Promoting Effective and Inclusive ICT Policy in Africa

Tag Archives: Freedom of expression

  HomeCollaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA)  /  Freedom of expression
25Nov

Regulating Freedom of Expression Amidst the Covid-19 Response in South Africa

Author CIPESA Writer Posted on

By Tusi Fokane |

The global infodemic accelerated in part by the Covid-19 pandemic has raised important debates on how best to respond to the proliferation of false and misleading information online. The Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression addressed the critical issue of misinformation, noting that some actions undertaken by various governments to contain the spread of the coronavirus may fail to meet the test of legality, necessity and proportionality. The report cautioned against the introduction of vague and overly-broad laws to combat misinformation, proposing instead that governments provide reliable information to citizens.

Six months after a National State of Disaster was declared in South Africa, the government on September 16, 2020 eased the lockdown, removing “as many of the remaining restrictions on economic and social activity as it is reasonably safe to do.” One notable restriction still in place  is the criminalisation of the publication of “any statement through any medium including social media, with the intent to deceive,” pursuant to Regulation 11(5), under the Disaster Management Act, which was issued in March 2020. The offense is punishable with an unspecified fine, imprisonment of up to six months, or both.

The regulations were followed by directives from the Minister of Communications and Digital Technologies compelling communications service providers to “remove Covid-19 related fake news from their platforms immediately after it is identified as such”. Within days of its passing, several individuals were arrested for spreading false information about Covid-19. In one case relating to a Covid-19 interview, the Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa fined two broadcasters South African Rand 10,000 (USD 660).

Whilst various activists initially raised their voices in support of   governments’ efforts to halt the spread of the disease, they also cautioned against overly restrictive conditions that limit human rights including  freedom of expression, access to information and public accountability.

Civil Society Reactions to the Regulations on “Fake News”

The debate about the impact of South Africa’s Covid-19 regulations on  free speech came into focus when a leading academic and member of the Covid-19 Ministerial Advisory Committee, Professor Glenda Gray made public comments about the effectiveness of the lockdown restrictions. The Minister of Health declared the academic’s views false and misleading. This prompted leading academics to conclude that “the government has repeatedly stressed that its primary goal in managing the pandemic is to save lives. But it needn’t kill speech to save lives.”

In April 2020, the Right2Know Campaign (R2K) wrote to the National Coronavirus Command Council regarding the “fake news” provisions of lockdown regulations. Whilst noting the potentially deleterious effects of false information, R2K made  proposals to amend the regulations to ensure the protection of the right to freedom of expression. Among the amendments proposed by R2K was the definition of “fake news”  to be clarified as the “dissemination of false information with the intention to deceive…”

Further, R2K noted that the “criminalisation of speech inevitably has a chilling effect on the right to freedom of expression.” It proposed administrative penalties, rather than criminal sanctions, for disseminating false information. Another key proposal was that the government should make provision for relevant defences that an offender could rely on when faced with a charge of spreading false information.

Other critics, such as the Free Market Foundation (FMF), rejected the fake news regulations outright, calling on the government to rely on existing common law and constitutional provisions rather than attempting to regulate expression through the introduction of additional regulations. The FMF argued that, “there is simply too much information circulating in society for any centralised body to be entrusted with deciding its accuracy. Instead, we must rely on the decentralised gatekeeping network known as ‘the market’ to assist us in judging what is true and what is false.”

Meanwhile, Media Monitoring Africa (MMA) stated in a statement in March that the regulations were narrowly defined, and proposed a high standard on the state to prove “intention to deceive.” The group  said the real challenge would be the government’s ability to implement and enforce the fake news regulations.

None of these proposals were taken into account and the current regulations remain in force under the extension of the state of national disaster, imposing undue restrictions on the right to freedom of expression.

Enforcement of the “Fake News” Regulations

As part of measures to enforce the regulations, the government established a multi-stakeholder monitoring and evaluation platform and Digital Complaints Committee to monitor and respond to misinformation and fake news related to Covid-19.  Then Acting Communications and Digital Technologies Minister, Jackson Mthembu, stated that the platform aims to assess misinformation complaints, take down fake news items, and submit cases to the police for investigation and prosecution.

