A Tribute to FIFAfrica’s Allies and Supporters

FIFAfrica |

Since its inception in 2014, the Forum on Internet Freedom in Africa (FIFAfrica) has grown to become the continent’s leading assembly of actors instrumental in shaping conversations on digital rights, data governance, digital inclusion, and the intersection of technology with society and the economy. It has become the stage for concerted efforts to advance digital rights.

Built upon a multi-stakeholder model on internet governance, the Forum places a free, open and secure internet directly on the agendas of key stakeholders, including policymakers, journalists, activists, global platform operators, telecommunications companies, regulators, human rights defenders, academia, and law enforcement.

At the heart of the Forum is an ecosystem of organisations that have, over the years, stood alongside the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) in its pursuit of effective and inclusive digital governance in Africa.

We appreciate and honour the support, partnership, and solidarity of the institutions, foundations, development agencies, and networks that have made FIFAfrica come alive from its earliest editions hosted in Kampala to more recent convenings across South Africa, Ghana, Ethiopia, Zambia, Tanzania, and Senegal. These supporters have offered resources, strategic insights, and co-created platforms for engagement in addition to supporting the participation of an extended community of actors key to advancing internet freedom in Africa. Additionally, their contributions have supported research, advocacy, community mobilisation, skill-building, and policy engagement not only at the Forum but also across the continent through the work of CIPESA.

The allies and supporters of FIFAfrica have helped create safe spaces for human rights defenders, technologists, policymakers, and researchers to connect and collaborate. It also serves to elevate underrepresented voices, particularly those of women, vulnerable, and marginalised communities. It has created platforms for discourse and pushback against internet shutdowns, online harassment, digital exclusion, and surveillance.

Meet the Allies and Supporters of FIFAfrica Over the Years

Partners in Co-Hosting and Groundwork

FIFAfrica has also benefited immensely from regional and national partners, as well as government ministries that have joined hands to co-host the Forum. These partnerships have helped localise the Forum and build greater awareness with the host country and beyond. Partners have included:

FIFAfrica is in a constant state of evolution and has grown from an assembly of just 80 attendees to well over 500 participants at the most recent Forum in Dakar.

Join the community of Allies and Supporters

From all of us at CIPESA, THANK YOU for being part of this movement. We look forward to strengthening our collaborations and welcoming new allies as we continue evolving the Forum in response to the change digital landscape.

Interested in supporting or partnering for FIFAfrica25? Here is a form to guide you on joining the community of allies and supporters.

Human Rights Implications of Health Care Digitalisation in Kenya

Policy brief |

This policy brief draws on the key findings of a human rights impact assessment of Digital Health Services to make concrete recommendations for a human rights-based digitalisation of health care services in Kenya.

Drawing on a human rights impact assessment conducted in October-November 2024, the brief shows how the transition from the National Health Insurance Fund (NHIF) to the Social Health Insurance Fund (SHIF) has faced significant challenges that impact the right to health, particularly for vulnerable and marginalised groups and addresses broader concerns as to the role of digitalisation in health care management and its implications for service delivery. 

Notably, Kenya’s journey towards a rights-based digital health system requires a coordinated approach that addresses infrastructure, regulatory enforcement, gender equality, and resource allocation and management. By adopting the recommendations found in this brief, Kenya can create a digital health environment that not only advances healthcare service delivery but also protects, promotes and respects the rights of all its citizens, particularly those most at risk of exclusion.

Recommendations on the NHIF-SHIF Transition

1. Enhance digital infrastructure: Fully operationalize the SHA platform and integrate it with existing systems like Kenya Health Information System and Kenya Electronic Medical Records.

2. Conduct public awareness campaigns: Educate citizens on SHA benefits and processes to dispel misinformation and encourage enrolment.

3. Expedite empanelment of facilities: Increase the accreditation of healthcare providers to ensure uninterrupted access to services.

4. Strengthen National-County coordination: Align roles, resources, and responsibilities to streamline service delivery under the devolved healthcare framework as stipulated under the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution.

5. Review contribution models: Adjust means-testing mechanisms to ensure affordability, especially for vulnerable and marginalized populations.

6. Prioritize capacity building: Train healthcare workers and Community Health Promoters to effectively navigate the transition and support beneficiaries.

7. Incorporate stakeholder feedback: Deliberately establish clear communication channels and include healthcare workers, vulnerable and marginalized groups in the design and implementation of SHA systems to promote inclusivity.

8. Clarify referral pathways: Define roles for various healthcare levels under the Primary Health Care Act to simplify patient navigation.

9. Ensure accountability and transparency: Regularly audit the transition to address and mitigate inefficiencies and restore public trust.

