Promoting Effective and Inclusive ICT Policy in Africa

Category Archives: News

  HomeCollaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA)  /  Blog  /  News
17Jul

How Technology is Impacting Health Data Governance in Africa: The Case of Uganda

Author CIPESA Posted on

By CIPESA Writer | 

The World Health Organization (WHO) has recognised the potential of technology to enhance health outcomes. The WHO’s Global strategy on digital health 2020-2025 aims to promote the appropriate use of digital technologies for health, taking into consideration health promotion and disease prevention, patient safety, ethics, interoperability, intellectual property, data security (confidentiality, integrity, and availability), privacy, cost-effectiveness, patient engagement, and affordability.

In the wake of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid-19), countries in Africa, like their counterparts across the world, have dramatically increased the use of digital technologies in the health sector, including in diagnosis, disease surveillance, education, research, data management, and care delivery. At regional level, the African Union (AU) and the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are setting up digitalisation policy frameworks for social-economic transformation including in the health sector. 

For instance, the AU’s Digital Transformation Strategy 2020-2030 cites the health sector (among others) as critical to driving digital transformation for prosperity and inclusivity. The Africa Union Data Policy Framework also emphasises that improved, integrated data systems directly contribute to improved health. 

In May 2023, the Africa CDC launched its Digital Transformation Strategy 2023-2030 to harness digital health to leapfrog some of the barriers affecting healthcare and public health. The strategy alludes to the challenge of poor quality of health data and poor governance and management practices of data ecosystems – such as poor coordination between governments and partners that fund these data infrastructure.

The AU and WHO assert that digital health solutions should benefit people in a way that is “ethical, safe, secure, reliable, equitable and sustainable”; and that they should be developed with principles of “transparency, accessibility, scalability, replicability, interoperability, privacy, security and confidentiality”. However, evidence from some African countries shows a complicated picture. 

Research has found that in responding to the Covid-19 pandemic, many countries adopted regulations and practices, including deploying disease surveillance technologies and untested applications, to enable them collect and process personal data for purposes of tracing, contacting, and isolating those suspected to be carrying the virus and those confirmed to carry it. These measures were quickly adopted, often without adequate regulation or oversight.

The reality of the explosion in use of digital tools in the health sector has not been adequately studied. Risks posed by these technologies to patient privacy and data protection, creation of data silos and duplication, and real world harm to patients are issues that should be investigated to inform efforts to institute relevant and effective safeguards.

Take an example of Uganda:

Uganda has a fairly robust national data ecosystem. The Uganda Bureau of Statistics is among the most efficient statistics agencies in Africa and it conducts major surveys on schedule. Various private entities, Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) and development partners have also introduced new tech-based data collection instruments often presented as plugging gaps and aiming to strengthen the data ecosystem. This progressive data collection culture has, however, inadvertently created a problem: multiple siloed data and information systems, many of them not speaking to each other.  

The country’s health sector is among the top funded – both by government and development partners – and has one of the strongest data and information systems.      

Since 1985 Uganda’s health ministry has used the Health Management Information System (HMIS) to collect health-related data so as to improve health care management decisions at all levels of the health system. The HMIS and its associated District Health Information System (DHIS2) are used to collect routine health data from the lowest health unit to the national referral hospital. The DHIS2 is an open source, web-based platform used in many countries to collect health data in clinics and hospitals. 

All state health facilities and privately-owned ones that are supported by the government, are expected to use the HMIS/DHIS2 systems and to submit routine patient data, according to the ministry’s HMIS procedure manual.  

While the HMIS is meant to provide data for monitoring and evaluating the progress of the health sector, over the years, the system has faced multiple challenges. It is largely paper-based, leading to poor quality of the data collected. Limited understanding and skills amongst health workers on HMIS tools and inadequate human resource capacity to analyse and curate the data add to the problem. Low involvement of private health providers in contributing data to the system is yet another challenge.

Uganda Embraces Technology for Health

In 2016, Uganda developed an eHealth Policy followed in 2017 by an eHealth Strategy, in whose preamble the ministry states that it recognises the potential of technology “in transforming healthcare delivery by enabling information access and supporting healthcare operations, management, and decision making”. The strategy stated that Uganda’s health sector was characterised by fragmented and siloed pilot projects and information systems with significant barriers to effective sharing of information. The policy aimed to ensure better coordination in the innovation space where multiple players aspire to improve health data management and service delivery using digital technologies.

