Promoting Effective and Inclusive ICT Policy in Africa

Tag Archives: Digital Rights

  HomeCollaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA)  /  Digital Rights
16Nov

International Day of Persons With Disabilities (IDPWD) 2022

The theme this year is “Transformative solutions for inclusive development: the role of innovation in fuelling an accessible and equitable world“.

The annual observance of the International Day of Persons with Disabilities (IDPD) on 3 December was proclaimed in 1992 by the United Nations General Assembly resolution 47/3. The observance of the Day aims to promote an understanding of disability issues and mobilize support for the dignity, rights and well-being of persons with disabilities.

The 2022 global observance to commemorate the International Day of Persons with Disabilities will be around the overarching theme of innovation and transformative solutions for inclusive development, covering in three different interactive dialogues the following thematic topics:

Click here for more information on the event.

10Nov

Countering Digital Authoritarianism in Africa

Author CIPESA Posted on

By Apolo Kakaire |

The Internet which is viewed as the panacea for democracy, participation and inclusion is increasingly becoming a tool of repression deployed by regimes across the world to stifle rights and voice.  Africa, a continent already replete with poor democratic credentials and practices seems to be rapidly catching up on the new ‘epidemic’- digital authoritarianism.

The use of technology tactics to advance repressive political interests has come to be  referred to as digital authoritarianism. However, the tactics employed by authoritarian regimes have also been deployed by democratic states for purposes of surveillance, spread of misinformation, disinformation, and the disruption of civic and political participation under the pretext of fighting cybercrime, and in the interest of protecting national security, and maintaining public order.

Big technology companies are key drivers of digital authoritarianism through the creation, innovation and supply of repressive technology and related support. Moreover, political parties, interest groups, and smaller private companies have lapped it up too, developing and using tools and strategies of digital authoritarianism.

Digital authoritarianism is a great case study in understanding and appreciating the impact of technology on human rights. While laws legalising surveillance and interception of communications, and widespread data collection and processing may not be a problem in themselves, it is the ambiguity often present within those laws that give governments wide latitude of interpretation to facilitate the rights abuse that is a growing challenge.

At the Forum on Internet Freedom in Africa 2022 (FIFAfrica22), Global Voices Advox, shared findings from the Unfreedom Monitor– a project exploring the political and social context that fuels the emergence of digital authoritarianism in 17 countries. They hosted a panel discussion in which project researchers from India, Nigeria, Sudan and Zimbabwe presented the project findings on the connections between political contexts, analogue rights, and the growing use of digital communications technology to advance authoritarian governance.

The findings paint a grim picture for  freedom of the media, expression, and democracy in general. In Zimbabwe for instance, the Unfreedom Monitor report notes that; “the press walks a precarious line between national security and the professional obligation to report truthfully” on issues that happen in the country. It is an observation that is replicated in the mapping conducted in Morocco, Egypt, and Tanzania 

In Sudan, where internet censorship, bad laws and repressed liberties and network disruptions are commonplace, Khattab Hamad noted that the contours and motives of digital authoritarianism include fear of losing power, protecting the existence of regional or international alliances, and geopolitical motives protecting private and family interests. He added that terrorism and support for terrorist groups was another motive for authoritarianism in the country. 

In Tanzania, researchers found that often, laws are enacted as precursors to enable various methods of digital authoritarianism. For example, the Cybercrime Act which was hurriedly enacted just months before the October 2015 elections. “There were many other such laws, including the amendments to the Non-Governmental Orgnaisations (NGO) Act, that saw NGOs being deregistered and control on them tightened in the lead up to the 2020 elections”, they revealed.

In Uganda, network disruptions in the run up to and during recent elections is another example of digital authoritarianism. “Sometimes the internet is restored after elections. So, the question is what exactly is the purpose? What are you hiding? Why do you deny your people access to information? Internet shutdowns also question the credibility of elections”, said Felicia Anthonio of Access Now. She added that network disruptions affect engagement between voters and political candidates, in addition to limiting  electoral oversight and monitoring by human rights activists and election observers. 

As part of the Unfreedom Monitor project, Global Voices Advox has established a publicly available database on digital authoritarianism to support advocacy in light of the “urgency of a fast deteriorating situation”, said Sindhuri Nandhakumar, a researcher  with the project. 