Read the full policy brief here.

Research Partners

The research into the human rights impacts of digital health services in Kenya was conducted in partnership between the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights – Kenya’s National Human Rights Institution, CIPESA – The Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa which works to promote effective and inclusive ICT policy, and the Danish Institute for Human Rights – Denmark’s national human rights institution which works internationally to address the human rights implications of technology use.

Protecting Global Democracy in the Digital Age: Insights from PAI’s Community of Practice

By Christian Cardona |

2024 was a historic year for global elections, with approximately four billion eligible voters casting a vote in 72 countries. It was also a historic year for AI-generated content, with a significant presence in elections all around the world. The use of synthetic media, or AI-generated media (visual, auditory, or multimodal content that has been generated or modified via artificial intelligence), can affect elections by impacting voting procedures and candidate narratives, and enabling the spread of harmful content. Widespread access to improved AI applications has increased the quality and quantity of the synthetic content being distributed, accelerating harm and distrust.

As we look toward global elections in 2025 and beyond, it is vital that we recognize one of the primary harms of generative AI in 2024 elections has been the creation of deepnudes of women candidates. Not only is this type of content harmful to the individuals, but also likely creates a chilling effect on female political participation in future elections. The AI and Elections Community of Practice (COP) has provided us with key insights, such as these, and actionable data that can help inform policymakers and platforms as they seek to safeguard future elections in the AI age.

To understand how various stakeholders and actors anticipated and addressed the use of generative AI during elections and are responding to potential risks, the COP provided an avenue for Partnership on AI (PAI) stakeholders to present their ongoing efforts, receive feedback from peers, and discuss difficult questions and tradeoffs when it comes to deploying this technology. In the last three meetings of the eight-part series, PAI was joined by the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT), the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA), and Digital Action to discuss AI’s use in election information and AI regulations in the West and beyond.

Investigating the Spread of Election Information with Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)

The Center for Democracy & Technology has worked for thirty years to improve civil rights and civil liberties in the digital age, including through almost a decade of research and policy work on trust, security, and accessibility in American elections. In the sixth meeting of the series, CDT provided an inside look into two recent research reports published on the confluence of democracy, AI, and elections.

The first report investigates how chatbots from companies such as OpenAI, Anthropic, MistralAI, and Meta, handle responses to election-based queries, specifically for voters with disabilities. The report found that 61% of responses from chatbots tested provided answers that were insufficient (defined in this report as a response that included one or more of the following: incorrect information, omission of key information, structural issues, or evasion) in at least one of the four ways assessed by the study, including that 41% of the responses contained factual errors, such as incorrect voter registration deadlines. In one case, a chatbot provided information that cited a non-existent law. A quarter of the responses were likely to prevent or dissuade voters with disabilities from voting, raising concerns about the reliability of chatbots in providing important election information.

The second report explored political advertising across social media platforms and how changes in policies at seven major tech companies over the last four years have impacted US elections. As organizations seek more opportunities to leverage generative AI tools in an election context, whether for chatbots or political ads, they must continue investing in research on user safety and implementing evaluation thresholds for deployment, and ensure full transparency on product limitations once deployed.

AI Regulations and Trends in African Democracy with CIPESA

A “think and do tank,” the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa focuses on technology policy and practice as it intersects with society, human rights, and livelihoods. In the seventh meeting of the series, CIPESA provided an overview of their work on AI regulations and trends in Africa, touching topics like national and regional AI strategies, and elections and harmful content.

As the use of AI continues to grow in Africa, most AI regulation across the continent focuses on the ethical use of AI and human rights impacts, while lacking specific guidance on the impact of AI on elections. Case studies show that AI is undermining electoral integrity on the continent, distorting public perception given the limited skills of many to discern and fact-check misleading content. A June 2024 report by Clemson University’s Media Forensics Hub found that the Rwandan government used large language models (LLMs) to generate pro-government propaganda during elections in early 2024. Over 650,000 messages attacking government critics, designed to look like authentic support for the government, were sent from 464 accounts.

The 2024 general elections in South Africa saw similar misuse of AI, with AI-generated content targeting politicians and leveraging racial and xenophobic undertones to sway voter sentiment. Examples include a deepfake depicting Donald Trump supporting the uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) party and a manipulated 2009 video of rapper Eminem supporting the Economic Freedom Fighters Party (EFF). The discussion emphasized the need to maintain a focus on AI as it advances in the region with particular attention given to mitigating the challenges AI poses in electoral contexts.

AI tools are lowering the barrier to entry for those seeking to sway elections, whether individuals, political parties, or ruling governments. As the use of AI tools grows in Africa, countries must take steps to implement stronger regulation around the use of AI and elections (without stifling expression) and ensure country-specific efforts are part of a broader regional strategy.