According to MMA Director, William Bird, the task of combating fake news should not be left to government and platform providers. Since 2019, MMA has maintained Real411, an independent digital platform for reporting suspected misinformations. Thandi Smith, MMA’s Head of Programmes, explains that complaints are assessed by a team of three voluntary reviewers with legal, technology, and media expertise. The reviewers then make a recommendation to a five-member secretariat based on a set of assessment criteria.

Upon completion of an investigation, the secretariat recommends a range of actions which may include issuing a take-down notice, fact-checking verification, and publishing a counter-narrative infographic. Bird said the secretariat reports hate speech cases to the South African Human Rights Commission for further action. Extreme cases of misinformation would be reported to the South African police, but to-date no complaints warranting police investigation have been received. Complaints about the media and editorial content are referred to the relevant regulatory authority. Smith noted that there is an appeal process headed up by a retired Constitutional Court judge.

 Assessing the Effectiveness of Criminalising Misinformation

It may be difficult to assess the effectiveness of fake news regulations on Covid-19 given the rapid spread of information in the digital environment. This raises philosophical and policy issues on whether free expression online should even be regulated at all, and by whom.

Indeed, Ghalib Galant, Deputy National Coordinator & Head of Advocacy for the R2K Campaign, maintains that the challenge with South Africa’s Covid-19 misinformation regulatory framework is that government’s response was to criminalise behaviour rather than focusing on educating and supporting South Africans to understand the impact of the pandemic. As he puts it, “Government policed people, rather than healing a health pandemic.”

Galant suggested that administrative penalties may be a better deterrent than criminal sanctions. This would ensure the protection of the right to freedom of expression whilst the country debates whether or not new rules are needed for regulating false information, or a “re-imagining of section 16 of the Constitution.” Galant suggests that perhaps this could be within the purview of a statutory institution such as the Information Regulator.

Section 16(1) of South Africa’s Constitution states that “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes freedom of the press and other media; freedom to receive or impart information or ideas; freedom of artistic creativity; and academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.” Section 16(2) restricts speech related “to propaganda for war; incitement of imminent violence; or advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.”

The head of legal, policy and research at the FMF, Martin van Staden, said fake news regulations have not been effective as they are difficult to enforce. From his perspective, any prohibition on freedom of expression beyond Section 16(2) Constitutional limitations would amount to censorship. He stated: “The Constitution is unequivocal about the scope of the right to freedom of expression, and it does not include a provision that only ‘factual’ expression is allowed. This means that misinformation is constitutionally protected expression in South Africa, and must be left alone.”

He recommends that the government should instead provide accurate and reliable information, and develop a strong counter-narrative strategy, which would enable South African citizens to reach their own conclusions on the veracity of any information they receive.

Van Staden cautioned against the state’s “paternalism” and future attempts to introduce legislation aimed at ensuring the truthfulness of information that is disseminated. “The right to freedom of expression is meant to protect the uncomfortable, the unpopular, and the offensive,” he said.

Threats to Freedom of Expression Beyond Covid-19 Regulations

There is uncertainty on whether the National State of Disaster will be extended again beyond December 15, 2020, given concerns of a second wave of Covid-19 infections in the country. Freedom of expression experts have warned that whilst fake news may be decriminalised by a declaration of the end of the State of Disaster,  the government may attempt to use impending legislation to further regulate free speech online.

For example, in July 2020, the Minister of Communications and Digital Technologies released a call for comments on the gazetted draft Film and Publications amendment regulations, (commonly known as the internet censorship bill), which introduces a requirement for pre-classification of online content with the Film and Publications Board.

Another key piece of legislation in the pipeline is the Prevention and Combating of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Bill, which lapsed and is currently on hold, pending judgment on the Qwelane hate speech Constitutional Court challenge which was heard on  September 22, 2020.

Qwelane contends that the prohibited grounds listed in section 10(1) of the Promotion of Equality and Protection of Unfair Discrimination Act (Equality Act) are overly broad, go far beyond the limitations set out in section 16(2) of the Constitution, and unjustifiably limit the right to freedom of expression.