In May 2023, the health ministry launched the new Uganda Health Information and Digital Health Strategic Plan 2020-2025 aimed at further strengthening the health information ecosystem in the country by promoting responsible use of digital tools to document and share patient data while maintaining coordination among all players.

These efforts by the health ministry align with Uganda’s digitalisation agenda as part of its National Development Plan (NDP) III, the country’s blueprint to becoming a middle income country. 

The health ministry’s 2020-2025 Strategic Plan acknowledges challenges the government faces in digitising and transforming the health data ecosystem:

  • Limited qualified cadres in health information systems (HIS) at all levels, especially at lower levels of the health system. 
  • Inadequate Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and capacity for HIS management including data security, data sharing, reporting and implementation at health facility and community levels.
  • A multiplicity of duplicate and uncoordinated health information platforms with limited integration into the national HIS.
  • Limited individual skills, system capabilities, financial resources and a lack of SOPs for supporting, using and maintaining digital health resources, equipment and infrastructure.
  • Limited use of electronic health and medical records for clinical care, research and routine data analytics that would aid policy and pragmatic decision-making.

The  above challenges are exacerbated by a shortage of supporting infrastructure. The country’s internet penetration rate stands at 60%, but internet costs are prohibitively high, and many health facilities lack connectivity. Furthermore, the electricity access rate stands at just 57%.

Digital Health Applications and Data Governance

The Covid-19 pandemic saw a proliferation of pandemic-related innovations in Uganda, including for contact tracing, and digitisation of vaccination data. Yet not many of the innovations did not adhere to established data protection regulations. Similarly, the Public Health (Control of COVID-19) Rules, 2020 and the Public Health (Prevention of COVID-19) (Requirements and Conditions of Entry into Uganda) Order, 2020 did not specify measures to guarantee data protection.

The Personal Data Protection Office (PDPO) was not operationalised until August 2021 – deep into the enforcement of the country’s disease surveillance measures. To-date, there is no indication that the Office had any oversight over the enforcement of COVID-19 Rules and the Order of 2020 in accordance with the data protection law.

Health Data Regulation: Lessons from COVID-19 Surveillance in Kenya and Uganda, June 2023.

More recently, a coordinated response to the Ebola virus outbreak in Uganda enabled its swift end partly due to a centralised repository of data on Ebola cases from verified sources, which provided vital information to various stakeholders. Another data tool by WHO called Go.Data improved Ebola surveillance, contact tracing and decision making, rendering the epidemic easier to manage. The tool revolutionised data collection, collation and analysis, which are critical in disease outbreaks situations by enabling frontline health workers and District Health Teams (DHTs) to handle information management for contact follow-up and reporting in real-time. And yet, just like with the Covid-19 pandemic, there has been no transparency or audits on these tools’ data protection practices. 

Accordingly, it is imperative that Uganda puts in place regulatory standards and guidance to effectively reap the benefits of innovation in the health sector. The health ministry and Makerere University have developed a handbook that provides a set of requirements to guide the development of digital health standards and adoption of digital health data standards to enhance health information management and decision-making processes across the health sector. 

As part of rolling out those standards, it will be crucial for the ministry to establish Working Groups made up of a multi stakeholder group of experts that can review innovations in the health data management sector, including their privacy credentials and general added value. Furthermore, they would establish benchmarks and best practices in the health data innovation space, such as  on collaboration, to avoid duplication of efforts and promote interoperability. Meanwhile, other existing frameworks  such as the Uganda Bureau of Statistics 2018  rules for conducting surveys and censuses should be strictly enforced for both state and non-state actors.For its part, the Office of Personal Data Protection (PDPO) is now fully operational and provides benchmarks on how to handle personal data. The PDPO has enforced registration of data collectors, controllers and processors and rolled out capacity building as well as awareness raising programmes. Dedicated interventions by the PDPO targeting the health sector will ensure that actors and entities are compliant with regulations, thereby ensuring patient data confidentiality and integrity.