Catalyzing Global AI Change for Democracy with Digital Action

Digital Action is a nonprofit organization that mobilizes civil society organizations, activists, and funders across the world to call out digital threats and take joint action. In the eighth and final meeting in the PAI AI and Elections series, Digital Action shared an overview of the organization’s Year of Democracy campaign. The discussions centered on protecting elections and citizens’ rights and freedoms across the world, as well as exploring how social media content has had an impact on elections.

The main focus of Digital Action’s work in 2024 was supporting the Global Coalition For Tech Justice, which called on Big Tech companies to fully and equitably resource efforts to protect 2024 elections through a set of specific, measurable demands. While the media expected to see very high profile examples of generative AI swaying election results around the world, they instead saw corrosive effects on political campaigning, harms to individual candidates and communities, as well as likely broader harms to trust and future political participation.

Many elections around the world were impacted by AI-generated content being shared on social media, including Pakistan, Indonesia, India, South Africa and Brazil, with minorities and female political candidates being particularly vilified. In Brazil, deepnudes appeared on a social media platform and adult content websites depicting two female politicians in the leadup to the 2024 municipal elections. While one of the politicians took legal action, the slow pace of court processes and lack of proactive steps by social media platforms prevented a timely fix.

To mitigate future harms, Digital Action called for each Big tech company to establish and publish fully and equitably resourced Action Plans (globally and for each country holding elections). By doing so, tech companies can provide greater protection to groups, such as female politicians, that are often at risk during election periods.

What’s To Come

PAI’s AI and Elections COP series has concluded after eight convenings with presentations from industry, media, and civil society. Over the course of the year, presenters provided attendees with different perspectives and real-world examples on how generative AI has impacted global elections, as well as how platforms are working to combat harm from synthetic content.

Some of key takeaways from the series include:

  1. Down-ballot candidates and female politicians are more vulnerable to the negative impacts of generative AI in elections. While there were some attempts to use generative AI to influence national elections (you can read more about this in PAI’s case study), down-ballot candidates were often more susceptible to harm than nationally-recognized ones. Often, local candidates with fewer resources were unable to effectively combat harmful content. Deepfakes were also shown to prevent increased participation of female politicians in some general elections.
  2. Platforms should dedicate more resources to localizing generative AI policy enforcement. Platforms are attempting to protect users from harmful synthetic content by being transparent about the use of generative AI in election ads, providing resources to elected officials to tackle election-related security challenges, and adopting many of the disclosure mechanisms recommended in PAI’s Synthetic Media Framework. However, they have fallen short in localizing enforcement policies with a lack of language support and in-country collaboration with local governments, civil society organizations, and community organizations that represent minority and marginalized groups such as persons with disabilities and women. As a result, generative AI has been used to cause real-world harm before being addressed.
  3. Globally, countries need to adopt more coherent regional strategies to regulate the use of generative AI in elections, balancing free expression and safety. In the U.S., a lack of federal legislation on the use of generative AI in elections has led to various individual efforts from states and industry organizations. As a result, there is a fractured approach to keeping users safe without a cohesive overall strategy. In Africa, attempts by countries to regulate AI are very disparate. Some countries such as Rwanda, Kenya, and Senegal have adopted AI strategies that emphasize infrastructure and economic development but fail to address ways to mitigate risks that generative AI presents in free and fair elections. While governments around the world have shown some initiative to catch up, they must work with organizations, both at the industry and state level, to implement best practices and lessons learned. These government efforts cannot exist in a vacuum. Regulations must cohere and contribute to broader global governance efforts to regulate the use of generative AI in elections while ensuring safety and free speech protections.

While the AI and Elections Community of Practice has come to an end, we continue to push forward in our work to responsibly develop, create, and share synthetic media.

This article was initially published by Partnership on AI on March 11, 2025

Co-Develop & CIPESA Empowering East Africa’s Journalists to Shape the Future of Digital Public Infrastructure Discourse

Partnership |

What if the future of digital public infrastructure (DPI) was shaped not just by policymakers and technologists, but by the stories that journalists tell? At Co-Develop, we believe that the stories told about DPI can drive awareness, accountability, and action. This is why Co-Develop is pleased to announce a new partnership with the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) to launch a DPI Journalism Fellowship in Eastern Africa. 

Whatever it is, the way you tell your story online can make all the difference.

Building on the success of our West African program, this initiative will equip journalists across Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Somalia, South Sudan, Tanzania, and Uganda with the skills, resources, and networks needed to report on DPI and Digital Public Goods (DPGs) with depth and clarity. By promoting informed public discourse, the program aims to make digital transformation more accessible and transparent to the communities it serves. 

