Freedom of expression Archives – Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA)

28Mar

Online Activism is Moving the Dial on Social Accountability in Uganda

CIPESA March 28, 2024March 28, 2024

By Peter G. Mwesige |

The viral #UgandaParliamentExhibition hashtag campaign on X on the excesses of the Ugandan parliament has once again put digital media at the centre of debate on citizen agency in the demand for transparency and accountability from duty bearers.

Fifteen years or so ago, the jury was still out on whether digital platforms including social media were a boon to citizen participation or the bane of meaningful political action. Even more recently, “hashtag activism” or what some called “slacktivism” was still being dismissed as “performative activism” that inhibited offline participation or created the illusion of participation.

The debate remains unsettled, but there is no denying that social media platforms have “democratised access to information” and offered alternative avenues for citizens to amplify their voice in the demand for accountability from those that hold power.

The Ugandan online exhibitions were started last year by Dr. Jimmy Spire Ssentongo, an academic, cartoonist, and social commentator. He has described them as “an open invitation to the public, to whoever has an issue about a particular institution or sector to come out … a public initiative to demand for accountability; to showcase things (people) are not happy about; to showcase their pain.”

From the #UgandaPotholeExhibition, the #UgandaHealthExhibition, the #UgandaNGOExhibition (where the activists appeared to devour their own), the #UgandaLabourExhibition, the #UgandaSecurityExhibition and so on, activists have been joined by Ugandans from all walks of life to shine the torchlight on pressing public concerns.

The #UgandaParliamentExhibition is slightly different. It has been organised under the AGORA Centre for Research, the brainchild of journalist and lawyer Agather Atuhaire, who recently won the U.S. State Department International Women of Courage Award (and last year won the European Union’s Human Rights Defenders’ Award in Uganda), fellow lawyer Godwin Toko, and others. Sharing evidence from official records, highlighting standout posts on digital flyers, throwing in the occasional handwritten satirical stingers from Ssentongo, and complementing tweeting with X Spaces, AGORA has flooded the zone with evidence of abuse of public funds at parliament. The vociferous Anthony Natif of Public Square and exiled activist and author Kakwenza Rukirabasaija have also lit up the exhibition.

In a space of about two weeks the #UgandaParliamentExhibition laid bare the scope of the abuse of public funds in the August House as well as blatant nepotism and favouritism in recruitment of staff. The exhibition laid this at the door of the Speaker of Parliament Anita Among and the Parliamentary Commission that she heads, whose members include the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, the Leader of the Opposition (LoP) and a few Members of Parliament (MPs) representing both the ruling party and the opposition.

At the heart of the expose is the billions of shillings that have been spent in travel allowances, and the so-called corporate social responsibility by the Speaker, as well as the “service awards” that were passed as “personal to holder” for the former LoP Mathias Mpuuga and Commissioners Solomon Silwany, Prossy Akampurira Mbabazi, and Esther Afoyochan, all representing the ruling National Resistance Movement. Mpuuga bagged Uganda Shillings (UGX) 500 million, equivalent to 130,000 US Dollars (USD) while three Commissioners received UGX 400 million each.

The service award for the former LoP has already caused a storm in his party, the National Unity Platform, which has asked him to resign from the Commission. Other interest groups, such as the Uganda Law Society, have also weighed in, saying by participating in a meeting that passed awards which would benefit them personally, Mpuuga and the other commissioners violated the Leadership Code.

The Speaker has refused to entertain any debate on what has been exposed by the #UgandaParliamentExhibition despite calls by a number of MPs that the institution should be held accountable in the same way it holds other government agencies to account. She remained adamant last week when new LoP Joel Ssenyonyi condemned the “deafening silence” by parliament on the issues raised on social media and the ruling party “rebel MP” Theodore Ssekikubo demanded a response to the “grave allegations” of impropriety and profligacy. “Me to answer you on hearsay, on things you have cooked on social media because I have said no to bum-shafting, I will not,” Among responded.