While applauding the research and database in supporting evidence-based advocacy, digital rights activists at FIFAfrica22 noted that given the behaviour of authoritarian regimes, advocacy at the national level may be met with a lot of resistance. As such, more engagement was called for  through special mandates and periodic human rights review mechanisms at the African Union (AU) and the United Nations Human Rights Council.   

“Advocacy [against digital authoritarianism] at national level will be difficult. Positive results could be registered through Special rapporteurs at the AU and states through the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), towards securing accountability”, said Arsene Tungali from the Democratic Republic of Congo.

For African digital rights activists, the Global Voices Advox research and database unravels new  avenues for collaborative advocacy and transnational opportunities for interventions to stem this spread of digital authoritarianism. The findings however also point at the need for a concerted and robust response to its growing traction.

As elections in Africa remain a major flashing point for digital authoritarianism as all manner of manipulation of voters, narratives, even results abound, it remains a key area of transnational cooperation. Ahead of the elections in Zimbabwe, slated for July-August 2023, Advox will come up with tips on awareness raising on voter rights and the role of technology in elections. Zimbabwe provides a good opportunity to pilot, learn and perhaps adopt some interventions to counter this behemoth.

28Oct

Digital Rights Prioritised at The 73rd Session of The ACHPR

Author CIPESA Posted on

By CIPESA Writer |

Digital rights as key to the realisation and enforcement of human rights on the African continent was  among the thematic focus areas of the Forum on the Participation of NGOs in the 73rd Ordinary Session of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) held on October 17-18, 2022 in Banjul, the Gambia. Under the theme “Human Rights and Governance in Africa: A Multi-Dimensional Approach in Addressing Conflict, Crisis and Inequality”, the Forum also featured thematic discussions on conflict, the Africa Continental Free Trade Agreement, the environment, climate change, gender-based violence, post Covid-19 strategies and civic space for human rights and good governance.

The Forum on the Participation of NGOs in the Ordinary Sessions of the ACHPR is an advocacy platform coordinated by the African Centre for Democracy and Human Rights Studies. It aims to promote advocacy, lobbying and networking among non-governmental organisations (NGOs) for the promotion and protection of human rights in Africa. The Forum allows for sharing updates on the human rights situation on the continent by African and international NGOs with a view of identifying responses as well as adopting strategies towards promoting and protecting human rights on the continent.

A session in which the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) participated alongside Paradigm Initiative (PIN), the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL) and the Centre for Human Rights-University of Pretoria, discussed the relationship between human rights and technology.

Thobekile Matimbe from PIN observed that internet shutdowns in the region are worrying and a major threat to freedom of expression, access to information, freedom of association and peaceful assembly contrary to article 9 of the African Charter on Human and People Rights (ACHPR) and the ACHPR Declaration of Principles on freedom of expression and access to information in Africa. She  expounded on the profound adverse impacts of internet shutdowns and disruptions on socio-economic rights, including the right to education, housing, health, and even social security. Matimbe specifically called for an end to the now two years internet and phone shutdown in Ethiopia’s Tigray region, while also regretting the continued violation of international human rights standards by States in other parts of the continent. 

Introducing digital rights as human rights and situating the different human rights groups within the digital rights discourse, Irene Petras from ICNL highlighted the technological evolution on the continent and the interrelatedness and interdependence of the internet with various rights and freedoms. According to her, internet shutdowns are an emerging concern that is adversely impacting the digital civic space. 

According to Access Now, in 2021 at least 182 internet shutdowns were experienced in 34 countries across the globe. In Africa, shutdowns were recorded in 12 countries on up to 19 occasions. The affected countries were Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Gabon, Niger, Uganda and Zambia, which experienced internet restrictions during elections. Eswatini, Ethiopia, Gabon, Senegal and South Sudan experienced internet shutdowns due to protests and civil unrest. 

According to CIPESA’s legal officer Edrine Wanyama, given the long-standing authoritarianism and democracy deficits in most parts of the continent, elections, protests and demonstrations and examination periods are  the key drivers of internet shutdowns in Africa. Wanyama also noted that the consequences of internet shutdowns were wide ranging, extending to economic and financial loss, undermining freedom of expression, access to information and access to the internet, aggravating the digital exclusion gap, placing doubt on credibility of elections, facilitating loss of trust in governments and often fueling disinformation and hate speech. 

