Data privacy Archives – Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA)

14Aug

CIPESA Urges Kenya to Align and Strengthen Its Draft AI Policy

CIPESA August 14, 2026August 14, 2026

By Raylenne Kambua |

In August 2026, the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) submitted a detailed set of recommendations to the Committee on the Draft Kenya Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Other Emerging Technologies Policy, 2026. The submission calls for closer alignment of Kenya’s policy with regional and international AI frameworks, alongside stronger protections for fundamental human rights.

The submission emphasises the need for Kenya to strike a balance between its aspirations for AI governance and strong safeguards that protect human rights, people, and democratic values. Without these, the nation risks developing systems that are innovative but exclusive, unfair, and harmful.

CIPESA argues that since Kenya is simultaneously advancing multiple AI-related processes, including a national AI strategy, a proposed AI Bill, and this draft AI policy, there is a need to align and harmonise the different proposed frameworks to ensure coherence and mitigate the risks of duplication and contradictory provisions.

For example, under section 3.5.1, the Policy commits the government to develop a dedicated AI and other Emerging Technologies Governance Act to provide the legal framework for its governance in Kenya, including the establishment, powers, and functions of the Council, without acknowledging that a similar Bill is already before the Senate.

Kenya’s policy direction is influenced by constitutional obligations as well as wider regional and international commitments that underscore the importance of human rights, accountability, transparency, and inclusiveness. According to CIPESA’s submission, Kenya should incorporate these principles into legally binding policy measures rather than just mentioning them.

The submission further encourages collaboration within the East African region and across the African continent, pointing to the value of shared standards, combined knowledge, and coordinated advocacy in strengthening governance outcomes.

CIPESA’s Navigating the Implications of AI in Kenya report also highlights that AI is reshaping digital participation, information access, and democracy in Kenya. In the absence of explicit protections and clear safeguards, AI systems can perpetuate discrimination, facilitate surveillance, violate people’s right to privacy, restrict freedom of expression, and undermine livelihoods. A rights-based approach that includes mandatory human rights impact assessments will ensure that potential harms are identified and mitigated before systems are deployed.

While the draft policy outlines institutional structures and governance ambitions, CIPESA argues that effective oversight will depend on institutional independence, clear powers, and meaningful accountability. The submission raises concerns about the proposed AI Council’s institutional independence and recommends giving it explicit authority to audit, obtain information, enforce compliance, and report directly to Parliament.

In automated systems, decision-making processes are often opaque and distributed across multiple actors. CIPESA therefore recommends clearly defining responsibilities and liability so that individuals harmed by AI systems have effective redress mechanisms.

Effective AI governance requires technical expertise, resources, and coordination across multiple agencies, yet many institutions in Kenya remain under-resourced. Therefore, proposed governance frameworks should be realistic about the state’s ability to implement and enforce stronger oversight mechanisms by investing in institutional capacity and talent retention.

According to CIPESA’s research, AI content moderation on major platforms is built largely for the Global North, with low-resource African languages. Many AI systems deployed in African contexts are trained on datasets that do not reflect local realities, leading to biased outcomes with direct implications for fairness, inclusion, and accuracy. This necessitates strong local data ecosystems and locally relevant content moderation systems and languages.

Kenya’s 2025 High Court ruling on the Worldcoin iris-scanning project affirmed the need for stronger data protection measures and integration with AI-specific legislation. According to CIPESA, incorporating pre-deployment oversight would transform AI governance from a reactive to a proactive model, particularly regarding sensitive biometric data.

AI systems are resource-intensive, consuming a lot of energy and requiring large amounts of water for data centre cooling. They also emit carbon and ultimately contribute to electronic waste. The submission recommends environmentally sustainable approaches, including independent third-party verification of environmental disclosures and publication of verified information in the public Registry.

The African Union AI Strategy identifies disinformation as a distinct risk. AI can influence public discourse by deciding which information is promoted, suppressed, or amplified. Disinformation, manipulation, targeted harassment, technology-facilitated gender-based violence (TFGBV), and AI-generated deepfakes can create particular risks in civic and democratic spaces, with disproportionate effects on women and other vulnerable groups. CIPESA proposes explicit recognition of these threats, implementation of gender impact assessments for high-risk systems, and stronger oversight of AI use in elections, political advertising, and content moderation.

Another recommendation is the inclusion of civil society representation at the steering committee, which is the top decision-making level. This is to ensure meaningful participation and alignment with the African Union AI Strategy and the UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of AI, which call for inclusive, multi-stakeholder involvement in AI governance, especially where major decisions are made.