“Bum-shafting” was a derogatory reference to homosexuality, which is outlawed in Uganda. Under Among’s stewardship, parliament last year passed the Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2023, attracting backlash from the international community that has seen Uganda lose development funding.

Interestingly, Speaker Among had previously commended the online exhibitions. During the #UgandaHealthExhibition last year, she “urge(d) both public servants and political leaders to take feedback from the public in good faith and use it to improve further.”

President Yoweri Museveni had earlier responded to the #KampalaPotholeExhibition by directing the Ministry of Finance to release UGX 6 billion for emergency road repairs in the city. He has this time joined the Speaker to condemn the online activists. “How can you talk so much about Anita Among? (What) about those working for foreigners? We are going to expose those traitors,” Museveni said on March 23, 2024, after commissioning the Speaker’s Bukedea Teaching Hospital and College of Health Sciences in her home district.

Clearly, online activism has moved the dial on social accountability. The government and others who have been the subject of the exhibitions may not always be responsive, but they can’t claim they haven’t heard the voice of the people.

One can argue that the traction of online social justice campaigns makes the riskier street protests unnecessary. Indeed, in a country where public demonstrations on hot button issues have been criminalised in complete disregard of the constitutional right of citizens to protest and petition the government, the alternative offered by digital platforms should be embraced.

But the digital warriors leading these campaigns still face the same risks that the street activists before them confronted – such as surveillance, online smear attacks, threats of arrests and other forms of intimidation. Accordingly, online activism should not be seen as a replacement of traditional forms of protest. As Dr. Ssentongo argued when he appeared on Robert Kabushenga’s #360Mentor X Space in April last year, it should not be an either-or-question. “Those who can organise online should and those who can organise (through) other means should (also do so),” he said.

The other issue that has been raised quite a lot especially during the #UgandaParliamentExhibition is the failure of the traditional news media (newspapers, radio, and television) to uncover the corruption in parliament.

The credibility of the journalists who cover parliament has taken a major knock, but this does not mean social media should replace mainstream media as our only sources of news as some have suggested.

In defence of the journalists who are still passionate about public affairs reporting, the gatekeeping bar for what gets to be published in the major media houses is much higher. On social media, anything goes, although to AGORA’s credit, most of the information they have released about parliament has been verified.

But it would be unrealistic to expect citizen-driven online campaigns to bring the same “discipline of verification” parliament’s Director of Communication and Public Affairs Chris Obore, a former journalist, seems to demand. Social media will always be messy. Just like democracy, some would say.

We need a multiplicity of platforms (both digital/social media as well as credible mainstream media) to provide information about what is happening in parliament and other public sectors, provide the public with platforms for debate, and hold duty bearers accountable.

And we need sustained pressure both online and offline to continue driving the demand for accountability and meaningful change. In a democracy, what has been exposed through Uganda’s online exhibitions would have been enough to drive action and change. But in a country where leaders are openly contemptuous of public opinion, and where the public cannot count on free and fair elections to kick out those who abuse their trust, online activists and other social justice actors still have their work cut out.

About the author: Dr. Peter G. Mwesige is Chief of Party of the USAID Your Rights Activity led by CIPESA.

25Mar

2024 the Year of Democracy: African Electoral Authorities Release Guidelines for Social Media Use

CIPESA March 25, 2024March 25, 2024

By CIPESA Writer |

Over the last couple of years, digital and social media have come to play a central role in elections in Africa. That role has many bright sides, such as enabling swift voter education by electoral bodies, efficient campaigns by candidates, as well as monitoring and reporting malpractice. For the bigger part, in many African countries, the focus has centred on the negative impacts of digital platforms that often threaten social cohesion and electoral integrity, so much so that social media and sometimes all of the internet have been blocked at crucial times of the electoral cycle.

Concerns about ‘not throwing out the baby with the bathwater’, as some countries have appeared to do with drastic measures such as network disruptions, elicited a need for guidelines on how digital platforms, including social networking sites and private messaging applications, should be utilised during elections. Such guidelines would nurture the great potential that these media can deliver to candidates, political parties, and Election Management Bodies (EMBs), and to electoral integrity, while combating disinformation, hate speech, Technology-Facilitated gender-based violence (TFGBV), and other harms that they can enable.