Given the social, economic and political benefits of the internet, Hlengiwe Dube of the Centre for Human Rights at the University of Pretoria urged states to re-think its availability and access at all times, as opposed to imposing information blackouts and creating situations for litigation.  She noted that meaningful access and creation of a facilitative environment for internet access has widely been advanced as part of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). 

The session called for active monitoring and documentation of internet shutdowns by NGOs including through collaborative and partnership building efforts, utilising investigative tools like Observatory of Network Interference (OONI) and NetBlocks which help to detect disruptions, and engaging in strategic litigation. 

The joint recommendations provided for inclusion in the NGOs Statement to the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) 73rd Ordinary Session by the thematic cluster on digital rights and security are to:

African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) 

  1. In the event of an internet shutdown or any state-perpetrated network disruption, the ACHPR should condemn in the strongest terms such practices and reiterate the state obligations under international human rights law and standards. 
  2. In its assessment of State periodic reports, the ACHPR should engage States under assessment on issues of internet access including the occurrence of interferences through measures such as the removal, blocking or filtering of content and assess compliance with international human rights law and standards.
  3. The ACHPR should engage with stakeholders including State Parties, national human rights institutions and NGOs to develop guidance on internet freedom in Africa aimed at realising an open and secure internet in the promotion of freedom of expression and access to information online.

States Parties

  1. States should recognise and respect that universal, equitable, affordable and meaningful access to the internet is necessary for the realisation of human rights by adopting legal, policy and other measures to promote access to the internet and amend laws that unjustifiably restrict access to the internet.
  2. States parties should desist from unnecessarily implementing internet shutdowns and any other arbitrary actions that limit access to, and use of the internet and restore all disrupted digital networks where such disruptions have been ordered. Where limitation measures that disrupt access to the internet and social media are inevitable, they should be narrowly applied and should be prescribed by the law; serve a legitimate aim and be necessary and proportionate means to achieve a stated aim in a democratic society. 
  3. The State, as the duty bearer, should create a conducive environment for business entities to operate in a manner that respects human rights. 

Non-Governmental Organisations 

  • NGOs and other stakeholders should monitor and document the occurrence of internet shutdowns including their impact on human rights and development; raise awareness of the shutdowns and continuously advocate for an open and secure internet.

The Private Sector

  • Telecommunications companies and internet service providers, in their response to shut down requests, should take the relevant legal measures to avoid internet shutdowns and whenever they receive Internet Shutdown requests from States, the companies should insist on human rights due diligence before such measures are taken to mitigate their impact on human rights, ensuring transparency.
29Sep

State of Internet Freedom in Africa 2022: The Rise of Biometric Surveillance

Author Evelyn Lirri Posted on

FIFAfrica22 |

Digital biometric data collection programmes are becoming increasingly popular across the African continent. Governments are investing in diverse digital programmes to enable the capture of biometric information of their citizens for various purposes.

A new report by the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) documents the emerging and current trends in biometric data collection and processing in Africa. It focuses on the deployment of national biometric technology-based programmes in 16 African countries, namely Angola, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Mozambique, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, and Zambia.

The report published today is the ninth consecutive one issued by CIPESA since 2014 under the State of Internet Freedom in Africa series. It was released at the Forum on Internet Freedom in Africa (FIFAfrica), which is taking place in Lusaka, Zambia.

The biometric data collection programmes reviewed by the report include those related to civil registrations, such as the issuance of National Identity cards, biometric voter registration and identification programmes, government-led CCTV programmes with facial recognition capabilities, national ePassport initiatives, refugees’ registration, and mandatory biometric SIM card registration.

The report highlights the key trends, potential risks, challenges and gaps relating to biometric data collection projects in the continent. These include limited public engagement and awareness campaigns; inadequate legal frameworks that heighten risks to privacy; exclusion from accessing essential services; enhanced surveillance, profiling and targeting; conflicting interests and the wide powers of third parties; and limited capacity and training. 

Consequently, the study notes that these biometric programmes are being implemented in countries with poor digital rights records, declining democracy and rising digital authoritarianism, which casts doubt on the integrity of biometric data collection programmes and the resultant databases. Thus, viewed collectively, the developments, trends and risks outlined in the report heighten concern over the growing threats to the right to privacy of personal data and potential violations of digital rights on the continent. 