Health Data Regulation Banner
07Jul

Health Data Regulation: Lessons from Covid-19 Surveillance in Kenya and Uganda

Author Brian Posted on

In today’s highly digitalised society, where large amounts of data are being collected and processed, the need for guidelines on health data governance can not be overemphasised. Health data is profoundly sensitive and breach of privacy can cause significant harm to concerned individuals and affect health outcomes. Such guidelines should regulate how data is collected, how and where it is stored, who can share or process it, and what they can do with the data.

As global interest in the regulation of health data picks pace, it is instructive to revisit how health data collected during massive data collection exercises has been handled in some African countries. This examination is crucial to appreciate the key challenges faced in safeguarding the privacy and security of health-related data. This can provide pointers to the areas that require regulation and strengthening of practices.

In this June 2023 Brief, the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) recounts how measures related to tracking and monitoring people’s movements, communications and health data by the Kenyan and Ugandan governments and private entities during the Covid-19 pandemic were deemed to have breached the right to privacy, lacked sufficient oversight, and did not respect data protection principles.

Based on experiences from Kenya, South Africa, and Uganda, the Brief cites recommendations by the Transform Health Coalition, on the need for “common regulatory standards to harness the potential, and manage the risks, of health data sharing within and across borders, ensuring data is used for public good and prioritising equity, whilst protecting individual rights”. 

Furthermore, the Brief puts forward pointers on how African governments can balance the responsibility to protect personal health data with the importance and value of sharing it for public good purposes such as research, innovation and health planning:

  • Develop clear and comprehensive privacy rights-respecting guidelines on health data through consultative processes that involve different private, civil society and public sector actors.
  • Regional and global cooperation in devising the guidelines is key to share best practices and promote cross-country cooperation and harmonisation of regulations.
  • The health data regulations should clearly and robustly embed all the high-level data protection principles. For health data specifically, it must only be processed for a period not longer than is necessary to achieve the intended purpose.
  • The guidelines should provide for assessment by independent bodies of applications and systems that collect health data for their privacy / data protection credentials.
  • The guidelines should include provisions on data collection, storage, sharing during pandemics and other health emergencies.
  • Government, private companies and medical facilities should be transparent about what data they hold, who they share it with, how they process and store it, and who accesses it and for what purpose.
  • Developers of health apps should embrace privacy by design when developing applications that collect, store or process health data. They should also have internal data governance policies that highlight the steps to ensure that the data they collect and process is secure.
  • Establish accountability mechanisms for apps and health data collectors and ensure data protection authorities proactively enforce them.
  • Government bodies should be transparent about all public–private partnerships they enter that entail data collection, storage and data sharing.
  • The regulations should encourage data sharing and reuse at national level, as well as cross-border sharing but provide mechanisms for ensuring the integrity of data that is shared.
  • Require health data collectors to have privacy policies written in plain language describing their data governance protocols and privacy credentials.
  • The regulations should require data collectors and processors to implement appropriate, timely and effective measures to demonstrate compliance with personal data processing regulations.

Read the Brief here.

30Jun

Navigating the Threats To Journalism in Uganda

Author CIPESA Posted on

By Brian Byaruhanga |

Over the years, journalists in Uganda have confronted a relentless tide of harassment, censorship, and physical violence as they diligently performed their duty. As reported by the Press Freedom Index, compiled by the Human Rights Network of Journalists, incidents of violations and abuse against journalists in Uganda have surged over recent years, climbing from 163 in 2018, to 165 in 2019, peaking at 174 in 2020, and 131 violations in 2021, culminating with Uganda dropping 7 (seven) places to 132 out of 180 countries from the 2021 rankings by the Freedom in the World Report in 2022. These transgressions are primarily orchestrated by regulatory authorities and security agencies. While challenges to journalism in Uganda are not novel, the advent of digital transformation and emergent technologies has infused new complexities into the landscape of press freedom and journalism practice in the country.

The ubiquity of digital technology has afforded journalists the ability to disseminate information rapidly. However, this swiftness has ushered in a suite of challenges to the very essence of journalism. It has engendered a proliferation of misinformation and disinformation, the imposition and acceptance of repressive legal frameworks, and the establishment of intricate content moderation systems.

In 2018, the Ugandan government, ostensibly to counteract the spread of what it pejoratively termed “gossip,” levied a tax on social media. This move was interpreted by critics as an effort to curtail freedom of speech and suppress dissenting viewpoints. Though, after years of resistance, this tax was ultimately overturned, it starkly illuminated the strained relationship between the government and the media.