The outcome of the Qwelane case will be important in clarifying the limitations on free speech for South Africans given ongoing debates on the regulation of freedom of expression both online and offline. This is particularly important in setting clear parameters for free speech and false and misleading information in South Africa. This will assist in ensuring that unprotected speech is very narrowly defined and does not unjustifiably limit the Constitutional right to freedom of expression.

Tusi Fokane is a 2020 CIPESA Fellow focussing on the the availability and use of digital technologies to combat the spread of Covid-19 in South Africa. She is also  studying the country’s readiness for electronic voting to comply with social distancing and other movement restrictions during the upcoming local government elections.

26Sep

Apply To Participate in Disinformation and Human Rights Online Training Series

Author admin Posted on
Call for Applications |
To allow for interactive discussion about specific cases and in-country contexts, we are limiting participant numbers to 20. Please see below for eligibility criteria and details about how to apply.Details:
This online training series is aimed at expert and non-expert members of civil society with an interest in tackling misinformation and disinformation using a rights-respecting approach.
The training series will consist of two interactive workshops to be held via Zoom on:
Thursday 5 November, 2-4pm EAT and Wednesday 11 November, 2-3pm EAT;
OR
Wednesday 18 November 2-4pm EAT and Wednesday 25 November, 2-3pm EAT.
Participants will also be invited to participate in a one hour follow up call during December.
The series will be delivered by international, regional and local experts on disinformation and human rights and seeks to:

      1. Increase participants’ understanding of human rights issues relating to disinformation and misinformation.
      2. Increase participants’ understanding of policy and legal responses to disinformation in their region.
      3. Introduce participants to basic tools and methodologies to detect mis/disinformation
      4. Increase participants’ capacity to engage with representatives from government, business and journalism on disinformation and human rights (particularly the right to freedom of expression and the right to privacy) in policymaking processes and debates relating to disinformation and misinformation.

Please note that sessions will be delivered in English.
Eligibility criteria:
Applicants from the following countries are eligible to apply: Burundi, Comoros, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Nigeria, Rwanda, Seychelles, Sierra Leone Somalia, Somaliland, Tanzania, Uganda.
Applicants affiliated to NGOs, social enterprise companies and think tanks are eligible to apply. Media, academic and non-affiliated applicants will also be considered.
Applicants from governments and private companies (except social enterprises) are not eligible for this training series. 
Selection criteria:
Eligible applicants will be assessed by the quality of their motivation to participate in the training, as set out in answer to their application.
We particularly welcome applications from individuals and organisations that are interested in engaging in this policy area within the region and/or their countries in the longer term.

17Jun

Coalition of Civil Society Groups Launches Tool to Track Responses to Disinformation in Sub Saharan Africa

Author admin Posted on

Press Release |
Today, Global Partners Digital (GPD), ARTICLE 19, the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA), PROTEGE QV and  the Centre for Human Rights of the University of Pretoria jointly launched an interactive map to track and analyse disinformation laws, policies and patterns of enforcement across Sub-Saharan Africa.
The map offers a birds-eye view of trends in state responses to disinformation across the region, as well as in-depth analysis of the state of play in individual countries, using a bespoke framework to assess whether laws, policies and other state responses are human rights-respecting.
Developed against a backdrop of rapidly accelerating state action on COVID-19 related disinformation, the map is an open, iterative product. At the time of launch, it covers 31 countries (see below for the full list), with an aim to expand this in the coming months. All data, analysis and insight on the map has been generated by groups and actors based in Africa.

Countries currently covered by the map: Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

