Promoting Effective and Inclusive ICT Policy in Africa

Blog

  HomeCollaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA)  /  Blog
09Apr

Telcos in Nigeria and Kenya Should Address Exclusion of Persons With Disabilities

Author admin Posted on

By CIPESA Writer |
In January 2019, after nine years in the making, Nigeria signed into law the Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities (Prohibition) Act, 2018. In Kenya, a similar framework had been signed into law in 2003. Both laws were aimed at promoting a more inclusive society for persons with disabilities.
Sections 24 and 25 of the Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities (Prohibition) Act 2018 require the government to ensure that persons with disabilities are given special considerations, including provision of special communication emergencies.
On the other hand, Kenya’s constitution outlaws’ discrimination on the grounds of disability, under article 27(4). Under article 54, it emphasizes that a person with a disability shall be entitled to treatment with respect and dignity, access to educational institutions and facilities, reasonable access to all places, public transport and information, and access materials and devices including for communications. Additionally, Kenya’s National ICT Policy of 2016 outlines, under article 13, strategies for “an accessible ICT environment in the country in order to enable persons with disabilities to take full advantage of ICTs.”
However, despite these constitutional and other legal provisions, telecom operators in the two countries have largely failed to address the digital communication needs of persons with disabilities.
At least 7% of Nigeria’s (25 million people) and 3.5% of Kenya’s population (1.3 million people) are recognized by countries’ national census as persons with disabilities. Yet major operators – with the exception of Safaricom in Kenya – have failed to make their services accessible to a large section of this customer segment.
Section 15(1) of the Consumer Code of Practice Regulations 2007 issued by the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) requires telcos to ensure that the interests of consumers with disabilities are fully taken into account in developing and providing their services. However, leading telcos MTN Nigeria and Airtel Nigeria, which jointly have a 75% share of the telecom market share, have done little to fulfil this requirement.
In both countries, whereas the outlets of the telecom companies assessed were physically accessible to persons with disabilities, there was a stark lack of training for sales and customer services staff in serving persons with disabilities. In total, ten companies in five countries were assessed, including Safaricom and Wananchi Telecom (Kenya), Airtel Nigeria and MTN Nigeria, along with others in Botswana, South Africa, and Uganda. The assessment was guided by a tool that drew assessment criteria from the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) Model Accessibility Policy 2014, the Web and Mobile Content Accessibility Guidelines developed by the World Wide Web Consortium, and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).
The telecom companies were assessed on various facets of promoting digital accessibility, such as availability of accessible handsets and other mobile devices embedded with accessibility features; physical accessibility of sales and customer service outlets of the telecom operators; and whether the operators trained their staff to serve customers with disabilities.
In Nigeria, despite its high population of persons with disabilities, the Joint National Association of Persons Living with Disabilities (JONAPWD) reported that there were barely any accessible and affordable devices offered for sale by telecom companies. Equally, the telecom companies had not made any efforts to offer accessible services.
In contrast, Safaricom in Kenya had put considerable effort in sensitivity training and upskilling its staff in the provision of services to persons with disabilities. Further, it created a database of its customers with visual impairment and once they call its customer service numbers, they are connected to customer care agents trained to cater to them.
In December 2017, Safaricom introduced the Interactive Voice Response (IVR) that enabled visually impaired customers to manage their M-Pesa transactions; and in November 2018, it launched the DOT Braille Watch, which displayed SMS notifications in braille, enabling the visually impaired to use M-Pesa services without having to seek assistance from third parties. Safaricom had also committed to employing more persons with disabilities and as of April 2019, it reported that 2.1% of its employees were persons with disabilities (up from 1.7% in 2018), with ambitions of reaching 5% in coming years.
Given the potential of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) to make significant improvements in the lives of persons with disabilities, telecom operators need to address their concerns regarding the operators’ services and products. They should provide public information or communication in accessible formats such as Braille, large print, visual and audio formats; understand the numbers and needs of their customers with disabilities so that they build focused products and services to suit these customers; ramp up sensitivity training for staff, including in basic sign language; and improve availability for sale of affordable mobile telecommunication devices with accessible features.
Further, telecom companies should form partnerships with academia, civil society, disability rights organisations, tech developers and innovators as well as device manufacturers to develop accessible mobile communication solutions. Finally, operators in Kenya, Nigeria and elsewhere in Africa should look to Safaricom and Vodacom South Africa for learning examples on how to proactively and consistently work to improve digital accessibility and build partnerships that improve service provision to persons with disabilities.
See the full report here.

