform e-justice systems across the Continent also require similar attention if the desired justice system is to be realized.

You can find the session’s recording here.

24Sep

FIFAfrica21: Tackling Cybersecurity on the African continent

CIPESA Writer September 24, 2021

FIFAfrica21 |

EU Cyber Direct will on September 29, 2021 convene a session on Africa and the Future of International Cybercrime Cooperation as part of the eighth edition of the Forum on Internet Freedom in Africa (FIFAfrica).

According to the Africa Center, African governments face a fast-evolving array of digital threats including espionage, critical infrastructure sabotage and organised crime. The attacks come from a broad range of actors including lone-wolf hackers and criminal syndicates through to foreign governments. Reports indicate that the Covid-19 pandemic has accelerated digitisation on the continent leading to cybercriminals stepping up attacks given the limitations on security infrastructure and capacity, with financial institutions and telecom companies in particular suffering huge losses.

The estimated economic cost of cybercrime in Africa is USD3.5 billion, and it affects the livelihoods and well-being of millions of people, businesses and communities annually. Due to the global footprint that defines cybercrime, there is a shared transnational responsibility that requires international cooperation and coordination to address the phenomenon. While the United Nations Third Committee has initiated a process mandated with elaborating an international convention on cybercrime, many states are still struggling to understand how this new process fits within existing efforts and what their position should be.

The EU Cyber Direct session will work to identify the priorities of African countries for the upcoming negotiations. The session will also brainstorm on how African stakeholders can contribute to the planned negotiation process, and the role African civil society organisations can play in this process.

As part of efforts to combat cybercrime in Africa, the African Union under its Agenda 2063 that was adopted in 2014 recognises cybersecurity as a key priority to ensure that new technologies are used for the good and prosperity of individuals and institutions on the continent. The session is thus timely and will bring synergies to the other on-going efforts towards a more secure cyberspace on the African continent.

The speaker line up includes representatives from Chatham House, Swansea University, Cyber Peace Institute, and the Zambia Police Service.

FIFAfrica 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. This year’s forum, which runs from September 27 to 30 2021, is hosted by the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) with support from Ford Foundation, Sigrid Rausing Trust (SRT), Omidyar Network, Small Media, Internews, the European Union Institute for Security Studies (EU ISS), and the Slovenian Presidency of the Council of the European Union.

Registration for FIFAfrica21 remains open.

Previous page 1 … 34 35 36 37 38 … 158 Next page