For further details, contact [email protected]
Quotes from groups:
Commenting on the launch, Article19 said: “Disinformation constitutes a major threat to the freedom of expression and the right to access information and it is geared to mislead the population and influence their opinions and views. The fight against disinformation requires a multifaceted approach ranging from education, awareness raising, proactive disclosure of public interest information, fact checking; independent regulation and effective self-regulation by legacy media and social media platforms among others. With the COVID19 pandemic, it is more important than ever that collective efforts are made to curb the impact of disinformation on public health and the rights of the public to know.”
“National legislation and policies aimed at countering and responding to disinformation should always strike the right balance between the need to protect people against this practice and the respect of human rights especially freedom of expression. Such measures should not be used to interfere or block divergent opinions and dissident voices. We are pleased to have been part of this joint initiative that has enabled us to work together with sister organisations in and outside the continent to publish this disinformation tracker.
This tracker is a start-up that will usher in more in-depth work analysing laws and policies around the disinformation phenomenon in the region, engaging media and civil society in analysis-based advocacy geared towards governments and intermediaries to protect human rights—particularly freedom of expression—in their disinformation response, to ensure any restriction and penalty are always justifiable, proportionate and compliant with international standards.”
The Centre for Human Rights said: “Disinformation is a global phenomenon whose effects are felt across the political, economic and social spectrum. Efforts being undertaken to counter the scourge of disinformation should respect human rights, especially freedom of expression. In addition, a sustained approach is required and should involve different stakeholders employing  legal and other  internationally set standards. The tracker is an attempt to showcase the nature of state regulation of disinformation in sub-saharan Africa and provides a basis for tackling this scourge.”
CIPESA said: “Speculation, false and misleading information circulating online is a challenge, not only in Africa but across the world. Legislative means against misinformation often undermine free speech and media. The tracker is a great resource for activists, to drive evidence based advocacy, policy engagement and litigation.”
GPD said: “Governments around the world have been grappling with how to respond to disinformation—a challenge given new urgency by the COVID-19 crisis. However, many of their responses pose real risks for freedom of expression. We hope that this tracker will support groups in the Africa region working to promote approaches to the disinformation challenge that protect fundamental human rights.”
PROTEGE QV said: “It is the responsibility of states to protect the security of their citizens, in the online space just as in the offline. Among threats to security online, disinformation has particular prominence, and can carry severe consequences. In seeking to tackle it, governments should balance the need to maintain security by promoting accurate information to citizens with the attendant risk of suppressing legitimate forms of expression. This tracker will serve as a key resource for groups working to ensure citizens have access to timely and accurate information.”

21Feb

Malawi's Democracy and Digital Rights Record to be Spotlighted by the Human Rights Council of the United Nations

Author admin Posted on

By Michael Kaiyatsa and Ashnah Kalemera |

On February 3, 2020 Malawi scored a democracy victory when the Constitutional Court nullified the May 2019 presidential elections and ordered for fresh polls within 150 days. In that time, the country will also undergo its Universal Periodic Review (UPR) by the Human Rights Council, scheduled for May 2020.  Whereas previous reviews did not receive elections-related recommendations, Malawi’s  democratic credentials – freedom of expression, media freedom, and access to information – have come under scrutiny.

At the upcoming review, it is crucial that the country’s democratic credentials are scrutinised and recommendations to the Malawian government reflect explicitly the need to uphold rights and freedoms online and offline, in line with the state’s obligations under Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

In recent years, Malawi has made significant policy and structural reforms in the technology sector. The third Malawi Growth and Development Strategy (MGDS III) (2017–2022), recognises Information and Communications Technology (ICT) among the five priority areas in accelerating development. The strategy aims to increase access to ICT services; provide well-developed ICT broadband and infrastructure services; and increase the number of ICT-skilled and industry-ready workforce in public and private sector institutions. Meanwhile, the National ICT Policy, 2013 is dedicated to promoting the use of ICT in the country, and a national fibre optic backbone project was completed in April 2018.

However, the country must  commit towards ensuring a conducive environment for privacy and data protection as well as access to and affordability of the internet and related technology as key enablers of social, economic, and political development.

Freedom of expression

Article 35 of the Malawi Constitution guarantees freedom of expression while  Article 36 makes provisions for a free press. Despite these enabling constitutional provisions, other legislation places restrictions on citizens’ exercise of the right to freedom of expression.