In July 2022, the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Bill was introduced in the Ugandan Parliament, a piece of legislation that later became law. It outlined a fresh set of offenses, subject to punitive penalties of imprisonment and fines. The bill was devised to “prohibit the sending or sharing of information that promotes hate speech” and “provide for the prohibition of sending or sharing false, malicious, and unsolicited information.” It also sought to define and penalize hate speech. 

See this CIPESA analysis of the  Computer Misuse Amendment Bill 2022.

According to the bill, “a person shall not write, send or share any information through a computer, which is likely to ridicule, degrade, or demean another person, group of persons, a tribe, an ethnicity, a religion or gender; create divisions among persons, a tribe, an ethnicity, a religion, or gender; or promote hostility against a person, group of persons, a tribe, an ethnicity, a religion, or gender.”

Less than three months following its introduction, the Ugandan Computer Misuse Amendment Act of 2022 came into force, receiving the presidential assent of H.E Yoweri Kaguta Museveni on October 14, 2022.

These legislative measures appear to cloak attempts at content moderation under the guise of instilling self-censorship and disseminating fear regarding the sharing of information. Moreover, state surveillance emerges as another potent tool wielded against journalists, perpetuating reports of harassment, arrests, and detentions, often facilitated through state-sanctioned surveillance activities. There have also been allegations of the government employing spyware to target journalists and activists.

In the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2021 general elections, the Ugandan government implemented stringent surveillance protocols while intensifying existing restrictions on free expression. This crackdown became particularly conspicuous after a cohort of Ugandan investigative journalists received notifications that their devices had been compromised by Pegasus, a spy software enabling operators to extract messages, photos, emails, record calls, and clandestinely activate microphones and cameras. Notably, this software is attributed to the Israeli spyware firm, NSO Group, which officially supplies the Pegasus software to military, law enforcement, and government intelligence agencies for the purpose of targeting criminals and terrorists. However, multiple reports surfaced indicating the use of the software against politicians, journalists, and activists. Investigative journalist Canary Mugume was among the few who received an alert from Apple, signalling that state-sponsored attackers may be targeting his phone.

The escalating adoption of technologies like artificial intelligence and machine learning also invokes apprehension. While these technologies have the potential to enhance journalistic work, they also harbor the capacity to manipulate information and undermine the credibility of journalists. A notable example is the use of deepfake technology, capable of crafting persuasive yet fabricated videos or audio recordings, employed to discredit journalists and their work.

To address these threats to journalism in Uganda, it is imperative for journalists to embrace digital resilient practices, safeguarding their sources and their work. Additionally, media organizations should make investments in technologies capable of detecting and countering disinformation and misinformation.

The perils of disinformation and misinformation, state surveillance, arbitrary arrests, harassment, and brutality pose substantial challenges to the function of journalists and the role of media in a democratic society. Overcoming these challenges necessitates concerted efforts by journalists, media organizations, governments, civil society, and international entities to champion a free and independent media that effectively serves the public interest.

It is therefore imperative to acknowledge that journalists operate within an ever-evolving media and digital milieu. And proactive measures must be adopted to ensure their digital security through the implementation of appropriate precautions and the ongoing pursuit of the latest security measures. Specifically, journalists must undertake the following steps to safeguard their well-being while executing their professional responsibilities:

Digital Security Training: Journalists should participate in digital security training to acquire knowledge on how to protect themselves and their sources online. These training programs offer guidance on encrypting communications, securing devices, and maintaining anonymity.

Use of Encryption: Journalists should employ encryption tools like Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), encrypted messaging applications, and secure email services to ensure the security of their communications and data, safeguarding them from interception and surveillance.

Secure Data Storage: Journalists should adopt secure data storage practices, including the utilization of encrypted external hard drives, password-protected archives, and encrypted cloud storage services. These measures prevent unauthorized access and data breaches.

Two-Factor Authentication: To fortify their online security, journalists should implement two-factor authentication for their digital accounts. This extra layer of protection safeguards their accounts against unauthorized access.

Caution with Social Media: Journalists must exercise prudence on social media platforms. They should refrain from disseminating sensitive information and limit the extent of personal details shared online, thus mitigating the risk of exposing themselves or their sources to harm.