Inclusion and public participation also require accessible language and processes that enable broader public engagement with what are often complex and technical issues, through investments in digital literacy and public awareness.

The submission further underscores the importance of labour rights and the often invisible workforce behind AI systems, many of whom work in unfavourable conditions. By highlighting the need for fair labour standards, protections, and recognition of data work, CIPESA also recommends including the workforce that sustains AI ecosystems in high-level policy discussions.

Explainability and transparency are essential to accountable AI governance. For people to trust AI systems, they need to understand how AI-driven decisions are made and contest results they believe to be unfair. To prevent AI systems from being treated as black boxes beyond public scrutiny, there must be clear documentation, disclosure standards, and rights to explanation. This builds accountability and trust, especially in high-risk sectors like public services, healthcare, and finance.

Finally, CIPESA highlights the necessity of continuous policy review and adaptation, emphasising that governance frameworks must remain adaptable and responsive as AI technologies evolve quickly. This includes establishing mechanisms for periodic review, stakeholder feedback, and iterative policy development to ensure that regulations remain relevant and effective over time.

CIPESA’s recommendations provide a mechanism to close the gap between ambition and accountability as Kenya works to finalise its AI policy. The decisions made at this point will influence not only the development, deployment, and application of AI but also the distribution of its benefits and risks.

Key recommendations from CIPESA:

Align Kenya’s AI policy and legislation to avoid duplication and conflicting provisions.
Make human rights and gender impact assessments mandatory for high-risk AI systems.
Strengthen the independence and powers of AI oversight institutions, including audit, enforcement, and redress.
Protect workers across the AI value chain, including data annotators and content moderators.
Require environmental accountability for AI, including disclosure and independent verification of energy, water, emissions, and e-waste impacts.
Ensure transparency and meaningful participation, including stronger safeguards for AI-generated political content and a formal role for civil society in AI governance.

Read the full submission here: CIPESA Submission on Kenya’s Draft AI and Emerging Technologies Policy.

13Aug

Civil Society and the Fight for Big Tech Accountability in Africa

CIPESA August 13, 2026August 13, 2026

By CIPESA Writer |

As digital platforms become central to how Africans communicate, access information, conduct business, and participate in public life, the question of who holds these companies accountable has become increasingly urgent.

Technology companies exercise considerable influence over personal data, online visibility, advertising markets, content moderation, and, increasingly, artificial intelligence systems. Yet CIPESA’s work on platform governance shows that having laws and regulations does not always translate into effective oversight of multinational technology companies.

These concerns were at the centre of the Big Tech Accountability Summit on July 30, 2026, where CIPESA’s Policy and Advocacy Officer, Patricia Ainembabazi, spoke on the panel “How Civil Society and Public Interest Litigation Drive Big Tech Data Protection Accountability in Africa.”

The discussions focused on the role civil society can play in triggering enforcement, the barriers to holding multinational companies accountable across borders, and the institutional reforms and policies needed to strengthen accountability. A key point from the discussion was that adopting data protection laws and establishing regulators does not automatically guarantee enforcement.

Across Africa, many regulators operate with limited financial resources, insufficient specialised personnel, fragmented mandates, and varying levels of institutional independence. They are nevertheless expected to oversee companies with substantial financial, technical, and legal capacity. Much of the evidence required to establish violations, including information about algorithms, data flows, and internal risk assessments, also remains under the control of the companies themselves.

This imbalance means that civil society can play an important role. As Patricia Ainembabazi noted, civil society organisations document harms, aggregate the experiences of affected users, undertake legal and technical research, file regulatory complaints, support strategic litigation, and sustain public scrutiny.

Similar concerns regarding tech accountability had been raised earlier on July 7, 2026, during the Humanising Big Tech Accountability webinar, where panelists argued that holding platforms accountable requires concerted efforts and a multistakeholder approach, including through storytelling and narrative building.

Uganda’s data protection case against Google LLC illustrates the importance of citizen-led accountability. The complaint was brought by four Ugandan data subjects, while CIPESA subsequently documented and amplified its wider significance. CIPESA highlighted how the case transformed an abstract privacy right into a concrete enforcement action against one of the world’s largest technology companies. The case also demonstrated the importance of testing the application of national data protection obligations to multinational companies operating across borders.

From western Africa, Nigeria offers another important example. A joint investigation by the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission and the Nigeria Data Protection Commission resulted in a USD 220 million penalty against Meta and WhatsApp, which was subsequently upheld by the Competition and Consumer Protection Tribunal. The case demonstrates that African regulators can build credible enforcement actions against multinational platforms. It also raises the broader question of whether such penalties ultimately lead to lasting compliance and changes in corporate behaviour.

