Towards an African Declaration on Internet Rights

As internet usage continues to grow in Africa, so does the interest by governments to monitor users’ online activities. This has led to a clash between internet rights promoters and governments in some African countries.
On February 12–13, 2014, participants from several African civil society organisations involved in promoting human rights and internet rights convened in Johannesburg, South Africa to draft an African Declaration on Internet Rights and Freedoms. The meeting was organised by the Association for Progressive Communications (APC) and Global Partners Digital in collaboration with the Media Rights Agenda, Media Foundation for West Africa and the Kenya Human Rights Commission.
Many countries justify their tough stance on internet freedom as necessary to fight cybercrime, promote peace and maintain national security. Whereas some of these policies and practices have been adopted by authoritarian regimes to retain power, others were in response to national crisis contexts such as hate speech and terrorism. Ultimately, the measures have often had chilling effects on access to information, freedom of expression, privacy and data protection.
Participants in this meeting called for the promotion of an open, free and accessible internet. Issues identified as the most crucial and still hindering internet growth in Africa that need immediate action were: improving access to internet including the development and promotion of localised multi-lingual content; addressing internet infrastructure obstacles; capacity building for users; and the need to create a balance between freedom of expression and privacy of users.
Others identified were data protection, addressing gender inequalities and gender-based violence against women online, and adopting supportive ICT policies that promote freedom of expression online and equitable access to information.
Due to increased internet freedom violation incidents coupled with regressive policies being made in many countries, the need for a well-defined Internet Intermediary Liability (ILL) regime has also become increasingly apparent. Another meeting held on February 10-11, 2014 organised by the APC with support from Google Africa discussed the responsibility that may be placed on intermediaries in implementing monitoring and control mechanisms laid down by the laws.
At the regional level, there are legal and regulatory frameworks like the Africa Charter on Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression in Africa, which provide limited protection for internet rights and the liability of internet intermediaries. It was noted that such frameworks could act as building blocks for individual countries to draw up best practices on ILL regimes.
There was consensus that such existing frameworks should be the basis for adopting a general guide with definitions of terms on Internet intermediary liability. This guide would act as central referencing document on which individual countries would base their national IIL regimes.
During the discussions, participants charted their thoughts on a best practice guide for an IIL regime for Africa by asking the below questions:
Untitled
 
While responding to these questions, participants recognised that intermediaries can play a crucial role in promoting Internet freedoms in Africa.
Meanwhile, the meeting also reviewed recent policy and practice developments in Uganda, Kenya, South Africa and Nigeria since the 2011 Intermediary Liability in Africa research. It identified a need to increase awareness among different stakeholder groups of the importance of clear regulatory frameworks for intermediary liability to secure rights on the internet; and for stronger collaboration to advocate for best practice internet intermediary regulatory measures in Africa.
The outcomes of both these meetings will form the basis for the draft civil society Africa Declaration on Internet Rights and Freedoms, which will be launched at the ninth global Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Istanbul, Turkey September 2-5, 2014. The declaration will be available for public input throughout the period leading up to IGF 2014.

Exploring The State of Internet Freedom in Africa

What is the price of security? Should it be your online freedom? 
By Juliet Nanfuka
Where do human rights and online rights meet? Is there a clash between online freedom and human rights? Is there room for self-regulation? These are some of the questions that a recently concluded online discussions report on Internet freedom in Africa explores.
Participants from Uganda, Kenya and Nigeria used online platforms to discuss these issues over a four week period at the end of 2013.
A key theme that came out of the report is the recognition of the increased numbers of internet users across the continent and parallel to this, increased measures taken by governments on surveillance of citizens. This, in turn, has brought to the fore many questions about freedom of expression and privacy.
Many countries are faced with contradictory policies when it comes to freedom of expression especially when it is placed alongside national security and stability. As a result, freedom of expression is threatened by restrictive legal measures that infringe on the access and sharing of information. In addition to these are the legal permissions granted to governments with regards to accessing information about users. Requests from African governments, although few, appear to be politically motivated according to the Google Transparency Reports.
In light of this, a participant asked a key question that also raises concerns about censorship, “How much can you restrict if those with no restriction can interact with and pass on information to the restricted using alternative methods of communication?” This led to the recognition of the conflict that exists between online freedom of expression and the state. Such was seen in the 2011 politically motivated ‘Walk to Work’ protests in Uganda in which the national communications regulatory authority, the Uganda Communications Commission, instructed ISPs to block access to social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook for 24 hours. More on this can be found here Internet Freedom in Africa Under Threat.
The report, prepared by the Collaboration on International ICT Policy in East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) in partnership with Paradigm Initiative Nigeria (PIN) can be downloaded here.