This is the spirit behind the development of the Principles and Guid elines for the Use of Digital and Social Media in Elections in Africa, which were launched in South Africa on February 27-29, 2024 at an event where the country’s deputy president, Paul Mashatile, was guest of honour. The Guidelines are the brainchild of the Association of African Election Authorities (AAEA), whose General Assembly endorsed them in November 2023 in Cotonou, Benin. The Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC) coordinated the development of the Guidelines, with support from the African Union Commission, the United Nations Electoral Assistance Division (EAD), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and various African experts and civil society groups including the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA).

The stated objective of the Guidelines is to enhance the capacities of EMBs and other relevant electoral stakeholders to harness the advantages of social media and tackle the adverse effects of new and emerging digital technologies.

The Guidelines could help to stem the growing use of social media, including by state officials, opposition parties and “paid influencers” to sow disinformation and undermine electoral integrity, prompt platforms to do more to moderate harmful content, pave way for regulating political advertising, hopefully deter such antics as Cambridge Analytica played in elections in Kenya and Nigeria, and discourage internet disruptions that create an information vacuum and undermine electoral credibility.

Launching the Guidelines represents a major step in developing a crucial normative framework which entities around the continent should embrace. Indeed, in this crucial year in which up to 16 African countries will hold national/presidential elections, electoral authorities and other stakeholders would do well to adopt the use of the guidelines. Popularising the Guidelines will be critical for their uptake.

The adoption of the Principles and Guidelines signalled a new era for EMBs in the quest to reap the benefits of digital and social media while also investigating ways to mitigate the inherent harms that could jeopardise the credibility of electoral processes. Paul Mashatile, South Africa’s Deputy President.

The Guidelines encourage African EMBs to develop a clear and comprehensive plan for responsible social media use during election campaigns. They also lay down guidelines for various stakeholders, including the media and civil society organisations.

Furthemore, as noted by the IEC, they encourage African member states and regulatory authorities to refrain from imposing measures that might disrupt access to the internet, and to digital and social media. They call on social media operators to treat political parties and candidates equitably and ensure that their online messaging, including that of their supporters, does not undermine electoral integrity or contravene human rights.

On Responsibilities of Social Media Companies: In line with the United Nations’ Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), digital and social media must put in place processes for human rights due diligence and human rights impact assessment to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how they address their impacts on human rights during the electoral cycle, and disclose these processes for transparency and accountability.

In sum, these timely guidelines, if implemented, could help combat digital harms and enhance electoral integrity across the continent.

13Mar

Webinar: How African Women in Politics Are Pushing Back Against Tech-Facilitated Gender-Based Violence

CIPESA March 13, 2024March 13, 2024

Event |

Gender diversity in political leadership is critical for promoting equity, inclusion, and economic benefits. However, gender disparities in political participation still exist globally, particularly in Africa. Digital technologies can assist in solving this disparity given their ability to give voice and civic agency to different political actors, especially women, and space for political engagement. As enshrined in Sustainable Development Goal 5 on Gender Equality, digital technologies have the potential to increase women’s inclusion, participation, and engagement in politics, providing them with a platform to have their voices heard. Indeed, women in politics are increasingly leveraging the power of various digital tools, and in particular social media platforms, to connect with their constituencies.

Despite this reliance on online social platforms, women in politics have also become the targets of online threats and abuse. These attacks are heightened during election periods and when women voice dissenting opinions. This technology-facilitated gender-based violence (TFGBV) not only impedes women’s equitable and meaningful participation in public offices but also their long-term willingness to engage in public life. Further, it negatively influences the broader spectrum of women consuming or engaging with their content and consequently undermines the realization of the Sustainable Development Goals.

Addressing these challenges is essential to ensure that digital technologies become true enablers for the enhancement of women’s participation in democracy and good governance, including in politics, rather than exacerbating existing disparities in Africa.