CIPESA’s recent analysis, Who Holds Digital Power Accountable? Lessons from Platform Governance in Africa further show that countries are experimenting with different approaches to regulating platform power. South Africa’s Media and Digital Platforms Market Inquiry examined the influence of dominant platforms on local journalism and secured commitments from several major companies. Uganda’s prolonged restriction on Facebook presents a contrasting experience, where the social and economic costs were borne by users and businesses without clearly producing greater accountability from the platform.

These examples show that the ability of individual African countries to influence global technology companies depends not only on having laws but also on regulatory capacity, market size, and political leverage.

The challenge extends beyond data protection. CIPESA has documented how weaknesses in platform governance affect freedom of expression, access to information, civic participation, and gender equality. Inadequate local language content moderation, technology-facilitated gender-based violence (TFGBV), and rapidly spreading disinformation demonstrate how failures in platform accountability translate directly into harms for African users. Effective platform governance, therefore, needs to address not only content moderation but also pay attention to data governance, competition, algorithmic transparency, market concentration, and access to effective remedies.

For civil society and regulators, one of the major challenges is regulatory fragmentation. A technology company may collect data in one country, process or store it in another, and make key decisions elsewhere. Different national laws, procedures, and institutional capacities can allow companies to challenge jurisdiction or respond selectively across markets. Regulators and civil society organisations may also lack the resources to undertake sophisticated technical audits or sustain lengthy litigation.

As such, CIPESA has called for a shift beyond isolated national enforcement towards the domestication of the African Union-backed cross-border enforcement mechanism, bringing together data protection, competition, consumer protection, and communications regulators.

While regional approaches begin to emerge, the COMESA Competition Commission’s investigation into Meta across its member states illustrates the potential for collective oversight of platform power. CIPESA’s research similarly argues that no African country can effectively address systemic platform power in isolation and calls for stronger institutions, deeper regulatory cooperation, rights-respecting regulation, and greater transparency from technology companies.

Ultimately, civil society must be integral to this accountability architecture, not merely consulted after decisions have been taken, but as a source of complaints, research, community evidence, and independent oversight. Stronger Big Tech accountability in Africa will also depend on regulators that have the resources and independence to act, accessible remedies for affected users, coordinated regional enforcement, and sustained public interest advocacy.

During the Humanising Tech Accountability webinar, CIPESA emphasised the need for civil society actors to proactively engage in research and advocacy that centers and amplifies the impact of unchecked big tech companies’ practices on people’s lives. It is only when people understand the impact of practices and manifestations such as TFGBV or the spread of disinformation on their fundamental human rights, such as freedom of expression, access to information, civic participation, and gender equality, that they will aggressively demand platform reforms and accountability.

Through our research, policy engagement, and advocacy on data governance, privacy, platform governance, and digital rights, CIPESA continues to contribute to building an African digital ecosystem in which technological power is matched by meaningful accountability.

23Jul

Rethinking Africa’s Approach to the Politics of AI Governance and Regulation

CIPESA July 23, 2026July 23, 2026

By Paul Kimumwe |

The past few years have witnessed a growing urgency for frameworks that regulate and harness the development and implementation of new and emerging technologies, especially Generative Artificial Intelligence (Gen AI).

At the international and regional level, the United Nations (UN) and the African Union (AU) have established norms through resolutions, strategies and guidelines to affirm the relationship between technology and human rights, and provide benchmarks for Member States developing rights-respecting AI governance and regulatory frameworks.

In March 2024, the UN adopted a landmark resolution on the promotion of “safe, secure and trustworthy” artificial intelligence (AI) systems that also benefit sustainable development. The resolution also calls upon Member States and other stakeholders “to refrain from or cease the use of artificial intelligence systems that are impossible to operate in compliance with international human rights law or that pose undue risks to the enjoyment of human rights.”

The 2024 resolution reaffirmed that “the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, including throughout the life cycle of artificial intelligence systems.” It called upon member states to ensure that national AI governance and regulatory frameworks “promote safe, secure and trustworthy artificial intelligence systems” that are inclusive and benefit everyone in an equal manner.

In August 2025, the UN adopted resolution 79/325, establishing the Independent International Scientific Panel on AI and Global Dialogue on AI Governance. It aims to provide a platform to discuss international cooperation, share best practices and lessons learned, and to facilitate open, transparent and inclusive discussions on AI governance. However, a year earlier, in July 2024, the AU adopted the Continental AI Strategy, which emphasises the development of robust governance regimes for AI founded on ethical principles, democratic values, human rights, and the rule of law, in line with the AU Agenda 2063.