Freedom on the Net 2013: An African Review

The increasing use of the Internet worldwide has continued to see governments put caveats on its openness and the range of freedoms users enjoy online. According to the 2013 Freedom on the Net report, in the period May 2012–April 2013, the global number of censored websites has increased, while internet users in various countries have been arrested, tortured, and killed over the information they posted online.
In Sub Saharan Africa, Freedom House found that both physical and technical mechanisms of filtering, monitoring or otherwise obstructing free speech online have been employed by states concerned with the power of internet-based technologies.
“All 10 of the African countries examined in this report have stepped up their online monitoring efforts in the past year, either by obtaining new technical capabilities or by expanding the government’s legal authority,” says the report which was published by Freedom House on October 3, 2013. Last year, Ethiopia was the only country in the region found to implement nationwide internet filtering.
In its study, Freedom House covered developments in internet freedom in 60 countries around the world.  Based on an examination of obstacles to access, limits to content, and violation of user rights on the internet, countries were scored as ‘Free’, ‘Partly Free’ or ‘Not Free’.
Table 1: Summary of Global Freedom on the Net Rankings (Source: by author based on Freedom on the Net 2013 report)

Continent Free Not Free Partly Free Total
Asia 2 8 4 14
Eurasia 3 5 2 10
Australia, EU, Iceland and the United States 9     9
Latin America 1 4 1 6
Middle East and North Africa   5 6 11
Sub-Saharan Africa 2 6 2 10
Total 17 28 15 60

Free
South Africa and Kenya were the two countries reported as Free. In Kenya, mention was made of the communications regulatory authority issuing guidelines to internet service providers not to allow services to be used to spread hate speech. Service providers were also reportedly required to install internet traffic monitoring equipment.
In South Africa, the proposed Protection of State Information bill which criminalises reporting on classified state information and accessing leaked information online would violate user rights if passed into law. Another legislation, the General Intelligence Laws Amendment 2013, which gives authorities the power to intercept bulk communications known as “foreign signals intelligence” was passed in July 2013. The partially state-owned Telkom network was also said to have installed servers to harvest data and user information. The extent to which this spyware has been deployed in the country was unknown.
Partly Free
Freedom house ranked Malawi, Nigeria, Angola, Uganda, Rwanda and Zimbabwe as ‘Partly Free’. A draft Interception of Communications law in Nigeria was criticised for potentially infringing on user’s right to privacy. There were also reports that the Nigerian government had awarded a contract to an Israeli based company to monitor internet communications. A privately owned ISP was said to have installed surveillance malware. It is unclear if the installation was at the bidding of the state.
Suspicions of online government surveillance in Uganda increased in part due to officials publically expressing “the need” for policing Internet mediums. A new communications law, the Uganda Communications Act, passed in September 2012 created a regulatory authority with sweeping powers to oversee electronic, print and broadcast media. The body’s independence has been called into question. As a sim card (including mobile internet) registration exercises drew to a close, there were privacy concerns due to the country’s lack of data protection legislation. The country already has lawful interception of communications regulations.
There were no reports of internet content being blocked or filtered in Zimbabwe. However, ruling party officials were said to have publicly expressed the desire to increase control over ICTs, particularly in the lead-up to the July 2013 general elections. Zimbabwe was also said to be seeking foreign support for surveillance in Iran. “Personnel from the Zimbabwean armed forces and the Central Intelligence Organisation have been undergoing intensive cyber training in technological warfare techniques, counter-intelligence and methods of suppressing popular revolts among others, every six months,” says the report.
Egypt was also reported to be seeking surveillance assistance from Iran. Activists and social media users were also targeted by security forces during protests either through abductions, killings or prosecution.
In Libya, surveillance equipment from the Muammar Gaddafi regime remained in operation.
Despite being reported as a ”country at risk” in 2013 owing to its “strict” controls over traditional media which were feared may extend to digital media, improvements were reported in Rwanda. An amended media law expanded the rights of journalists and recognised freedom for online communications.
Meanwhile, Angola’s State Security Services, with assistance from Germany, were planning to implement an electronic monitoring system to track digital communications.
Not Free
The Sudanese government was accused of surveillance particularly during protests. In addition to harassment and arrest of journalists during and following the protests, intelligence services are said to have “ramped up” efforts to censor antigovernment content, target cyber-dissidents, and manipulate online information.
In September 2012, Ethiopia “toughened” restrictions on electronic communications by passing the Telecom Fraud Offence Proclamation law. The government was also allegedly increasing its technical capacity to filter, block and monitor the internet with assistance from the Chinese authorities and the use of Finfisher – a commercial spyware software.
Globally, Iceland and Estonia were ranked the freest while China, Cuba and Iran were said to be the “most repressive countries” in terms of internet freedom.
Under the OpenNetAfrica initiative, CIPESA researches into internet freedoms in various African countries. To learn more, to share an idea or report a violation, write to programmes @cipesa.org. 