The Electronic Transactions and Cybersecurity Act of 2016 provides for restrictions on online communications to “protect public order and national security”. The law also penalises “offensive communication” via online platforms with fines of Malawian Kwacha (MWK) 1,000,000 (USD 1,352) or a maximum 12 months prison sentence. Section 4 of the Protected Flag, Emblems and Names Act, 2012 makes it an offence to “do any act or utter any words or publish or utter any writing calculated to insult, ridicule or to show disrespect” to the President, the national flag, armorial ensigns, the public seal or any other protected emblem or likeness. The Penal Code penalises sedition (punishable with a fine of up to MWK 354, 845 – USD Dollars 480 – and imprisonment of five years for first time offenders and seven years for subsequent offences), and libel (up to two years imprisonment).

In the previous cycle of the UPR (May 2015), the government of Malawi received three recommendations relating to freedom of expression, opinion and the press from the governments of Austria, Ghana, and Tunisia although none explicitly mentioned the online sphere. Austria and Tunisia’s recommendations to “fully investigate all cases of harassment and intimidation of journalists and human rights defenders with a view of bringing the perpetrators to justice” and “issue a standing invitation to the special procedures of the Human Rights Council and ensure an enabling environment for the activities of journalists, human rights defenders and other civil society actors”, respectively were supported. However, Ghana’s recommendation to “decriminalise defamation and incorporate this into the Civil Code” was only “noted”.

Since then, there have been various instances of restrictions on freedom of expression online with notable arrests and prosecution for allegedly insulting the President and First Lady on Facebook; speech against a marginalised group; circulating forged documents; and treason. In July 2019, the Minister of Information and Government Spokesperson warned that the Electronic Transactions and Cyber Security Act, 2016 would be used to take punitive action against online speech viewed as denigrating to others. Furthermore, in the run up to the now annulled elections, the Malawi Communications Regulatory Authority (MACRA) issued a notice warning the public against disinformation on social media platforms. The notice stated that the regulator would “work with various stakeholders to seek ways of countering the spread of fake news.”

Freedom of information and censorship of content

Citizens’ right of access to information is provided for under Article 37 of the Constitution. The Access to Information Act of 2017 provides for the right of access to information in the custody of public bodies and relevant private bodies, as well as the processes and procedures for obtaining such information.

However the Official Secrets Act under section 4(1) prohibits disclosure of a wide range of information. The Preservation of Public Security Act (1960), under section 3 (Public Security Regulations) makes it an offense to publish anything likely to be “prejudicial to public security; undermine the authority of, or the public confidence in, the government; promote feelings of ill-will or hostility between any sections of classes or races of the inhabitants of Malawi; or promote industrial unrest in the country.” These two outdated laws place restrictions on access to information, in addition to offenses relating to sedition and publication of false information under the Penal Code. Further, Section 46 of the Penal Code empowers the Minister of Justice to prohibit the publication or importation of any publication that he or she considers to be contrary to the public interest.

During the second cycle of the UPR, the government of Malawi received two recommendations from Norway relating to the freedom of information – “Consolidate the policy gains into legal reforms on issues such as treatment of same-sex relations and access to information” (noted) and “Prioritise public education and information as well as capacity building of state institutions as part of efforts to strengthen implementation of national human rights legislation” (supported).

Since the review, instances of restrictions to access to information online include internet outages on election day in May 2019, with reports suggesting that the disruption was ordered by the government to disrupt information flows and keep citizens un-informed during the election. On censorship of content, amidst concerns over “moral standards, values and aspirations as a nation” within the music industry,  in May 2018, the Malawi Censorship Board embarked on a programme to review songs and films with “suspicious moral content” in order to “protect the rights of listeners”. In February 2019, Malawi Police arrested a musician for producing a “blasphemous song”. He was sentenced to two years in jail. According to Freedom House, “several journalists have complained that their articles are sometimes never published online or in print because their editors received directives from officials to refrain from publishing about certain topics”.

Equality and barriers to access

Section 157 of the Communications Act of 2016 mandates MACRA to establish a Universal Service Fund. In October 2019, MACRA announced that it would roll out the Universal Access to Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Services Project starting in 2020 to ensure universal coverage in the country, including to rural and under-served areas.

Despite these efforts, ICT adoption in Malawi remains among the lowest in the world – 25.5 mobile broadband subscriptions for every 100 inhabitants as at 2017, the most recent year International Telecommunications Union (ITU) data is available for. The Inclusive Internet Index 2019 which assesses internet availability, affordability, relevance of content and readiness ranks Malawi 98th out of 100 countries. Malawi is currently ranked 52 out of 61 countries in internet affordability. The average monthly cost of 1GB data is MWK 3,500 (USD 4.8).