Digital public infrastructure refers to the foundational digital systems, platforms, and services that enable secure, efficient, and inclusive delivery of public and private services. Examples of DPI include digital identity (ID) systems, instant payment platforms, data exchange frameworks, open data platforms, and eGovernment platforms. 

The West African fellowship trained 20 journalists who produced over 115 impactful stories, leading to policy debates and meaningful reforms—such as the digitization of birth certificates in Nigeria following a corruption exposé. Inspired by this success, we are excited to bring this model to Eastern Africa, where digital transformation is rapidly advancing, yet public engagement remains limited.

Despite significant DPI developments, many citizens remain unaware of their implications. The media plays a critical role in bridging this gap. The new journalism fellowship will empower journalists to report on DPI in ways that highlight its benefits, challenges, and impact on everyday lives.

Through a structured program of training, reporting grants, and collaborations with regional media houses, the fellowship will amplify DPI narratives, encourage investigative journalism, and promote greater transparency and accountability. Drawing from insights gained in West Africa, we aim to build a scalable and sustainable model that strengthens public understanding of DPI, ensuring it is not just a policy conversation but a lived reality for millions. 

“We welcome this timely initiative, which will strengthen the role of journalism in shaping the future of DPI in Eastern Africa and we look forward to seeing the transformative impact of this collaboration”, said Dr. Wairagala Wakabi, the CIPESA Executive Director. “As digital transformation accelerates, journalists can play a vital role in ensuring that the public remains informed about the opportunities and challenges associated with DPI.”

He added that the fellowship will help bridge the gap between policymakers and the public, enhancing transparency and accountability in digital governance.

We look forward to seeing the transformative impact of this collaboration.

“This fellowship aligns with CIPESA’s commitment to promoting and protecting digital rights, the digital economy, and inclusive digital societies across Africa,” Dr. Wakabi said. “We expect this program to produce a new cadre of investigative journalists who will drive meaningful public discourse on DPI and DPGs. We hope that this will in turn contribute to policies and practices that ensure digital public infrastructure serves all citizens equitably while remaining rights-respecting.” 

This article was first published on the Co-Develop Website

CIPESA and Partners Advocate for Inclusion of Technology-Facilitated Gender-Based Violence in Uganda’s Sexual Offences Bill

By Ainembabazi Patricia |

On February 18, 2025, the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) alongside Pollicy and the Gender Tech Initiative appeared before Members of Uganda’s Parliament to advocate for the inclusion of Technology-Facilitated Gender-Based Violence (TFGBV) in the Sexual Offences Bill 2024.

The rapid evolution of digital technologies has reshaped societal interactions, leading to increased perpetration of online violence. In Uganda, online users increasingly face digital forms of abuse that often mirror or escalate offline sexual offences, yet efforts to combat gender-based violence are met with both legal and practical challenges.

The Sexual Offences Bill aims to address sexual offences by providing for the effectual prevention of sexual violence, enhancement of the punishment of sexual offenders, providing for the protection of victims during trial of sexual offences, and providing for extra-territorial application of the law.

In the presentation to Committee of Legal and Parliamentary Affairs and the Committee on Gender, Labour, and Social Development, CIPESA and partners emphasised the necessity of closing the policy gap between digital and physical sexual offenses in the Bill, to ensure that Uganda’s legal system is responsive to the realities of technology advancements and related violence. We argued that while the Bill is timely and presents real issues of sexual violence especially against women, there are some pertinent aspects that have been left out and should be included.

According to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), TFGBV is “an act of violence perpetrated by one or more individuals that is committed, assisted, aggravated, and amplified in part or fully by the use of information and communication technologies or digital media, against a person on the basis of their gender.” It includes cyberstalking, doxing, non-consensual sharing of intimate images, cyberbullying, and other forms of online harassment.

In Uganda, TFGBV is not addressed by the existing laws including the Penal Code Act and the Computer Misuse Act. Adding TFGBV to the bill will provide an opportunity to bridge this legal gap by explicitly incorporating TFGBV as a prosecutable offence.

CIPESA and partners’ recommendations to the Committees were to:

1. Include and Explicitly Define TFGBV

Under Part I (Preliminary), the Bill provides definitions for various terms related to sexual offences, including references to digital and online platforms. However, it does not explicitly define TFGBV or recognise its various manifestations. This omission limits the Bill’s effectiveness in addressing emerging forms of online sexual offences.