Both the UN resolutions on AI and the AU continental strategy came on the backdrop of other AI-related policy guidelines such as Center for AI and Digital Policy’s 2018 Universal Guidelines for AI, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 2019 AI Principles / G20 AI Guidelines, the United Nations Education Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO’s) 2021 Recommendation on the Ethics of AI, and the European Union Commission’s (EUC) 2024 European Union AI Act.

Many African countries have been actively developing AI-related laws, policies, and strategies. Rwanda was the first to adopt a national AI policy in 2019, followed by Ghana’s National Artificial Intelligence Strategy in October 2022, Egypt’s National Artificial Intelligence Strategy in January 2025, and Kenya’s own strategy in May 2025. Benin, Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Mauritius, Nigeria, Tunisia, Zambia, and Zimbabwe are among others that have developed AI policies or strategies. Others, such as Burkina Faso, Guinea, Lesotho, Mali, Namibia, and Uganda, are still at different stages in developing their AI policies or strategies.

A case of history repeating itself?

While all these have been welcome developments in the governance and regulation of AI, studies show that the adoption of international and regional human rights instruments and national laws, policies and strategies is often just the first step in a long process. If not well managed, it often results in provisions that are, although of a progressive nature, are hard to implement and fail to address local needs and realities.

This is because the process of drafting these laws and strategies in many developing contexts is often devoid of meaningful multistakeholder consultations and engagement. Moreover, there has also been a tendency to adopt and replicate models from the global North, whose texts, while progressive, have faced strong resistance from Member States as they sometimes do not align with local contexts and cultural norms.

For example, many African countries, including Algeria, Ethiopia, Cameroon, Kenya, Mauritius, Namibia, Rwanda, South Africa, and Uganda, expressed strong reservations about certain provisions contained in the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa (Maputo Protocol).

Additionally, most of these models are state-centric and grounded in frameworks that create a distinct binary between duty-bearers and rights-holders, but do not articulate how and what each party needs to do to ensure meaningful implementation of the initiatives.

While the state-centric and rights-based approaches may seem attractive, in practice, their relevance in advancing digital rights is often undermined, especially when the prescribed provisions and action points do not align with the country’s current social, economic and political realities. Indeed, cases abound in which initial promises have fizzled over time due to the political leadership’s inaction (and sometimes unwillingness) to fully adopt and implement the resolutions or strategies.

For example, it took almost nine years for the African Union Convention on Cyber Security and Personal Data Protection (Malabo Convention) to enter into force on June 8, 2023, after its adoption in 2014. Indeed, more countries (40) have enacted data protection laws as compared to those that have ratified (16), highlighting a disconnect between national legal reforms and their commitment to continental frameworks. Similarly, the AU Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in Africa, adopted on January 30, 2018, took six years to enter into force, after the 15th ratification was achieved.

More critically, however, the lack of political will often reflect in the absence of clearly defined funding mechanisms for the implementation of these policies and strategies. As a result, even well-designed and progressive frameworks face implementation challenges due to structural flaws and insufficient funding.

For example, while Africa has scored highly in enacting Data Protection laws, which have become central to ongoing AI governance frameworks, one issue affecting their effective implementation is the lack of clear funding mechanisms for the regulatory bodies responsible for oversight and implementation. Other challenges include weak governance structures that deny these oversight bodies financial, decisional and operational independence and place them under the supervision of political appointees rather than parliament.

Designing for Failure?

Apart from Kenya, most African countries that have developed or are in the process of developing an AI strategy or policy do not provide for budgetary allocations or estimates for the implementation of their AI strategies, laws or policies. Countries such as Rwanda provide for a project-level funding framework, while others, such as Egypt and Mauritius, rely on programmatic budgets to fund the implementation of their strategies.

Even then, while implementation of Kenya’s National Artificial Intelligence Strategy (2025–2030) was costed at KSh 152 billion over a period of five years, a review of Kenya’s 2026/27 national budget shows no dedicated funding allocation for the strategy. Instead, the Sh8.6 billion allocated to the ICT sector mainly targets the expansion of broadband access, the strengthening of digital skills, and the digitisation of government services.

Additionally, in countries such as Ethiopia and Rwanda, while the policies provide for the establishment of an implementation body, several functions have been split across different ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs), which, in practice, would pose a significant challenge to meaningful execution.

For example, Rwanda’s AI policy mandates the Responsible AI office under the Ministry of ICT and Innovation to be responsible for effective tech implementation. It also positions the Rwanda Utilities Regulatory Authority (RURA) as the technical regulator responsible for developing ethical AI guidelines and principles, and the National Cyber Security Authority (NCSA) to oversee data protection compliance relevant to AI systems.