The country has maintained a 17.5% value-added tax (VAT) on mobile phones and services, a 16.5% VAT on internet services and an additional 10% excise duty on mobile phone text messages and internet data transfers, introduced in 2015.

In October 2019, the government of Malawi attempted to introduce a 1% withholding tax on mobile money transactions in the 2019/20 National Budget. The proposal was withdrawn following pressure from civil society groups and the private sector.

Data protection and privacy

The right to privacy is enshrined in Section 21 of the Constitution of Malawi, which stipulates that “Every person shall have the right to personal privacy, which shall include the right not to be subject to: (a) searches of his or her person, home or property; (b) the seizure of private possessions; or (c) interference with private communications, including mail and all forms of telecommunications”.

Malawi does not have a standalone data protection law. In March 2018, the then Minister of ICT, Nicholas Dausi, announced plans to draft a bill on data protection in response to the changing media and technological landscape. In the meantime, The Electronic Transactions and Cybersecurity Act of 2016 which aims “to put in place mechanisms that safeguard information and communication technology users from fraud, breach of privacy, misuse of information and immoral behaviour brought by the use of information and communication technology” provides some protections. The Act provides for the processing of personal data (section 71); and the rights of data subjects (section 72) while sections 73 and 74 relate to the obligations of a data controller. Under section 84, the Act criminalises unauthorised access, interception, and modification of data with conviction attracting fines of MWK2,000,000 (USD 2,680) and imprisonment for five years. However, article 29 requires service providers to retain data and disclose it when required by courts.

There is also the Communications Act of 2016 which criminalises unlawful interception or interference, and disclosure of electronic communications (section 176), with penalties upon conviction of a fine of MWK 5,000,000 (USD 6,500) and imprisonment for five years.

Section 20(1) of the Access to Information Act of 2017 requires an information holder to notify third parties if information being requested relates to confidential or commercial interest. Third parties are required to respond in writing within 10 working days from the date of receipt of the notice and indicate whether the requested information is considered confidential and provide reasons for non-disclosure. The Act also prohibits information holders from disclosing information whose disclosure would result in the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about a third party (section 29) or which is likely to result in endangering the life, health or safety of a person (section 31). On the other hand, information holders are prohibited from disclosing legally privileged information unless the data subject (patient, client, source or person entitled to the privilege), consents to the release of the information or has waived the privilege or a court order is made to that effect (section 32).

Section 10 of the National Statistics Act, 2013 empowers the National Statistics Organisation (NSO) to collect all types of information, including personal information, nationwide on behalf of the government.

The major weakness of the current legal and policy framework is the lack of a dedicated data governance framework. This is especially problematic considering ongoing mandatory personal data collection exercises such as SIM card registration and biometric data collection as part of the national identification programme. Meanwhile, the government is reported to have rolled out the Consolidated ICT Regulatory Management System (CIRMS), with perceived surveillance capabilities. In 2017, the Malawi Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed an application by Telekom Networks Malawi (TNM), one of the country’s mobile service providers, to stop the implementation of the CIRMS on privacy grounds.

As part of Internet Freedom and UPR advocacy efforts at the Human Rights Council, the Centre for Human Rights and Rehabilitation (CHRR),  the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA), and Small Media made the following recommendations to UN members to consider putting forward to the Malawi delegation during the upcoming review:

  • In compliance with international standards and the right to freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 19 of the ICCPR and section 35 of the Malawi Constitution, guarantee freedom of expression and opinion online as well as offline for media and individuals, including marginalised and discriminated groups by repealing all laws that restrict freedom of expression, including the Protected Flag, Emblems and Names Act, libel and defamation laws.
  • Refrain from implementing internet shutdowns or disruptions under any circumstances.
  • Ensure that the 2017 Access to Information Act is fully implemented and all public bodies are in full compliance in providing their data regularly in accessible formats.
  • Hasten efforts to provide equal access to technology and communications to all citizens, including disadvantaged and marginalised groups of the population, by removing barriers to access and improving affordability, as well as expanding infrastructure and desisting from internet disruptions.
  • Approve the legislation on personal data protection and privacy in order to provide safeguards on the use of personal data and to protect the right to privacy online.