We propose an introduction of a new clause under Part I defining TFGBV, to ensure the Bill adequately addresses offences committed via digital means. The definition should align with international standards, such as the UNFPA’s definition of TFGBV, and should ensure consistency with Uganda’s digital policy frameworks, including the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995, the Data Protection and Privacy Act, 2019, the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Act 2022, Penal Code Act Cap 120, and the Uganda Communications Act 2013.

2. Recognising Various Forms of TFGBV

Clause 7 of the Bill provides for the penalisation of Indecent Communication or transmission of sexual content without consent. It criminalises the sharing of unsolicited material of a sexual nature, including the unauthorised distribution of nude images or videos. However, the provision does not explicitly mention cyber harassment, online grooming, sextortion, or non-consensual intimate image sharing (commonly known as “revenge porn”).  As such, we recommended the expansion of Clause 7 to explicitly recognise and define offences such as Cyber harassment, Non-consensual intimate image sharing, Online grooming, and Sextortion. This addition will clarify legal pathways for victims and broaden the scope of protection against digital sexual exploitation. 

3. Replacing “Online Platform” with “Technology-Facilitated Gender-Based Violence”

In clause 1 the Bill defines “on-line platform” as any computer-based technology that facilitates the sharing of information, ideas, or other forms of expression. This encompasses social media sites, websites, and other digital communication tools. Clause 6 addresses the offense of indecent exposure, criminalising the intentional display of one’s sexual organs in public or through electronic means, including online platforms and clause 7 pertains to the non-consensual sharing of intimate content. However, these provisions do not comprehensively categorise TFGBV as a distinct form of sexual offences. Accordingly, “Online Platform” should be replaced with “Technology-Facilitated Gender-Based Violence” to ensure the Bill adequately captures all digital gender-based offences, including deepfake pornography, cyberstalking, and sexual exploitation through content generated by artificial intelligence.

4. Criminalising Voyeurism

The Bill does not explicitly criminalise voyeurism, which refers to the act of secretly observing, recording, or distributing images or videos of individuals in private settings without their consent, often for sexual gratification. Thee is increasing prevalence of voyeurism through hidden cameras, non-consensual recordings, and live-streamed sexual abuse.  Voyeurism should be criminalised with a clear definition provided under clause 1 and the scope and penalty defined under Part II of the Bill.

5. Strengthening Accountability for Technology Platforms

The Bill does not impose specific responsibilities on digital platforms and service providers in cases of TFGBV. We argued for the addition of a new clause under Part III (Procedures and Evidential Provisions) mandating digital platforms and service providers to cooperate in investigations related to TFGBV, and provide relevant data and evidence upon request by law enforcement. Similarly,  the provision should expand into the obligation to ensure data protection compliance and  implementation of proactive measures to detect, remove, and report sexual exploitation content.  This provision will enhance accountability and facilitate the prosecution of perpetrators. 

6. Aligning Uganda’s Legislation with Regional and International Frameworks

The Bill does not explicitly state its alignment with regional and international human rights instruments addressing sexual violence and digital rights.  We recommend an addition of a new clause under Part I (Preliminaries) stating that the Bill shall be interpreted in a manner that aligns with the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) Resolution 522 (2022) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). This will reinforce Uganda’s commitment to and application of international best practices in combating sexual offences. 

7. Enhancing Legal Remedies for Survivors

Clause 42 (Settlement in Capital Sexual Offences) prohibits compromise settlements in cases of rape, aggravated rape, and defilement, prescribing a 10-year prison sentence for offenders who attempt to settle such cases outside court. However, the Bill does not provide civil remedies for victims of TFGBV-related crimes, nor does it ensure access to psycho-social support.  We recommend an expansion of Clause 42 to include  civil remedies, including compensation for victims of TFGBV, psychosocial and legal support, ensuring survivors receive necessary rehabilitation, and mandatory reporting obligations for online platforms hosting TFGBV-related content. 

The inclusion of TFGBV in the Sexual Offences Bill 2024 will not only strengthen the fight against gender-based violence but also ensure that survivors access justice. The proposed legislative changes will reinforce Uganda’s commitment to upholding digital rights and gender equality in the digital age. The country will also join the ranks of pioneers such as South Africa who have taken legislative steps to criminalise online gender-based violence.

By incorporating the proposed provisions and amendments, the Sexual Offences Bill, 2024 will clearly define online-based sexual offenses, bring perpetrators of online violence to book and provide protection for survivors of digital sexual offences. It will also contribute to the building and strengthening of accountability for technology platforms. Once enacted, the law will also go strides in ensuring that Uganda’s legal framework aligns with regional and international human rights standards on protection of survivors while guaranteeing effective prosecution of offenders of technology-facilitated sexual offences.

Download the Full report here