A Review of the Uganda Internet Governance Forum 2013

By Mugabi Samuel
“Harnessing Internet development in Uganda: Connecting the last mile” was the theme of the 6th Uganda Internet Governance Forum (UIGF) which took place on September 18, 2013. During the event, stakeholder representatives from academia, government, civil society, private sector and telecommunications discussed the emerging opportunities in availability and access, as well as challenges to the Internet in Uganda.
In his keynote address, Dr. David Turahi the Director for Information Technology and Information Management Services in the Ministry of ICT stated that initiatives were underway to harness Internet connectivity and access within government agencies. According to Dr. Turahi, up to 27 government ministries and entities are currently managed under the DOTug domain in a drive to promote and manage Uganda’s ICT and e-governance policy. The Government has also put in place a strategy for the IPv6 upgrade from IPv4 for better connectivity, increased number of connections and also for providing a solution to IPv4 roaming issues especially in mobile networks.
He also said that a Data Protection and Privacy Act aimed at protecting the privacy of online users in Uganda was being drafted. “The increasing participation of citizens online means that we need to look at issues such as open data and cyber security to ensure an effective online community,” said Dr. Turahi. Dr. Turahi was speaking at the forum on behalf of the Ministry’s Permanent Secretary, Dr. Jimmy Pat Sammanya.
Presenting the UIGF online discussions report, Daniel Nanghaka of Internet Society Uganda Chapter stated that whereas connectivity and accessibility to the internet have improved over the years (from Cafes and a few elite establishments in the 1990s to wireless modems and Internet enabled phones today) slow speeds and prohibitive costs were still affecting its use especially in the rural areas. The urban-rural divide was being further enhanced by limited infrastructure set up in the rural areas due to the areas lack of economic viability for service providers. In addition to the above, the findings of a research study by Joseph Munuulo indicated, that limited local content and illiteracy were further barriers to Internet access at the rural level.
The issue of infrastructure sharing was central to the discussions. It was pointed out that infrastructure sharing was key to improving and lowering costs of connectivity. Vivian Ddambya of the National Information Technology Authority (NITA) – Uganda proposed that physical infrastructure providers for roads, power and rail should be required to make provisions for future installation of ICT facilitates. “Currently, Uganda National Roads Authority pays for repair to any damaged optical fibre cables during road repairs and maintenance”, she said that this should not be the case.
Mike Barnard from the Uganda Internet Exchange Point (UIXP) stated that as a means of reducing costs and increasing speeds, UIXP has improved local traffic exchange of ISPs in Uganda. He encouraged ISPs to peer through UIXP in order to offer a better internet experience to Ugandan citizens. With support from Google, Orange Uganda and the Internet Society, UIXP has recently upgraded its switches, servers and power back up systems. It has also acquired an IPv6 assignment from AfriNIC and addresses have been issued to all its member networks.
Access, affordability and capacity to use the internet are not the only challenges to its proliferation in Uganda. Peter Kahiigi the director of Information Security NITA Uganda citied cyber security threats. According to Mr. Kahiigi, the increased uptake of internet services in Uganda, had also seen an increase in cases of child pornography, cyber bullying, identity theft, financial crimes, distributed denial of service attacks and cyber terrorism among others. He stated that on-going projects to address these issues included the setting up of an advisory group on information security to liase between government and the private sector. Furthermore, that government was developing a classification framework for information aimed at promoting open data and better e-governance as well as improved information security management. Mr. Kahiigi stressed the importance of having a national information security framework to protect citizens online and also noted that the currently available cyber laws were helping but needed better enforcement.
He also spoke about the national Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT) centre an initiative of the Ministry of ICT, NITA Uganda and Uganda Communications Commission (UCC). Launched in June 2013, the CERT will equip and organize Uganda to respond to cyber threats, ensure better protection of Uganda’s ICT infrastructure and the availability of dependent services provided to government agencies, citizens and businesses.
From civil society, Ashnah kalemera of the OpenNet Africa initiative urged ICT sector stakeholders to be advocates of online freedoms by seeking to “educate citizens on responsible behavior and promoting liberal regimes of online rights.” This was in light of recent developments including the set-up of a government social media monitoring Centre, a request to Facebook for user account information and prohibitive legislation such as the Interception of Communications Act.
Her remarks were echoed by Dr. Peter Mwesigye from the African Centre for Media Excellence (ACME) who pointed at numerous legislations that provide for freedom of expression in Uganda through any media including the internet. He also pointed out that Uganda, as a signatory to the International convention on civil and political rights should ensure adherence to freedoms of expressions. He called for the independence of oversight bodies such as Uganda Communications Commission and NITA-U in addressing issues related to press and online media freedoms.
“In addition to the curtailing of civil liberties, government policies and practices with regard to online freedoms pose a threat to democracy by stifling critical debate, civic participation and demand for transparency and accountability through platforms like social media,” said Ms. Kalemera.
Overall, participants called for more research to inform government in planning efforts to extend internet access and internet-based services to citizens. Partnerships between civil society, private sector, academia and government were also encouraged.
The Uganda Internet Governance Forum 2013 was organised by the Collaboration on International ICT Policy in East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) in partnership with the Internet Society Uganda Chapter and the ICT Association of Uganda.
Since its inauguration in 2006, the UIGF has continued to discuss and address internet policy issues in Uganda and East Africa. The proceedings of this year’s Forum were presented at the Second African Internet Governance Forum which was held in Nairobi, Kenya September 24-26, 2013. They will also be presented at the global Internet Governance Forum in Bali, Indonesia October 22-25, 2013.
Speaker Presentations available for download here: UIGF Online Presentation, OpenNet Africa, UIXP,