Practicing Situational Awareness: Maintaining an acute awareness of their surroundings is crucial for journalists, especially when conducting interviews or reporting from the field. This involves steering clear of hazardous areas and being vigilant for potential threats, ensuring their physical safety while pursuing their professional duties.

Use of Secure Networks: Public Wi-Fi networks, often unsecured, are susceptible to interception. Journalists should avoid their use and instead opt for secure networks or establish their own hotspots, reducing the risk of compromising sensitive data.

In navigating the multifaceted threats to journalism in Uganda, journalists must adopt a multifaceted approach encompassing personal digital security measures, collective industry efforts, and international advocacy for press freedom and journalists’ safety. These actions, coupled with unwavering commitment, will enable journalists to continue their indispensable work, promoting transparency, accountability, and democracy, even in the face of mounting challenges in the digital age.

Through the tireless pursuit of these strategies, journalists in Uganda can reinforce their resilience, fortify their commitment to truth-telling, and persevere in upholding the fundamental principles of journalism – principles that serve not only the interests of a free press but also the broader cause of democracy and informed citizenship. In this era of digital transformation, journalism remains an essential pillar of democracy and an indispensable guardian of society’s well-being. In conclusion, navigating the evolving landscape of journalism in Uganda demands not only the adoption of technical safeguards but also unwavering resolve. The challenges faced by journalists serve as a testament to the vitality of their work in safeguarding democratic values. In embracing the digital era, journalists must continue to shine a light on truth, accountability, and justice, thereby preserving the foundations of a vibrant, free, and democratic society.

19Jun

Building a Movement of Digital Rights Advocates in Lesotho, Mozambique, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe

Author CIPESA Posted on

By Asimwe John Ishabairu

Digital rights advocacy amidst rapid policy change and an ever-evolving technology sector in Africa is constrained by various challenges. Among them are siloed approaches, limited avenues for stakeholder participation, and a lack of requisite knowledge, skills, and resources for meaningful and sustained engagement. There is also inadequate digital resilience capacity among the most at-risk groups. 

As part of the Greater Internet Freedom (GIF) project, the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) has for the past three years led engagements to build the advocacy capacity of various actors in Lesotho, Mozambique, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe. 

The engagements have worked to grow participants’ thematic understanding of key digital rights trends, including disinformation, online gender based violence, legal and policy frameworks, surveillance, the digital economy, access and affordability, digital safety and security, privacy and data protection, digital inclusion and network disruptions, alongside practical skills development in digital rights research methodologies, data driven advocacy, artivism  and impact communications. 

Post-training evaluations indicate a strong appreciation of the relevance of the capacity building, the opportunity to expand networks, retention and application of acquired skills and knowledge. Notably, beneficiaries have become infomediaries within their communities and organisations, through awareness raising exercises, and conducting onward training. 

“As a result of the training, we conducted a workshop with the grassroot women human rights defenders on disinformation and human rights, and developed a digital rights advocacy and communication strategy,” stated one beneficiary from Kenya, whose organisation works across East Africa. 

“I took away an appreciation of the legal environment around digital rights and how to conduct research. As a result of the training, I’ve researched and published a research report in partnership with Global Voices”, said a beneficiary from Zimbabwe. Others point to collaborations with hitherto non-allied groups. “I have been able to approach key stakeholders such as legislators and legal practitioners for my research work and projects,” said another beneficiary from Tanzania.

Another from Zambia stated: “I have been able to influence collaboration between my institution and other like-minded actors through working groups on the government proposed media reforms and implications on digital rights, with a focus on gender perspectives.” 

In total, the capacity building engagements  reached 80 beneficiaries from various stakeholder groups, including governments, academia, civil society, media, and the legal fraternity across the six countries. 

The engagements leveraged expertise from various field practitioners. Among them: the Pan African Lawyers Union (PALU), Media Convergence, the Tanzania Women’s Media Association (TAMWA), LaunchPad Tanzania, Jamii Forums, Culture and Development East Africa (CDEA), Bloggers of Zambia, the African Centre for Media Excellence (ACME), Makerere University, the Association for Progressive Communications (APC), Bongo Hive, Revolt for Her  and Access now.

Beneficiaries acknowledged that digital rights advocacy was a broad field and the capacity building engagements served as critical entry points. However, they called for continuous engagements and follow-ups in tandem with evolutions in policy and practice.  

“The sessions need to be ongoing,” said a participant from Uganda.