This month, we join the global community in celebrating women under the themes of #InspireInclusion, which encourages the realisation of a gender-equal world free of bias, stereotypes and discrimination. However, amidst the global celebration, it is crucial to spotlight the persistent TFGBV faced by African women in politics and the need to increase investment into addressing these concerns as highlighted by the United Nations campaign themed #InvestInWomen.

In an upcoming webinar, the Collaboration in International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) will focus on the importance of increased political inclusion of women in politics. The role of active online engagement will be highlighted as a key driver in enabling the needs of women in politics in various African countries and as a tool to meaningfully participate in the information society. More importantly, the webinar will cast a spotlight on how women in active politics in various African countries are pushing back against the violence and negative narratives online and the role that legal frameworks and platforms have to play in addressing TFGBV associated with political spaces and discourse.

Webinar details

Date: March 15, 2024

Time: 14:00-15:00 (Nairobi Time).

11Mar

Towards Ethical AI Regulation in Africa

CIPESA March 11, 2024March 12, 2024

By Tusi Fokane |

The ubiquity of generative artificial intelligence (AI)-based applications across various sectors has led to debates on the most effective regulatory approach to encourage innovation whilst minimising risks. The benefits and potential of AI are evident in various industries ranging from financial and customer services to education, agriculture and healthcare. AI holds particular promise for developing countries to transform their societies and economies.

However, there are concerns that, without adequate regulatory safeguards, AI technologies could further exacerbate existing governance concerns around ethical deployment, privacy, algorithmic bias, workforce disruptions, transparency, and disinformation. Stakeholders have called for increased engagement and collaboration between policymakers, academia, and industry to develop legal and regulatory frameworks and standards for ethical AI adoption.

The Global North has taken a leading position in exploring various regulatory modalities. These range from risk-based or proportionate regulation as proposed by the European Commission’s AI Act. Countries such as Finland and Estonia have opted for a greater focus on maintaining trust and collaboration at national level by adopting a human-centric approach to AI. The United Kingdom (UK) has taken a “context-specific” approach, embedding AI regulation within existing regulatory institutions. Canada has prioritised bias and discrimination, whereas other jurisdictions such as France, Germany and Italy have opted for greater emphasis on transparency and accountability in developing AI regulation.

On the other hand, China has taken a more firm approach to AI regulation, distributing policy responsibility amongst existing standards bodies. The United States of America (USA) has adopted an incremental approach, introducing additional guidance to existing legislation and emphasising rights and safety.

Whilst there are divergent approaches to AI regulation, there is at least some agreement, at a muti-lateral level, on the need for a human-rights based approach to ensure ethical AI deployment which respects basic freedoms, fosters transparency and accountability, and promotes diversity and inclusivity through actionable policies and specific strategies.

Developments in AI regulation in Africa

Regulatory responses in Africa have been disparate, although the publication of the African Union Development Agency (AUDA-NEPAD) White Paper: Regulation and Responsible Adoption of AI for Africa Towards Achievement of AU Agenda 2063 is anticipated to introduce greater policy coherence. The White Paper follows the 2021 AI blueprint and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights Resolution 473, which calls for a human-rights-centred approach to AI governance.

The White Paper calls for a harmonised approach to AI adoption and underscores the importance of developing an enabling governance framework to “provide guidelines for implementation and also keep AI development in check for negative impacts.” Furthermore, the White Paper calls on member states to adopt national AI strategies that emphasise data safety, security and protection in an effort to promote the ethical use of AI.

The White Paper proposes a mixed regulatory and governance framework, depending on the AI use-case. First, the proposals encompass self-regulation, which would be enforced through sectoral codes of conduct, and which offer a degree of flexibility to match an evolving AI landscape. Second, the White Paper suggests the adoption of standards and certification to establish industry benchmarks. The third proposal is for a distinction between hard and soft regulation, depending on the identified potential for harm. Finally, the White Paper calls for AI regulatory sandboxes to allow for testing under regulatory supervision.