24Mar

Namibia and Sierra Leone’s Digital Rights Record to be Assessed at the 38th Session of the Universal Peer Review

Author admin Posted on

By Edrine Wanyama |

Namibia and Sierra Leone are among the countries that will undergo their Universal Periodic Review (UPR) at the upcoming 38th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council slated to take place in May 2021. The two countries have distinct human rights and governance track records, accompanied by  increasing digitalisation, making it important that the UPR recommendations for both states reflect the need for the protection of fundamental freedoms both online and offline.

Despite being coastal countries with direct connection to  submarine cables, internet penetration rates remain low – 36.8% in Namibia and 13.2 % in Sierra Leone. Namibia continues to suffer from high income inequality which exacerbates internet affordability and  service delivery. These factors contribute to its poor ranking at 84 out of the 100 countries assessed as part of  the 2020 Inclusive Internet Index on internet availability, affordability, relevance of content and readiness. For its part, Sierra Leone ranks at 57 out of 61 countries assessed by the Alliance for Affordable Internet on  internet affordability. Prevailing challenges include poor service delivery and reported  misappropriation of funds.

                See insights on digital access by our Africa Digital Rights Fund (ADRF) Grantee, Global Voices

Out of the 218 recommendations made to Namibia by 88 countries in the second cycle of the UPR in 2016, only one reference was made to freedom of expression and the press. Understandably, it is the highest ranked African country  on the global press freedom index – 23rd in  2019 and 2020 out of 180 countries assessed. Namibian Courts have also been instrumental in upholding freedom of expression and other related rights as reflected in a judgment in which an appeal by the Namibia Central Intelligence Service (NCIS) that sought to stop the publication of an article about corruption was dismissed. Similarly, the Supreme Court in 2018 ruled that the collection of licensed operators’ turnover by the Communications Regulatory Authority of Namibia was unconstitutional since the Universal Service Fund which is provided for by Section 57 of the Communications Act, 2009 (Act No. 8 of 2009) was not operational yet.

Nonetheless, there are freedom of expression challenges in Namibia including government threats to media independence, harsh criticisms of the media, calls to gag social media under the guise of  fighting misinformation and cybercrime, and preferential treatment accorded to state-owned media. Further, there are reported cases of harassment, assault and threats against media practitioners such as the assault of two journalists by the President’s Security Unit during the opening of the Covid-19 isolation facility. During the elections in 2019, there were blatant attacks on media practitioners over alleged influence of elections, while the government warned citizens against bullying and irresponsible use of social media platforms, which purportedly endangers lives. The publication of false or misleading statements on Covid-19 was outlawed in April 2020 with a potential penalty of a fine of up to 2,000 Namibian Dollars (USD 134) or imprisonment of up to six months. Since the outlaw, various incidents of arrests and detention of citizens have been reported.

On access to information, Namibia’s proposed access to information bill contains wide ranging exemptions that could negatively impact on the exercise of digital rights and freedoms if passed into law. Some of the notable exemptions include information and records pertaining to national security, proceedings of the cabinet, confidentiality of judicial functions, and information in possession of some public bodies.

In comparison, at the second UPR cycle, Sierra Leone received 213 recommendations from 88 countries, of which  seven recommendations were on freedom of expression. Ranked at 85 on the global press freedom index, the country continues to grapple with press freedom as witnessed in the arrests and arbitrary detention of individuals over online expression on allegations of incitement and subversion, false news and defamation. Moreover, the recent Independent Media Commission (IMC) Act 2020 creates room for censorship of media by empowering the Independent Media Commission to shut down media houses on ambiguous grounds of “public interest”. In July 2019, the IMC threatened  to suspend 12 media houses for non-payment of fines.

Progressive developments in Sierra Leone have included the cabinet move to decriminalise defamation and libel by repealing Part V of the Public Order Act . However, there have been instances where freedom of expression online has been undermined. In March 2018, the internet was shut down on the general election day consequently denying party affiliates an opportunity to receive results from the National Electoral Commission, and citizens and the media the opportunity to engage freely at this critical time. This block to digital access to information was contrary to Sierra Leone’s Access to Information law, 2013 which provides for disclosure of information held by public authorities or by persons providing public services. Notwithstanding the 2013 law’s promotion of openness, there are wide ranging exemptions  under Part II. These include, among others, information related  to national security and defense, international relations, investigations and law enforcement, economic and commercial interests related information.