In Ethiopia, the policy designates the Ethiopian Artificial Intelligence Institute (EAII) as the national coordinating body responsible for implementation, standards development, and capacity building, and the Ministry of Innovation and Technology is responsible for providing policy oversight. Other sectoral agencies, such as the Ethiopian Communications Authority (ECA), the Ministry of Health, and the National Bank, have mandates over telecommunications and data matters, health-sector-related AI, and financial AI, respectively.

While a multisectoral approach to policy and strategic implementation can improve cohesiveness and legitimacy, the approach is prone to risks such as divergent priorities, internal conflicts, power struggles, and regulatory fragmentation, which are likely to affect how the policies and strategies are executed.

Implications for the Future of AI Governance and Regulation

In many African countries, the development of AI governance and regulatory structures is still in its infancy and presents a unique opportunity for Africans to shape their own destiny on how AI should be developed and deployed in ways that respond to and respect local needs and contexts.

Enactment of AI-specific Laws

In many countries, governments are relying on existing laws, such as data protection, communications, and cyber-related legislation, alongside the AI policies and strategies being developed. Given the evolving nature of AI, countries need to work towards enacting AI-specific laws that clearly define and contextualise AI.

Empowering the Oversight Bodies

As currently structured, many of the existing and proposed oversight bodies are either not yet operational or lack a clear mandate and sufficient resources for effective oversight. Additionally, many of them are situated within fragmented regulatory environments with overlapping responsibilities, which results in uncoordinated implementation. It is important, therefore, that the mandate of the oversight bodies and resources are clearly defined and guaranteed to ensure independence and eliminate the possibility of political interference.

Meaningful Stakeholder Participation

Having empowered stakeholders who are meaningfully engaged and participate in the development processes for policies, laws and strategies is critical to ensuring that the resulting instruments address real needs, are people-centred and implementable, and have government buy-in, as reflected in the government’s funded priorities.

Adopting a Human Rights-Centred Approach

A 2025 study by CIPESA shows that in many countries, the adoption of a human rights-centred approach to AI governance remains aspirational due to gaps in implementation, technical capacity, and stakeholder engagement in policy development and implementation. It is important, therefore, that current efforts prioritise safeguarding fundamental human rights and freedoms, enhancing human capabilities over replacement, and ensuring meaningful human control, transparency, fairness, and inclusivity in AI systems.

10Jul

Shaping the Agenda for the Forum on Internet Freedom in Africa 2026 (FIFAfrica26): Thank You for Your Proposals

CIPESA July 10, 2026July 29, 2026

FIFAfrica26 |

The organisers of the upcoming Forum on Internet Freedom in Africa 2026 (FIFAfrica26) extend sincere appreciation to everyone who submitted a session proposal or travel support application in response to the recent Call.

We received over 450 submissions, reflecting a rich diversity of interests spanning the current digital rights landscape in Africa and their intersections with global dynamics. The submissions collectively reflected the pressing issues shaping digital rights, online freedoms, and internet governance across the continent while also highlighting the vibrant community working to advance internet freedom in Africa.

Successful Applicants

Successful applicants have been notified directly. We are excited to confirm that their sessions and contributions will form the core of the Forum’s agenda. We look forward to working closely with them to shape the programme and to bringing their insightful proposals to life during the Forum.

For Those Not Selected

If you have not received a success notification, please know that this does not reflect a lack of value in your submission. The volume of high-quality proposals far exceeded the available session slots, and difficult decisions had to be made. We remain grateful for your engagement and encourage you to stay connected with the Forum as there will be future opportunities to contribute.

Next Steps in the Process

The FIFAfrica26 agenda will be shared publicly in the coming weeks.
All applicants will continue to receive Forum updates and are warmly invited to attend as participants online or in person.
Registration to attend the Forum remains open: secure your seat here.

Plan Your Travel to Mauritius

The Forum will be hosted at the InterContinental Resort, Fort Coastal Road, MU, Balaclava 21306, Mauritius. All participants, those receiving travel support from CIPESA and other partners as well as independent participants, should refer to the FIFAfrica26 travel note and plan accordingly.

Thank you once again for your time, expertise, and commitment to building a free, open, and inclusive internet in Africa. We look forward to engaging with you online or in person at FIFAfrica26.

08Jul

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

CIPESA July 8, 2026July 9, 2026

By CIPESA Writer |

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please read the full Policy Brief here.

1 2 3 … 32 Next page

Tag Archives: Data privacy