By Ashnah Kalemera |
The Rwanda Utilities Regulatory Authority (RURA), the body that regulates telecommunication services, has dismissed a statement by the country’s electoral body regarding vetting of social media posts by candidates in the upcoming elections. This principled move by RURA needs to be commended, and just like the authority has steadfastly held service providers to their licensing obligations and protected digital technology users’ interests, RURA stands well positioned to be the champion of the free flow of information and ideas online in Rwanda.
“The National Electoral Commission (NEC) has no mandate to regulate or interrupt the use of social media by citizens,” reads RURA’s May 31 statement. The authority goes on to state that as the body in charge of communications, it has not had any discussions with NEC on the matter and to “reaffirm the right of citizens express themselves on social media and other ICT [Information and Communication Technologies] platforms, while respecting existing laws.”
The statement by RURA follows a directive by the electoral body requiring that campaign posts by candidates, including text, photographs and videos must be sent to a team of analysts prior to publishing on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, WhatsApp, Instagram or on candidates’ websites.
“The candidates will have to send their messages to our team 24 hours before the time they expect to post them – and then they give us another 24 hours to give them feedback,” a NEC official is quoted as having told journalists. The commission head stated that candidates risked having their social media accounts blocked if they failed to comply with the instructions. According to officials, NEC’s directive was “not censorship”, but rather, aimed at ensuring that “messages posted on social media are not poisoning people.”
The electoral body’s move deserves condemnation for infringing on free speech and aiming to curtail the free flow of information and opinion in the lead up to presidential elections scheduled for August 2017. Article 38 of the Rwanda constitution guarantees freedom of the press, of expression and of access to information. The Media Law of 2013 further extends these rights to the media, including online platforms, as provided for under Article 19.
Whereas these rights need to be respected at all times, it is especially critical to uphold them at election times to enable politicians easily reach out to voters and for citizens to have ample access to competing ideas so as to make informed choices of who to vote for as their leaders. This is why RURA’s dismissal of the electoral body’s overtures to curtail free expression online is particularly welcome, and yet there is need to work on other fronts to ensure that the country’s laws, and the practices of its institutions and leaders, promote free expression online.
Presently, there are gaps in laws such as the 2013 Media Law, the Penal Code, and the law on interception of communications which pose a threat to the online operations of media and civil society. Over the years numerous blogs and websites with content deemed critical of the state have been blocked Recent years have also seen some online publishers being arrested and charged, with some fleeing into exile. See 2017 report on Safeguarding Civil Society: Assessing Internet Freedom and Digital Resilience of Civil Society in East Africa.
Nonetheless, RURA’s statement is a positive development in the country that has put ICT at the forefront of its socio-economic development. As of December 2016, Rwanda had a mobile phone penetration rate of 79%, while internet penetration stood at 37%, according to RURA’s 4th quarter 2016 report.
In October 2015, Rwanda launched its ICT Master Plan – Vision 2020. Among the priority areas is improved ICT access especially via mobile. Meanwhile, Rwanda’s Universal Service Fund, which is aimed at extending connectivity to rural and underserved communities, is funded by up to 2% levy of operator turnover.
Meanwhile, the RURA actively enforces operator licensing requirements and regulations, and issues notices and penalties for non compliance with quality of service obligations. In June 2016 notices to MTN Rwanda and Airtel Rwanda, the operators were ordered to comply with obligations within 15 calendar days and submit to the authority short term implementation reports and in the longer term, implementation plans. The notice to MTN also stipulated a penalty of approx. USD 6,300 per day for “major network outage and service degradation.”
To fully realise the benefits of these initiatives, citizens need to be free to express themselves online and to have trust in using online tools and platforms without fear for their privacy and safety.
Established under the 2001 law governing telecommunications, RURA’s mandate was extended under a 2013 amendment to include “telecommunications, information technology, broadcasting and converging electronic technologies including the Internet and any other information and communication technology.”
#KeepitOn: Joint letter on the internet and the election in Gambia
President Yahya Jammeh
cc: Gambia Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA)
Gambia Permanent Mission to the United Nations
African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights
30 November 2016
Your Excellency,
We are writing to urgently request that you ensure the stability and openness of the internet during the forthcoming elections in Gambia on December 1. Elections represent the most critical moment in a democracy, and the internet enables free expression and the fulfillment of all human rights.
However, we have received unconfirmed reports through a variety of sources that your government intends to shut down the internet. We implore you to keep the internet on.
Research shows that internet shutdowns and state violence go hand in hand. [1] Shutdowns disrupt the free flow of information and create a cover of darkness that allows state repression to occur without scrutiny. Worryingly, Gambia would be joining an alarming global trend of government-mandated shutdowns during elections, a practice that many African Union member governments have recently adopted, including: Burundi, Congo-Brazzaville, Egypt, Sudan, the Central African Republic, Niger, Democratic Republic of Congo. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]
Internet shutdowns — with governments ordering the suspension or throttling of entire networks, often during elections or public protests — must never be allowed to become the new normal.