On data protection, both countries are yet to enact legislation, which has left citizens’ right to privacy and personal data at risk of abuse and misuse. Amidst reports of state sponsored surveillance and online violence against women, the draft bill in Namibia has been undergoing consultations since early 2020. Sierra Leone’s Cybersecurity Bill engenders aspects of privacy and data protection. However, it is yet to be passed by parliament.

As part of the upcoming UPR for both countries, it is important to fasttrack the protection of fundamental human rights and basic freedoms both online and offline against the national, regional, and international human rights obligations. Accordingly, the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) and Small Media, together with civil society organisations made joint stakeholder submissions on digital rights in the two countries. The Sierra Leone submission was made in partnership with Campaign for Human Rights and Development International, Sierra Leone Reporters Union, Citizens Advocacy Network and the The Institute for Governance Reform while that for Namibia was in partnership with the Internet Society (ISOC) Namibia chapter.

The submissions among others recommend for the two countries to:

  • Repeal and or amend laws to remove erroneous restrictions on freedom of expression and access to information. Notably, for Namibia – Article 21(2) of the Constitution, the Protection of Information Act, 1982, and Section 4 of Central Intelligence Services Act, 1997; and for Sierra Leone – Independent Media Commission Act, 2020
  • Uphold privacy of the individual by among others, repealing section 9 of the Communications Act (Namibia), and enacting Cybercrime, Data Protection and Privacy legislation through participatory and consultative processes (both countries)
  • Operationalise the Universal Service Funds and continue efforts to promote equitable access and inclusion for minority, marginalised and underserved communities
  • Abstain from arbitrary arrests and detention of journalists, media workers and critics over the exercise of their right to freedom of expression online or offline.
  • Comply with the established regional and international human rights standards and obligations on freedom of expression and access to information online and offline.

Read the full submissions, Namibia and Sierra Leone.

22Mar

How Telecom Companies in Africa Can Respond Better to Internet Disruptions

Author admin Posted on

By Victor Kapiyo |
In recent years, disruptions to the internet and social media applications have emerged as a common and growing trend of digital repression especially in authoritarian countries in Africa. Since 2019, countries such as Algeria, Benin, Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, Côte d’ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo (DR Congo), Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea, Mali, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda and Zimbabwe have either restricted or blocked access to the entire internet.
Internet disruptions are often ordered by governments requiring intermediaries such as telecommunications and internet service providers to slow internet speeds, block commonly-used social media sites, or block all internet access. As internet disruptions become widespread across the continent, it is important to examine the role of internet intermediaries in facilitating or impeding them.
A February 2021 brief by CIPESA shines the spotlight on intermediaries’ responses to government orders and indicates that while the intermediaries facilitate transactions, access to online information and services, and provide platforms for interaction, expression and citizen participation, they are usually caught up in the overarching control of their activities by the autocratic governance of host governments who usually place political control and dominance over the enjoyment of digital rights.
Consequently, intermediaries’ responses to internet disruption orders on the continent have almost always been of quiet obedience. Most have failed to take any steps to push back against government excesses. Airtel (Chad and Uganda), Africell (Uganda), Gabon Telecom, MTN (Cameroon and Uganda), Tigo Chad, and Zimbabwe’s Econet Wireless are among those that unquestioningly acquiesced to censorship orders by governments in compliance with their license conditions but also to safeguard their business interests. They appeared to remain silent even in the face of pressing demands to restore the internet, and in some instances denied having blocked the internet on their networks.
However, other intermediaries such as MTN Benin, Orange Guinea, and Lesotho’s Econet and Vodacom pushed back. These intermediaries shared publicly the government letters ordering disruptions, identified the government officials ordering the shutdowns, and disclosed the basis for the shutdowns. In some instances they engaged with authorities to make the case for maintaining uninterrupted access, resisted or declined to implement unlawful orders, apologized to the public for disruptions, or even compensated their customers for the downtime arising from the disruptions.
While some of these steps are laudable, more needs to be done by local intermediaries to resist future shutdowns, uphold consumer protection, and promote respect for human rights online. Many of these intermediaries seem to lack the backbone to resist or challenge in court the legality of internet shutdown directives. It remains problematic that they seem to put their business interests first, while paying limited attention to the human rights, social and economic implications of internet disruptions.
The CIPESA brief recommends that intermediaries improve transparency reporting; always insist on written instructions and orders from authorities, and promptly make these orders public; expand their partnerships and engagements with civil society and join key platforms that aim to collaboratively advance a free and open internet.
The brief also recommends that intermediaries give users sufficient notice of impending disruptions; engage regulators and push back against licensing conditions (and laws governing the telecoms sector) that are vague, or that could potentially lead to the violation of human rights; and speak out publicly about the harms which network disruptions cause to their subscribers and to the intermediaries themselves.
Further, intermediaries should develop and make public policies that specifically state their position on shutdowns and how they address any shutdown orders from governments; and strive to comply with the UN Business and Human Rights Principles (UNBHR).
The brief also calls upon individuals and the business community to challenge the actions of intermediaries before national, regional and international mechanisms for accountability and compensation of losses incurred as a result of their actions.
See the brief here.