Finally, the report presents recommendations to various stakeholders including the government, civil society, the media, the private sector and academia, which, if implemented, will go a long way in addressing data protection and privacy gaps, risks and challenges in the study countries. 

The key recommendations include a call to:

  • Governments to implement the laws and policy frameworks on identity systems and data protection and privacy while paying keen attention to compliance with regionally and internationally recognised principles and minimum standards on data protection and privacy for biometric data collection and require the adoption of human rights-based approaches. 
  • Countries without data protection and privacy laws such as Liberia, Mozambique, Sierra Leone and Tanzania should expedite the process of enacting appropriate data protection laws so as to guarantee the data protection and privacy rights of their citizens. 
  • Governments to ratify the AU Convention on Cyber Security and Personal Data Protection (Malabo Convention) to ensure government commitment to regional data protection and privacy as a means to hold them accountable.
  • Governments to establish independent and robust oversight data protection bodies to regulate data and privacy protection including biometric data.
  • Civil society to engage in advocacy and lobby governments to develop, implement and enforce privacy and data protection policies, laws and institutional frameworks that are in compliance with regional and international minimum human rights standards.
  • Civil society to monitor, document and report on the risks, threats, abuses and violations of privacy and human rights associated with biometric data collection programmes, and propose effective solutions to safeguard rights in line with international human rights standards.
  • The media to progressively document and report on initiatives such as advocacy by civil society and other stakeholders to keep track of developments. 
  • The media to conduct investigative journalism to identify and expose privacy violations arising from the implementation of biometric data collection programmes.
  • The private sector to take deliberate efforts to ensure that all their respective biometric data collection programmes and systems are developed implemented and managed in compliance with best practices prescribed by the national, regional and international human rights standards and practices on privacy and data protection, including the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.
  • The private sector to ensure that they progressively adopt and develop comprehensive internal privacy policies to guide the collection, storing and processing of personal data. 
  • The private sector to take deliberate efforts aimed at involving data subjects in the control and management of their personal data by providing timely information on external requests for information. 
  • Academia to conduct evidence-based research on data protection and privacy including biometrics, highlighting the challenges, risks, benefits and trends in biometric data collection programmes. 

The full State of Internet Freedom in Africa 2022 Report can be accessed here.

02Sep

Lawyers Trained to Defend Digital Freedoms 

Author CIPESA Posted on

By Edrine Wanyama |

On July 28, 2022, 82 practicing advocates in Uganda were trained on defending digital rights and freedoms. The training was organised by the International Senior Lawyers Project, the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA), Uganda Law Society, and the Centre for Law and Democracy.

The sessions included an assessment of Uganda’s digital rights landscape, human rights issues affecting women journalists in Uganda, international freedom of expression norms, using international law to defend freedom of expression, and practices for shaping the legal framework for cybersecurity to effectively defend human rights.

In her opening remarks, the Uganda Law Society (ULS) vice president Diana Angwech stressed that it was crucial for the society to promote digital rights as they continued to face challenges.  She added that rights abuses tend to grow during certain seasons such as elections. The ULS Rule of Law Report of 2021 documented abuses such as the state revoking of broadcasting licenses without due process, attacks on journalists, including the assault of over 20 journalists and the shooting of journalists by state security agents while covering opposition campaigns and proceedings in 2021.

In setting the pace for the capacity building training, CIPESA unpacked Uganda’s legal regime for digital rights. The session covered the meaning, scope and importance of digital rights and emerging issues for lawyers’ attention. The rights covered include freedom of expression, access to information, data protection and privacy, rights of children and their protection, intellectual property, assembly and association, the right to be forgotten, anonymity, and equal access to digital technologies.

Uganda’s constitution provides for the rights to privacy, freedom of expression, and the right of access to information. However, the country’s legislation including the Press and Journalist Act, Penal Code Act, Data Protection and Privacy Act, 2019, Anti-Terrorism Act 2002 as amended 2015 and 2016, the Access to Information Act, 2005, the Official Secrets Act, Uganda Communications Act, 2013, Regulation of Interception of Communications Act, 2010, the Computer Misuse Act, 2011, the Anti-Pornography Act, 2014 and the Public Health (Control of COVID-19l) Rules 2021 limit the enjoyment of digital rights. These laws are largely marred by vague provisions and wide limitations which enable communications monitoring and interception, and undermine free expression.