Figure 1: Ethical AI framework

However, there are still concerns that African countries are lagging behind in fostering AI innovation and putting in place the necessary regulatory framework. According to the 2023 Government AI Readiness Index, Benin, Mauritius, Rwanda, Senegal, and South Africa are ahead in government efforts around AI out of the 24 African countries assessed. The index measures a country’s progress against four pillars: government/strategy, data & infrastructure, technology sector, and global governance/international collaboration.

The national AI strategies of Mauritius, Rwanda, Egypt, Kenya, Senegal and Benin have a strong focus on infrastructure and economic development whilst also laying the foundation for AI regulation within their jurisdictions. For its part, Nigeria has adopted a more collaborative approach in co-creating its National Artificial Intelligence Strategy, with calls for input from AI researchers.

Thinking beyond technical AI regulation

Despite increasingly positive signs of AI adoption in Africa, there are concerns that the pace of AI regulation on the continent is too slow, and that it may not be fit for purpose for local and national conditions. Some analysts have warned against wholesale adoption of policies and strategies imported from the Global North, and which may fail to consider country-specific contexts.

Some Global South academics and civil society organisations have raised questions regarding the importation of regulatory standards from the Global North, some even referring to the practice as ‘data colonialism’. The apprehension of copy-pasting Global North standards is premised on the continent’s over-reliance on Big Tech digital ecosystems and infrastructure. Researchers indicate that “These context-sensitive issues raised on various continents can best be understood as a combination of social and technical systems. As AI systems make decisions about the present and future through classifying information and developing models from historical data, one of the main critiques of AI has been that these technologies reproduce or heighten existing inequalities involving gender, race, coloniality, class and citizenship.”

Other stakeholders caution against ‘AI neocolonialism’, which replicates Western conventions, often resulting in poor labour outcomes and stifling the potential for the development of local AI approaches.

Proposals for African solutions for AI deployment

There is undoubtedly a need for ethical and effective AI regulation in Africa. This calls for the development of strategies and a context-specific regulatory and legal foundation, and this has been occurring in various stages. African policy-makers should ensure a multi-stakeholder and collaborative approach to designing AI governance solutions in order to ensure ethical AI, which respects human rights, is transparent and inclusive. This becomes even more significant given the potential risks to AI during election season on the continent.
Beyond framing local regulatory solutions, stakeholders have called for African governments to play a greater role in global AI discussions to guard against regulatory blindspots that may emerge from importing purely Western approaches. Perhaps the strongest call is for African leaders to leverage expertise on the continent, and promote greater collaboration amongst African policymakers.

07Mar

Save the Date: The Forum on Internet Freedom in Africa (FIFAfrica24) September 25-27, 2024!

CIPESA March 7, 2024March 18, 2024

Announcement |

It’s time to mark your calendars for the annual Forum on Internet Freedom in Africa (FIFAfrica), the largest gathering on digital rights on the continent. The 2024 edition will be held on September 25-27 and as in previous years will align with the commemoration of the annual International Day for Universal Access to Information (IDUAI).

FIFAfrica sets the stage for concerted efforts to advance digital rights in Africa and promote the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance. It places internet freedom directly on the agendas of key stakeholders, including policymakers, journalists, activists, global platform operators, telecommunications companies, regulators, human rights defenders, academia, and law enforcement.

Now in its 11th year, FIFAfrica has grown to serve as a vital response to the mounting obstacles facing digital democracy in Africa, including arrests and intimidation of online users, internet disruptions, and regressive laws that stifle the potential of digital technology to catalyse socio-economic and political development on the continent.

This year, FIFAfrica24 will serve as a key channel that informs the way ahead for digital democracy in Africa and the role that different stakeholders need to play to realise the Digital Transformation Strategy for Africa and Declaration 15 of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The Declaration notes that the spread of information and communications technology and global interconnectedness has great potential to accelerate human progress, to bridge the digital divide and develop knowledge societies.

FIFAfrica offers something for everyone! Be sure to save the date and don’t miss this chance to be part of the #InternetFreedomAfrica movement dedicated to protecting and promoting internet freedom across the continent.

Stay tuned for more details and registration information!

1 2 3 … 19 Next page

Tag Archives: Freedom of expression