Justified for public safety purposes, shutdowns instead cut off access to vital information, e-financing, and emergency services, plunging whole societies into fear and destabilizing the internet’s power to support small business livelihoods and drive economic development. In addition, a study by the Brookings Institution indicates that shutdowns drained $2.4 billion from the global economy last year. [9]
International Law
A growing body of jurisprudence declares shutdowns to violate international law. The United Nations Human Rights Council has spoken out strongly against internet shutdowns. In its 32nd Session, in July 2016, the Council passed by consensus a resolution on freedom of expression and the internet with operative language on internet shutdowns. The resolution, A/HRC/RES/32/13, “condemns unequivocally measures to intentionally prevent or disrupt access to or dissemination of information online in violation of international human rights law and calls on all States to refrain from and cease such measures.” The Council intended this clear declaration to combat the blocking and throttling of networks, applications, and services that facilitate the freedoms of expression, opinion, and access to information online. In addition, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights stated in its November 2016 Resolution on the Right to Freedom of Information and Expression on the Internet in Africa that it was “Concerned by the emerging practice of State Parties of interrupting or limiting access to telecommunication services such as the Internet, social media and messaging services, increasingly during elections.” [10]
In 2015, various experts from the United Nations (UN) Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), Organization of American States (OAS), and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR), issued an historic statement declaring that internet “kill switches” can never be justified under international human rights law, even in times of conflict. [11] General Comment 34 of the UN Human Rights Committee, the official interpreter of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, emphasizes that restrictions on speech online must be strictly necessary and proportionate to achieve a legitimate purpose. Shutdowns disproportionately impact all users, and unnecessarily restrict access to information and emergency services communications during crucial moments.
The internet has enabled significant advances in health, education, and creativity, and it is now essential to fully realize human rights including participation in elections and access to information.
We humbly request that you use the vital positions of your good offices to:
- Ensure that the internet, including social media, remains on in Gambia throughout the election and beyond
- Publicly declare your commitment to keep the internet on, including social media
- Encourage telecommunications and internet services providers to respect human rights, including through public disclosures and transparency reports.
We are happy to assist you in any of these matters.
Sincerely,
Access Now
Association for Progressive Communications (APC)
CIPESA
Heliopolis Institute
Human Rights Foundation
iFreedom Uganda
Internet Sans Frontières
Media Foundation for West Africa
Paradigm Initiative Nigeria
Social Media Exchange (SMEX)
Strathmore University Centre for IP and It Law (CIPIT)
Unwanted Witness Uganda
[1] Sarah Myers West, ‘Research Shows Internet Shutdowns and State Violence Go Hand in Hand in Syria’ (Electronic Frontier Foundation, 1 July 2015)
<https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/06/research-shows-internet-shutdowns-and-state-violence-go-hand-hand-syria> accessed 18 February 2016.
[2] ‘Access urges UN and African Union experts to take action on Burundi internet shutdown’ (Access Now 29 April 2015) <https://www.accessnow.org/access-urges-un-and-african-union-experts-to-take-action-on-burundi-interne/> accessed 18 February 2016.
[3] Deji Olukotun, ‘Government may have ordered internet shutdown in Congo-Brazzaville’ (Access Now 20 October 2015) <https://www.accessnow.org/government-may-have-ordered-internet-shutdown-in-congo-brazzaville/> accessed 18 February 2016.
[4] Deji Olukotun and Peter Micek, ‘Five years later: the internet shutdown that rocked Egypt’ (Access Now 21 January 2016) <https://www.accessnow.org/five-years-later-the-internet-shutdown-that-rocked-egypt/> accessed 18 February 2016.
[5] Peter Micek, ‘Update: Mass internet shutdown in Sudan follows days of protest’ (Access Now, 15 October 2013) <https://www.accessnow.org/mass-internet-shutdown-in-sudan-follows-days-of-protest/> accessed 18 February 2016.
[6] Peter Micek, ‘Access submits evidence to International Criminal Court on net shutdown in Central African Republic’(Access Now 17 February 2015) <https://www.accessnow.org/evidence-international-criminal-court-net-shutdown-in-central-african-repub/> accessed 18 February 2016.
[7] ‘Niger resorts to blocking in wake of violent protests against Charlie Hebdo cartoons.’ (Access Now Facebook page 26 January 2015) <https://www.facebook.com/accessnow/posts/10153030213288480> accessed 18 February 2016.
[8] Peter Micek, (Access Now 23 January 2015) ‘Violating International Law, DRC Orders Telcos to Cease Communications Services’ <https://www.accessnow.org/violating-international-law-drc-orders-telcos-vodafone-millicon-airtel/> accessed 18 February 2016.