Catherine Anite of the Small Media Foundation spoke about how Uganda was experiencing a deterioration in respect for press freedom. In 2022 Uganda fell seven places on the World Press Freedom Index ranking at 132 out of 180 countries analysed.

According to Anite, while gender equality is a prerequisite for human rights, democracy and social justice, gender disparities remain evident in the media. Female journalists across the globe face similar challenges, in addition to increased and appalling levels of violence both online and offline when compared to their male counterparts. She noted:

“Female journalists have reported suffering physical and online violence perpetrated by colleagues, public figures, strangers, anonymous perpetrators. We might be speaking about journalists but as lawyers some of these things apply to our contexts as well but we don’t speak about them. These trends have negatively impacted on diversity in media because of the exodus of female journalists, which has affected their equal participation in reporting, civil and political participation due to fears of violence.”

Toby Mendel and Raphael Vagliano, from the Centre for Law and Democracy, discussed international and regional laws  on freedom of expression which are applicable to Uganda. They highlighted provisions of such as  the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 19), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 19), the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Article 9), and the Declaration of Principles of Freedom of Expression and Access to Information in Africa which, among others, require member states to facilitate the rights to freedom of expression and access to information online. Under these instruments Uganda is obligated to respect, protect, promote and fulfill rights.

Richard Wingfield, the Head of the Media Law Working Group at the International Senior Lawyers Project (ISLP), explored case studies on using international law to defend freedom of expression, including approaches to arguments, support and intervention as well as the filing of amicus briefs to support litigation. He explained that lawyers in Uganda could support litigation, even in cases where they are not directly involved such as by offering professional support towards impactful and successful litigation, so as to contribute to the realisation of justice for freedom of expression rights.

Practices for shaping the legal framework for cybersecurity to effectively defend human rights were discussed. Cybersecurity is critical for ensuring confidentiality of personal data at all levels.

Advanced digital surveillance and forensic tools are needed to deal with modern cyber  threats; but governments can abuse those tools if government authority is not adequately checked by confidence-inducing institutions.

Tools for cyber security such as BitDefender, malware-bytes, full disk encryption with bitlocker or file vault and strong password are critical tools for cyber security. Individuals must always be aware of potential data breaches by state authorities which often compromise individual privacy through surveillance and forensics. Common state excuses for cyber security violations were often justified by a need to protect national security, crime prevention and public order. Similarly, while laws create obligations for collectors and processors of personal data, those actors often violate the laws and, this necessitates legal intervention.

The lawyers were called upon to pay particular attention to problematic laws and policies, bills and practices so as to challenge them with the aim of establishing an enabling environment for the protection and enjoyment of digital rights.

The specific key emerging recommendations for lawyers from the capacity building training included to:

  • Collaborate with other stakeholders like civil society and academia to engage in litigation to promote freedom of expression, data and privacy rights.
  • Analyse bills and laws to establish gaps and push for repeal of regressive laws and amendment of regressive provisions.
  • Constantly write on topical issues on freedom of expression, data protection and privacy so as to raise awareness among individuals of their rights and expose any cases of violation for enhanced accountability and transparency.
  • Push telecommunication companies and internet service providers to comply with human rights when doing business, in compliance with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.
  • Respect individual data protection and privacy rights in their dealings to minimise conflict with the Data Protection and Privacy Act, 2019 and regional and international human rights instruments on freedom of expressions, data protections and other human rights.
  • Make use of human rights reporting mechanisms such as the Universal Periodic Review and Special Rapporteur engagements to hold the government accountable for decisions undertaken in respect to digital rights.
  • Push and demand that the government complies with regional and international human rights standards, and signs and ratifies key instruments such as the African Union Convention on Cyber Security and Personal Data Protection so as to enhance digital rights protection.

Take deliberate efforts aimed at skilling themselves in the digital rights field. This will ensure that they are equipped with knowledge and skills on dealing with issues that affect digital rights.

1 … 13 14 15 16 17 … 21