09Mar

#WithoutFear: Confronting Online Abuse Against Women In Somalia

Author CIPESA Posted on

By CIPESA Staff Writer |

In commemoration of International Women’s Day (IWD), Digital Shelter has launched the #WithoutFear campaign to raise awareness about the challenges faced by Somali women online.

The campaign features an audiovisual poem in English and Somali, by award-winning Poet, Activist and Digital Storyteller Zahra Abdihagi Mahamed. The poem was inspired by a December 2020 crowdsourcing survey conducted by Digital Shelter on women’s experiences of online shame, harassment, and abuse. The survey resulted in 82 respondents sharing stories ranging from having accounts hacked, blackmail, through to receiving unsolicited indecent images from men.

The #WithoutFear campaign also features a digital safety and security platform which enables Somali women to download and receive regular reminders about the status of their online and social media accounts via a calendar.

https://twitter.com/DigitalShelter/status/1368996194953920515

Online harassment carries similar harms as street harassment, yet, as one respondent in the survey put it, “This kind of thing is not even considered abuse in our society, which is disheartening.” As a result, Somali women’s voices are suppressed and even silenced online, with a third (34%) of the survey’s respondents confirming they now spend less time on social media.

According to Mahamed, “No woman should be put in a situation where she is ridiculed and shamed — especially online, where information travels very far and abuse continues to grow more and more each day. It is mentally and emotionally disturbing”

The survey highlighted Facebook as “the worst platform to be a girl” in Somalia, with 57% of respondents experiencing abuse on a Facebook-owned platform (Facebook, Messenger, WhatsApp, or Instagram). This echoes sentiments in a 2020 research on the online experiences of women conducted as part of the Women At Web initiative which reiterates Goal 5 of the Sustainable Development Goals which calls for an end to all forms of discrimination against all women and girls.

https://twitter.com/cipesaug/status/1368863933147283462

Abdifatah Hassan Ali, co-founder of Digital Shelter, stated that the campaign is vital because online spaces should be open, safe, and inclusive for all. He added that, “We need Somali women to be able to openly express their views without being challenged and without being harassed.”

The campaign was developed as part of data literacy institutional support in the context of the Africa Digital Rights Fund (ADRF), led by Data4Change with support from the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA).

South-Africa-Parliament-Rejects-Plan-to-Introduce-e-Voting
05Mar

South Africa’s Parliament Rejects Plan to Introduce e-Voting

Author CIPESA Posted on

By Tusi Fokane |

As South Africa prepares to hold local government elections in 2021, parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs has rejected two proposals contained in the Electoral Laws Amendment Bill, which could have seen the introduction of electronic voting in the country.

The rejected proposals were contained in clause 14, which suggested that the country’s Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) “may prescribe a different voting method” under the 1998 Electoral Act and clause 21 which sought to make a similar amendment to the Local Government: Municipal Electoral Act, 2000. The electoral body had intended to use these amendments to progressively introduce e-voting.

A report adopted by the Committee on December 1, 2020 notes that the introduction of different voting methods is a policy matter that “cannot be left to the IEC alone to decide” and emphasised that “explicit clarity must be given to the effect that the amendments do not authorise e-voting upon signing of the bill into law.”

The proposals were part of the Electoral Laws Amendment Bill which was introduced in September 2020 to amend legislation governing national, provincial and local government elections, including the forthcoming 2021 local government elections. Local government elections are set to take place between August 4 and November 1, 2021, although the final date is yet to be gazetted by the Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs.