12Sep

Overview of Cameroon’s Digital Landscape

Author admin Posted on

By Simone Toussi |

The Information and Communications Technology (ICT) sector in Cameroon has evolved considerably since 2010, despite the persistence of the digital divide and affronts to freedom of expression online. The country’s digital landscape was  boosted by the launch in May 2016 of the National ICT Strategic Plan 2020, which recognised the digital economy as a driver for development. The country has registered increased investments in  telecommunication and ICT infrastructure, including extension of the national optical fibre backbone to about 12,000 km, connecting 209 of the country’s 360 sub-divisions, and neighbouring countries such as Chad, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, the Central African Republic and Nigeria. 

By 2018, the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications reported that mobile phone  subscribers stood at 18.8 million representing a penetration rate of 83%, while internet penetration was 35%. There are four big telecommunications service providers in Cameroon – MTN, Orange, Viettel and the state-owned CAMTEL. With 48% of the mobile market share or 8.7 million subscribers, MTN is the leading service provider, according to its report for the first quarter of 2019. 

Over the years, Cameroon has scored some improvements in ICT development and affordability. For instance, on the ICT Development Index (IDI) of  the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), its value improved from 1.54 in 2010 to 2.38 in 2017 – against the highest global value of 8.98 for Iceland, and between the highest African value of 5.88 for Mauritius and the lowest 0.96 for Eritrea. Cameroon thus ranked at 149  out of the 176 countries assessed, with more than twenty African countries ranked above it. On affordability of the internet, Cameroon’s ranking has also slightly improved – currently ranked 50, up from 53 in 2015, out of 60 countries. This still makes internet access in Cameroon among the most expensive of the countries surveyed.

Meanwhile, internet shutdowns, arrests and intimidation of online critics, and censorship of online content  raise concerns about the government’s commitment to nurturing a sustainable and inclusive digital society.

ICT Legal and Regulatory Frameworks

The Cameroonian Constitution provides for freedom of expression, freedom of the press and of communication. It states: “the freedom of communication, of expression, of the press, of assembly, of association, and of trade unionism, as well as the right to strike shall be guaranteed under the conditions fixed by law”. 

Relevant agencies governing the sector include the Telecommunication Regulatory Agency (ART), and the National Telecommunications Agency (ANTIC) – both under the mandate of the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications (MINPOSTEL). Other entities such as the Ministry of Communication and the National Council of Communication also has regulatory and advisory roles with regards to media. 

These agencies are guided by key laws that govern ICT including  Law n° 98/014 of July 14, 1998 governing telecommunications and its amendment of December 29, 2005;  Law n° 2010/013 of  December 21, 2010 on e-Communications, and its amendment of April 2015;  Law n° 2010/012 of  December 21, 2010 on Cyber Security and Cybercrime; and Law n° 2010/021 of December 21 2010 governing e-Commerce. Other legalisation related to ICT are the Framework Law n° 2011/012 of May 6, 2011 on Consumer Protection,  Law n° 2001 / 0130 of July 23, 2001 establishing the minimum service in telecommunications, and Law n° 98/013 of July 14, 1998 on competition which governs all sectors of the national economy.

The 2014 Law on the Suppression of Terrorist Acts, which was enacted to support the fight against terrorism and growing threats from the jihadist group Boko Haram, has been used as a tool to suppress journalism and opinion critical of the government under the guise of preventing the spread of fake news and threatening national security. In January 2018, the Minister of Justice issued a directive to magistrates to “commit, after clear identification by the security services, to legally prosecute any person residing in Cameroon who uses social media to spread fake news”. 

A new law is the  2019 Finance Act, which under Section 8, introduces taxation on software and application downloads produced outside of Cameroon, at a flat rate of 200 Central African Francs (CFA), equivalent to USD 0.34, per download. Whereas the government is yet to issue implementation guidelines for the taxes, once in effect, they  will result in additional costs for digital platform users.