Improving eGovernment Initiatives: A Global Concern

By Lillian Nalwoga
At the end of May, Finland hosted an international conference to discuss ways of improving eGovernment programmes. In particular, the conference attended by Government Chief Information Officers (CIO) and other officials from across the world reviewed the role of leadership in e-government development.
While noting immense advancements in eGovernment, particularly in the European Union (EU), delegates at the ‘Leading the way in eGovernment development’ conference highlighted numerous factors hampering effective implementation of eGovernment strategies both in developed and developing countries.
According to a May 28, 2013 European Commission press release (see: eGovernment improving but citizens ask for more), almost half (46%) of EU citizens go online to look for a job, use the public library, file a tax return, register a birth, apply for a passport or use other eGovernment services. In addition, 80% indicated that using online public services saves them time, while 76% like the flexibility of the services and 62% said they save money when they use e-services.
Despite these positives, European governments still believe that public perception of governments and public institutions is still low and likely to worsen, stated the press release. Factors cited as constraining eGovernment included: inadequate capacity by some CIOs to implement eGovernment strategies, inadequate trust citizens have in some eGovernment systems, ineffective technological systems, inadequate open, transparent and collaborative efforts by governments, and limited availability of cross-border eGovernment services. According to the UN eGovernment survey 2012, for Africa and other developing regions, the above realities, in addition to the lack of e-infrastructure, mean that eGovernment remains at an elementary level.
Paul Timmers, Director of the Sustainable and Secure Society Directorate, DG Connect at the European Commission, noted that these challenges can be solved by governments’ smart use of new Information Communication Technologies (ICTs), adopting new processes and skills sets. In agreement, Ms. Henna Virkkunen, Finland’s Public Administration Minister, noted that ICT is a key element of every government task and new ways of using latest technology like cloud computing must be explored. Nonetheless, she cautioned that ICT should not be an end itself. Governments need to find ways to use inclusive technology in a manner that benefits them and their citizens, as citizens are demanding for better, user friendly and practical e-services.
In addition, governments also need to include third party users in the design, development and delivery of e-government services such as open data. Mr. Timmers remarked that the market value of Open Public Data” in EU countries alone is estimated at 140 billion Euros. According to the Open Government Partnership, the market value of Open data can be realised in three main channels – business innovation (making scientific research works more accessible hence driving innovation capacity in fields such as pharmaceutics and renewables); business creation (creating a new market as business can build new innovative applications and eServices based government data); and business efficiency (business and public bodies contributing to ‘smart’ growth by becoming more efficient in tackling citizens’ and customers’ needs by gaining precise and completer insight into citizens’ and customers’ preferences and needs).
But how do governments build positive perceptions of their citizens toward eGovernment? Ian Goldin, Director of the Oxford Martin School and Professor of Globalisation and Development at Oxford University, stated that in order to achieve this, governments have to build trust in the systems; address user privacy concerns; play a stronger role in regulatory frameworks; involve youth and the elderly in digital government and invest in latest technologies as older ones become difficult to work with.
Besides advancements in eGovernment, conference delegates discussed global related concerns such as openness and freedom on the internet as well as data protection. They called for immediate government attention to protecting citizens’ rights while considering the opportunities and benefits of private sector companies that provide online services in the “networked” era where multi-national players like Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, and Yahoo have their own rules on how to handle customer data.
Further, the conference called for common efforts in capacity building for e-government development; sharing best practices to learn from each other; strengthening ethical behaviour in governments to pave way for a culture of openness and the adoption of political will in practicing openness. Other suggestions included the EU issuing directives to all its member countries to open up public data as well as the UN adopting a global framework on promoting openness.
The conference, which took place on May 28–30, 2013, was organised by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) and Finland’s Ministry of Finance in collaboration with the European Commission.
More information about the conference is available here.