“I think such training should be provided regularly because the world of technology is very dynamic and needs constant updates to stay relevant,” said a participant from Mozambique.

According to CIPESA’s Programme Manager, Ashnah Kalemera, closing the skills, knowledge, and research gaps is crucial to growing the number and strength of actors advancing digital rights in Africa. This is at the core of CIPESA’s interventions, particularly the Africa Digital Rights Fund (ADRF), the fellowship programme, capacity-building programmes at both national and regional levels, and stakeholder convenings such as the annual Forum on Internet Freedom in Africa (FIFAfrica).

13Jun

Smell The Coffee Kenya, Disinformation Is Brewing!

Author CIPESA Posted on

By Juliet Nanfuka |

Just over a year ago, Kenya was in the midst of a bitterly contested general election held in August 2022. The electoral period was characterised by hate speech and disinformation, which remain prevalent today. Indeed, recent studies have highlighted a booming disinformation industry in the country, fuelled by political, economic and personal interests with many actors including politicians, content creators, and citizens churning out hate speech and disinformation on social media platforms. 

During the election period, disinformation and hate speech circulated widely as social media personalities and ordinary citizens on various sides of the political divide coordinated and shared inciteful and hateful content. Influencers with a large following on the platforms are often bankrolled by politicians to recruit and coordinate micro-influencers to develop common disinformation and hate narratives and push hashtags which often trend on social media. Further, social media trolls engage through Facebook posts, tweets and WhatsApp groups with targeted hate against ethnic communities such as the Kalenjin, Kikuyu and Luo, the ethnic communities of current president William Ruto, former president Uhuru Kenyatta, and former Prime Minister Raila Odinga, respectively. 

Amidst the election-related disinformation blitz, social media platforms seemed to do either too little or nothing to stop the spread of harmful and illegal content. An investigation by Global Witness and Foxglove in June 2022 showed that Facebook failed to detect inflammatory and violent hate speech ads posted on its platforms in Swahili and English. Further, the investigation found that even after putting out a statement in July 2022 on its efforts to combat harmful content, including 37,000 pieces of Kenyan content removed from Facebook and Instagram for violating its hate speech policies, similar hate speech ads were later approved on their platforms. 

Likewise, in July 2022 Twitter was blamed by local actors for profiting from its negligence by allowing its trending topic section to be exploited through paid influencers to amplify malicious, coordinated, inauthentic attacks to silence Kenya’s civil society, muddy their reputations and stifle the reach of their messaging. In September 2021, Twitter suspended 100 accounts from Kenya for violating the platform’s manipulations and spam policy after being found to have been tweeting pre-determined hashtags meant to misinform the public and attack certain personalities. In June 2022, the company suspended 41 accounts promoting the hashtag #ChebukatiCannotBeTrusted, which suggested that the then Chairperson of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) was supporting one of the presidential candidates. 

TikTok, which has gained popularity among younger audiences, has also come under scrutiny after disinformation and hate content was found on its platform ahead of the August 2022 election. A study by Mozilla found 132 videos that had been viewed collectively over four million times, which were spreading hate speech and inciting violence against some ethnic communities. Some also featured synthetic and manipulated content couched as Netflix documentaries, news stories and fake opinion polls or fake tweets aimed at triggering violence, fear and violence as was witnessed during the 2007 post-election period. According to the report, TikTok suffered context bias and its content moderation practices were not robust enough to tackle the spread of such content on its platform. TikTok has since removed the videos highlighted in the report. 

According to Kenya’s hate speech watchdog, the National Cohesion and Integration Commission (NCIC), hate speech content is most prevalent on Facebook and Twitter. In July 2022, the NCIC ordered Meta to address hate speech and incitement on its Facebook platform within a week or face a suspension of its operations in the country. In August 2022, the Commission also found an increase in hate content on TikTok. Some of the hate and disinformation hashtags it identified on the various platforms included #RejectRailaOdinga, #Riggagy and #RutoMalizaUfungwe, which propagated falsehoods against candidates in the presidential election.

Some critics have argued that social media platforms have shown a consistent failure to adequately moderate content in Kenya. Furthermore, the platforms’ attempts at content moderation are implemented in a lacklustre, under-funded and opaque system that is neither participatory nor rights-respecting. Other studies have also shown that platforms continue to inconsistently enforce their own rules through flawed content moderation practices and in essence permit the spread of extreme, divisive and polarising content partly due to their lack of understanding of Kenya’s cultural context and local languages and slang.