[9] Darrell West, (Brookings Institution, October 2016) “Internet shutdowns cost countries $2.4 billion last year” https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/intenet-shutdowns-v-3.pdf
[10] African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, (November 2016) ‘362: Resolution on the Right to Freedom of Information and Expression on the Internet in Africa – ACHPR/Res. 362(LIX) 2016’ http://www.achpr.org/sessions/59th/resolutions/362/
[11] Peter Micek, (Access Now 4 May 2015) ‘Internet kill switches are a violation of human rights law, declare major UN and rights experts’ <https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2015/05/04/internet-kill-switches-are-a-violation-of-human-rights-law-declare-major-un> accessed 18 February 2016.
This join letter first appeared on the Access Now website
Analysis of the Relationship Between Online Information Controls and Elections in Zambia
By Arthur Gwagwa |
The defining era in Zambia’s current rise in online political and civic activism can be traced back to the period between 2011 and 2013. This is when the late President Sata embraced social media as part of his political and public diplomacy strategy. As the country now prepares for the August 2016 General Elections, government, its agencies, such as the Election Ccommission of Zambia (ECZ), the opposition and civil society are all immersed in social media.
As the country’s August 2016 polls draw nearer, government has recently increased its presence on social media to abet and encourage horizontal flows of information. This is in contrast to vertical flows, where information generated by societal actors is gathered by the government through usage of a range of methods, ranging from “responsiveness” on social media to media monitoring.
This paper explores reports of information controls and filtering of the ruling regime, whose leader, Edgar Lungu, strives to balance the dictates of political survival and his reputation as a lawyer who has previously defended press freedoms. The paper analyses past and current key political events that implicate the relationship between internet-based information controls and elections in Zambia. Finally, the paper extrapolates likely scenarios in the build up to the 2016 General Elections and Constitution Bill of Rights Referendum to be held on 11 August 2016.
Read the full report here.
Uganda Again Blocks Social Media to Stifle Anti-Museveni Protests
By Juliet Nanfuka |
A day before Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni was inaugurated for another five-year term, access to social media platforms including Whatsapp, Facebook and Twitter was blocked on instructions of the regulator, the Uganda Communications Commission (UCC). The directive came less than three months after a four-day blockage initiated on Election Day (February 18) that drew local and international condemnation.
During the February 18 elections, social media in Uganda was shut down following a directive from UCC to internet service providers to disable all social media and mobile money services due to a “threat to public order and safety.” Tech-savvy Ugandans turned to Virtual Private Networks (VPN) in a bid to access and to share information on the elections.
On May 11, internet service providers in the country used social media to inform their customers of the second instruction issued by the communications regulator. They indicated that the regulator had cited “national security” as the reason for the shutdown. The present social media blockage comes on the heels of a May 5 ban on live media coverage of opposition-led activities in protest against what they consider the rigged re-election of Museveni, who has been in power since 1986. Earlier on May 3, journalists and artists decried the declining state of freedom of expression at the national celebrations to mark World Press Freedom Day.


Screenshots of the MTN and Airtel Uganda Twitter accounts announcing the directive received from the Uganda Communications Commission
Last February, CIPESA joined several civil society groups based in Uganda and internationally to submit a joint letter to the African Union, African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) Secretariat, New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) Secretariat, Uganda Communications Commission, and the Uganda Ministry of Information and Communications Technology, among other authorities. The letter called for “immediate action to condemn the internet shutdown in Uganda, and to prevent any systematic or targeted attacks on democracy and freedom of expression.” To-date, no response has been received.
It is unclear when the social media blockage would end. However, at the time of writing social media activity has remained rife through hashtags such as #M7SwearsIn. Analysis of Ugandan Twitter interaction during the February blockage revealed mixed emotions among Ugandan Twitter users with fear, joy and anger featuring amongst the top sentiments that emerged from the tweets shared with the hashtag #UgandaDecides. See this Analysis Of Twitter Activity On Election Eve And Election Day Uganda 2016 and Analysis of Twitter Activity During the 2016 Presidential Debates in Uganda.
Analysis of Twitter Activity During the 2016 Presidential Debates in Uganda
By CIPESA Writer |
The 2015/2016 electioneering season in Uganda set a precedent in the use of social media as a means for politicians to reach out and engage with citizens. It was the first time in Uganda that a candidate announced they would run for President via YouTube and also saw candidate Yoweri Museveni (the incumbent) seek out a more tech-savvy media team to keep abreast with the widening channels of civic engagement.
While some of the candidates maintained personal Twitter accounts and actively engaged in the online conversations, others remained dormant, although they had Twitter accounts.
In partnership with Outbox we present the first of a three-part series into the key themes shaping the online conversation of Ugandans during the electioneering process.
The report explores the level of Twitter activity, interaction and conversational trends with specific focus on the #UgDebate16 hashtag during the 1st presidential debate held on January 15, 2016 and 2nd debate, which was held on February 13, 2016. During both debates, the hashtag trended locally and gained popularity as far as South Africa.
See the full report here: Analysis of Twitter Activity During the 2016 Presidential Debates in Uganda – Monitoring Uganda Elections Series 01 #UgDebate16