The proposed amendments under the Bill seek to align three key pieces of electoral legislation, namely the Electoral Commission Act, the Electoral Act and the Local Government: Municipal Electoral Act. Besides proposals related to methods of voting, the other proposed amendments relate to  procedures regarding the registration of parties, the submissions of candidate lists by parties, the casting of votes in a district where a voter is not registered, and the protection of voters’ personal data against disclosure pursuant to the Protection of Personal Information Act.

 Proposals for electronic voting were first tabled by the IEC back in July 2020, when it indicated that electronic voting considerations were still in early stages and would first be trialled as a pilot. The Commission stated that electronic voting would help increase efficiencies in the existing system including counting and capturing of election results. There is currently no provision for online or postal voting in South Africa, as its prevailing electoral laws provide that voters must vote in person at their voting station.

The decision of the Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs to reject alternative methods of voting proposals followed complaints from various stakeholders. Consultations by the Portfolio Committee via the Dear South Africa platform received over 12,000 submissions from the general public and civil society. Many of the submissions received were against the adoption of the Electoral Laws Amendment Bill, citing constitutional concerns over the introduction of the electronic voting method. Members of the public took exception to the powers delegated to the electoral commission to change electoral policy without proper public participation and parliamentary oversight. Some commentators also criticised the short time-frame given for public input – two weeks –  from mid to end October 2020, although this was subsequently extended to November 6, 2020.

Submissions also raised concerns on the possibility of electoral fraud, hacking and the rigging of election results. There were also concerns raised about the costs of an e-voting system, given South Africa’s current fiscal constraints, as well as exclusion of communities who may not have access to digital technologies. As at January 2020, internet penetration in South Africa was estimated at 62%.

In response to concerns raised by members of the Committee regarding the public submissions, the IEC has argued that the proposed amendments were intended to create a framework for the piloting of electronic voting, as opposed to rolling it out fully in the country.

Whereas the Portfolio Committee acknowledged the beneficial role of technology in enhancing the electoral process, it cautioned against deploying technology without considering the necessary legal and constitutional implications. The Chairperson of the Committee noted that:

The truth of the matter is that technology is upon us and preparation must be started to ensure that we have both the legal framework and the technical experience that will ensure that elections are secure if a decision to vote through e-voting is taken..

In its statement, the Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs requested the IEC to return to Parliament with case studies on the implementation, challenges and successes of electronic voting in other countries.

In the 2009 general elections, the IEC introduced technological solutions to assist with processing of ballots. Four years later in 2013, the electoral body convened a seminar on Electronic Voting and Counting Technologies to assess the feasibility of electronic voting in South Africa. The then Chairperson of the IEC, Advocate Pansy Tlakula, noted that the country had not formally adopted a position on e-voting and that whilst e-voting presented some benefits such as speed and accuracy in vote counting, it would be expensive to monitor and could reduce transparency in the voting process. She also noted that there was no global standard for the verification and auditing of e-voting systems.

Electronic voting was once again put on the national agenda following the outcome of the ruling party’s June 2020 National Working Committee meeting. The African National Congress (ANC) reported that it had discussed “alternative methods of conducting elections, including the use of electronic voting” in light of the Covid-19 pandemic. This was followed by media reports that the IEC was considering launching an e-voting pilot in July, without providing any details on the roll-out. Shortly thereafter, in September, the IEC indicated that it had scrapped its planned pilot due to a lack of budget.

 While the matter is on hold pending a detailed report on international case studies, implications, challenges and successes of e-voting, it is important for the IEC to address the issues raised by stakeholders. These include ensuring the security and transparency of the processing and verification of votes, as well as ensuring that rural voters have access to reliable internet, electricity and networks to cast their e-ballots. Costs of financing the e-voting system also require careful consideration.

Another critical prerequisite is the need to ensure adequate public participation in amendments to laws governing the electoral system. This can be overcome by allowing Parliament to exercise its legislative role and ensuring members of the public are afforded the opportunity to deliberate on and make substantive inputs to proposed changes to electoral policy.

Tusi Fokane is a 2020 CIPESA Fellow focussing on the availability and use of digital technologies to combat the spread of Covid-19 in South Africa. She is also studying the country’s readiness for electronic voting to comply with social distancing and other movement restrictions during the upcoming local government elections.

1 … 44 45 46 47 48 … 158