Access and Affordability 

Article 4 of the 2010 eCommunications law states that every citizen “has the right to benefit from electronic communications services”. The same law establishes a Universal Service Access Fund, aimed at ensuring equal, quality and affordable access to services (Articles 27-29). Whereas internet and mobile telephony have registered growth, access and affordability remain a challenge, especially among rural and poor communities. Currently, the average cost of 1GB of data is 2,000 CFA (USD 3.4) per month, and with the proposed levy of 200 CFAs (USD 0.34) on software and application downloads, costs are expected to further increase. With an estimated per capita income of USD 1,500 in 2018, the prevailing rates are over and above the Alliance for Affordable Internet’s recommendation of 1GB of data costing 2% or less of average monthly income.  

Gender Digital Divide

A 2015 report by the Web Foundation found that in Cameroon only 36% of women compared to 45% of men were internet users. The key factors inhibiting women’s access to the internet and digital devices in Cameroon included literacy levels, cost relative to income, access to devices, perceived relevance and usefulness, lack of time and poor infrastructure. Towards addressing the digital gender divide, the National ICT Strategic Plan 2020 states among its objectives the need to “support the development of female skills in the field of digital engineering“, and to “support technological and scientific vocations for women“. However, these objectives are not linked to any specific projects within the plan’s priority action areas. 

Meanwhile, without much in the way of provisions for gender, cultural and linguistic diversity, the country’s ICT laws remain largely silent on diversity and inclusion within the ICT sector. Further, seven years since its passing, the Framework Law on Consumer Protection, which includes provisions on consumer rights and quality of services within the technology sector, remains largely unenforced due to the absence of  implementation guidelines.

Privacy and Data Protection

Cameroon has no data protection or privacy law. However, the national Constitution amended by the Law N°. 96-06 of 18 January 1996, guarantees privacy of communications in its preamble, stating that “the privacy of all correspondence is inviolate. No interference may be allowed except by virtue of decisions emanating from the Judicial Power”. The 2010 Cybersecurity and Cybercrime law also provides for the privacy of communications under Article 41 and outlaws the interception of communications under Article 44. The obligation for service providers to guarantee users’ privacy and the confidentiality of information is covered under Articles 42 and 26.  

According to Article 26(1); “Information system operators shall take all technical and administrative measures to ensure the security of the services offered. To this end, they should be equipped with standardised systems that enable them to identify, evaluate, process and continuously manage the risks related to the security of information systems in the context of services offered directly or indirectly”. However, the law does not specify the guiding principles for the collection and processing of personal data, nor users’ right to access and update such data. 

Network Disruptions

The government of Cameroon has in the past initiated two internet shutdowns in the Anglophone region of the country, which together lasted 240 days and drew international condemnation. The shutdowns were imposed in the wake of ongoing strikes, fatal violence and protest action against the alleged “francophonisation” and marginalisation of English speakers who claim that “the central government privileges the majority French-speaking population and eight other regions.” It is estimated that the regional internet shutdown cost USD 38.8 million in addition to affecting access to public services, education, and daily livelihoods. 

Guaranteeing an Inclusive Digital Space in Cameroon

Cameroon’s government has professed its intention to leverage the digital economy for sustainable development and to establish  an enabling legal and regulatory framework. However, developments such as taxation of application downloads, internet disruptions, and limited efforts to bridge the digital gender divide, indicate a shrinking digital space and are likely obstacles to the uptake of ICT. Efforts are thus necessary to ensure a digital environment that is both open and accessible to all, upholds users’ safety and security, and guarantees constitutional rights. These efforts should include a strengthened legal framework with implementation guidelines to ensure enforcement, compliance monitoring, and accountability. 

Moreover, the adoption of a specific law on privacy and data protection is recommended, so as to guarantee the principles of anonymity and consent, and in line with international best practice. For civil society organisations, it is recommended to intensify advocacy against regressive policy and practice including internet disruptions,  and the enforcement of consumer protection and universal services. Crucially, civil society should play an active role in policy consultative processes and citizen sensitisation on digital rights and literacy.

1 … 14 15 16 17 18 … 23