The government’s attempts at legislating on disinformation and hate speech have not been without setbacks. In 2018, the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act, 2018 was adopted, imposing punitive fines and prison terms on the publication of false information and false, misleading and fictitious data. Unfortunately, these provisions have been unjustly used to target bloggers for exposing corruption or seeking state accountability. 

A case by the Bloggers Association of Kenya challenging the constitutionality of the law remains pending an appeal of the decision by the High Court in February 2020 allowing the enforcement of the law. Section 13 of the National Cohesion and Integration Act constricts the definition of hate speech to “ethnic hatred” and fails to capture the constitutional limitations under Article 31, which include propaganda for war, incitement to violence, hate speech, and advocacy of hatred. This means various hate speech content remains lawful in the absence of a clear criminal prohibition.

Moreover, the NCIC, which was formed following the 2007 post-election violence, has been plagued by numerous challenges in its attempt to fight hate and promote peace and national cohesion. The commission for most of its active life has been underfunded, thus hindering its ability and capacity to monitor hate speech online, investigate incidents and conduct public awareness and engagements. Further, political interference with its work means that it has been incapable of enforcing the law to get successful convictions of offenders who are mostly the political elite. 

More importantly, successive government administrations have failed to implement the recommendations of the Truth Justice and Reconciliation Commission (TJRC) report to address the drivers of hate and disinformation. The report identified those drivers as Kenya’s historical inter-ethnic tensions that are systemic and deep-rooted in its social, cultural, religious, economic and political fabric. Disinformation and hate speech in Kenya thrive on these unresolved historical tensions around political ideology, ethnicity, economics, and demography.  

Today, a majority of social media users in Kenya are aware of and fuel hate speech and disinformation on social media. To some, it is all fun and games, as they assume no feelings get hurt. To many, however, disinformation triggers pain, fear, tension and hate. Last year, a local politician advised Kenyans to put matters of politics in their lungs, not their hearts. This attitude is also a problem, as such views may breed a level of acceptance and normalisation of disinformation and hate speech in the country by encouraging people to grow a ‘thick skin’ instead of objectively addressing the root causes of the vice. People, including Kenyans, are known to act on their feelings. As we have seen in neighbouring countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia and Sudan, hate speech and disinformation can drive violence with devastating consequences. 

The failure to resolve Kenya’s underlying tensions means the country risks further social division and fragmentation of society as well as diminished progress due to a continuation of governance policies and practices that further entrench discrimination and exclusion in accessing opportunities, resources and essential services. The hate that arises from the effects of such policies and practices, and the disinformation deployed to justify and perpetuate them, affects people’s mental health and emotional well-being. Moreover, they cement long-held historical fears, suspicions and animosity that continue to undermine the ability of Kenyans to trust each other or the government and could inhibit the willingness of sections of the public to cooperate in nation-building for the common good. 

Be that as it may, there are some promising efforts, such as the recently launched local coalition on freedom of expression and content moderation and the draft guidelines for regulating digital platforms spearheaded by UNESCO that seek to promote engagement and tackle content that potentially damages human rights and democracy. The multistakeholder coalition is an initiative of UNESCO and ARTICLE 19 that aims to bridge the gap between local stakeholders and social media companies and to improve content moderation practices, including supporting regulatory reform, building the capacity of state and non-state actors, and raising awareness on the ethical use of digital platforms. While these twin initiatives are new and largely untested, they present an opportunity to ensure more rights-respecting content moderation practices, the application of common norms based on human rights standards and stronger multistakeholder engagement in the content moderation process.

Finally, it may be easy to blame social media companies for the weaknesses in their content moderation systems, and by all means they need to be held to account. However, better algorithms alone cannot fix our society or our social norms. Kenyans must wake up and smell the coffee. Leaders need to drop the divisive acts and work together with stakeholders and citizens to address historical tensions and foster a culture of inclusion, tolerance, respect and understanding. While at it, they should promote responsible social media use, fact-checking, and media literacy in order to counter the negative impact of hate speech and disinformation and ultimately build a more just, harmonious, democratic and equitable society.

1 … 12 13 14 15 16 … 105