Zimbabwe Becomes the Latest Country to Shut Down Social Media

 
By Juliet Nanfuka |
Less than a week after the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council declared that online rights must be protected and condemned disruptions to internet access, citizens in Zimbabwe became the latest victims of online communications shut down. Authorities in Zimbabwe shut down communications in the wake of protests against rampant corruption and misuse of state funds by Robert Mugabe’s regime, which has been in power since 1980.
Online campaigns initiated by frustrated Zimbabweans using hashtags like #MugabeMustFall and #ThisFlag have gained widespread popularity over the past weeks with the most recent #ZimbabweShutdown and #ZimShutdown2016 gaining momentum while calling for citizens to stay away from work. On Wednesday July 6, many streets in the capital Harare stood empty as the stay-in protest took effect, while online, despite the blockage of the popular instant messaging platform Whatsapp, citizens continued voicing concerns and sharing messages of solidarity. Service providers such as TelOnem, Liquid Telecom Zimbabwe, ZOL Zimbabwe, Telecel and Econet were amongst those who were reportedly pressured into shutting down access, which caused users to turn to circumvention tools in order to bypass the blockage.


A notice issued by the Postal and Telecommunications Regulatory Authority of Zimbabwe (POTRAZ) stated that those who engaged in “irresponsible use of social media and telecommunications services” would be “arrested and dealt with accordingly in the national interest.”
Zimbabwe, which is ranked “partly free” by Freedom House’s Freedom on the Net report, has also over the years recorded dismal media freedom and digital rights records, including crackdown on critics and news outlets both online and offline. In April 2016, a senior government official said the country could take measures similar to China by entirely blocking access to certain content online.
In July 2014, an anonymous whistle-blower Facebook page, “Baba Jukwa”, was deleted under unclear circumstances following the arrest of a journalist for allegedly running the page. A bounty of US$300,000 had earlier reportedly been offered for revealing the name of the person behind the account, while  in January 2014, a Facebook user was arrested and charged for sharing a post alleging that the president had died. These actions have cultivated a culture of self-censorship among the Zimbabwean online community.
The UN resolution, which was passed on Wednesday July 1 by 70 states, stresses that human rights enjoyed offline, particularly with regards to freedom of expression, must be protected online pursuant to articles 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Countries that voted against the resolution included Bolivia, Bangladesh, Burundi, Cuba, China, Russia, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, the Republic of Congo, Kenya, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Venezuela and Vietnam. Some countries including Algeria, Cote D’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Kyrgyzstan and Togo chose to abstain from voting on the resolution.
The Zimbabwe government’s stance on the use of social media comes as no surprise as an increasing number of shutdowns have been documented in African countries in recent months.
*Whatsapp was restored after four hours of disruption
 
 

Is Tanzania Becoming an Internet Freedom Predator?

By Juliet Nanfuka |
Tanzania appears to be steadily sliding into a predator of critical social media users, as state authorities continue to arrest and prosecute users for expressing what many see as legitimate opinions. In recent months, the country’s newly elected government has used  a controversial new law  to prosecute at least seven social media users, in spite of  constitutional guarantees of free speech.
Tanzanian netizens are falling foul of the Cybercrimes Act enacted last year, whose stated goal is “criminalizing offences related to computer systems and Information Communication Technologies”. The law has been used to charge citizens for “publication of false information” in accordance with Section 16 of the Act. It states: “Any person who publishes information or data, presented in a picture, text, symbol or any other form in a computer system knowing that such information or data is false, deceptive, misleading or inaccurate and with intent to defame, threaten, abuse, insult or otherwise deceive or mislead the public or councelling the commission of an offence, commits an offence, and shall on conviction be liable to a fine not less than five million shillings or to imprisonment for a term not less than three years or to both.“
On April 15, 2016 Isaac Habakuk Emily was appeared in court for the publication of false information using a computer system – in this instance Facebook. In a post, Emily referred to President Pombe Magufuli as an imbecile that could not be compared to the country’s founding leader, Julius Nyerere.  He appeared in court for insulting the president after his post was reported to the Tanzania Communications Regulatory Authority (TCRA).
See report on State of Internet Freedom in Tanzania 2015
Since the Cybercrimes Act took effect last September, Tanzanian social media users have “gone a little quiet”, according to journalist Joseph Warungu. And for good reason, as Emily is not the first individual against whom the law has been used. In October 2015, Benedict Angelo Ngonyani was charged for “spreading misleading information” after he posted on Facebook that Tanzania’s Chief of Defence Forces, General Davis Mwamunyange, had been hospitalised following food poisoning. In the same month, Sospiter Jonas was charged for posting to Facebook content stating that Tanzanian Prime Minister Mizengo Pinda “will only become a gospel preacher.” The following month, four staff of an opposition party were charged for publishing “inaccurate” election results on Facebook and Twitter.
The stated objective of the Cybercrimes Act was to fight rising incidents of cybercrime such as bank fraud, mobile money theft, phishing attacks, website hacking and spoofing. However, even as it was being debated, human rights defenders warned that the government would use the law to suppress critical voices. As one activist stated, “We usually use various internet platforms to communicate our information—Twitter, Facebook, blogs, SMS, WhatsApp, etc. The use of all these forms will be rendered useless by the Act which in part criminalises transmission of any information deemed misleading, defamatory, false or inaccurate by the government.”
The Cybercrimes Act was reportedly passed in the middle of the night and has been criticised for disregarding press freedom and freedom of expression, granting excessive powers to police, and offering limited protections to ordinary citizens.
Clamping down on social media users is a trend that has been increasingly witnessed in East Africa and beyond.  In Kenya, Section 29 of the Kenya Information and Communications Act (2013) has been used to charge up to 10 social media users for “the improper use of a telecommunication system” in 2016 alone. In Uganda, Section 25 of the Computer Misuse Act bears similar language and states, “Any person who willfully and repeatedly uses electronic communication to disturb or attempts to disturb the peace, quiet or right of privacy of any person with no purpose of legitimate communication whether or not a conversation ensues commits a misdemeanor.” In the lead up to the February 2016 general elections, a series of arrest were made which saw social media users charged using this law.
Further afield, South Africa’s Cybercrimes and Cybersecurity Bill (2014) also bears similar vague clauses that muzzle opinion of the media, bloggers and other independent actors that promote freedom of expression and increased state transparency. In Nigeria, the Frivolous Petitions Bill (2015), popularly known as the Social Media Bill, threatens to muzzle public expression online.
The Cybercrimes Act is one of several laws Tanzania  enacted in the lead up to the October 2015 general elections despite public outcry that these laws granted excessive powers to the police criminalised  expression and access to information, and did not provide clear legal recourse to citizens.
As affronts to citizens’ online rights in Tanzania and other countries continue, self-censorship is likely to prevail which in turn would have a negative impact on citizen participation, transparency and accountability in governance.
NB: Section 16 of the Cybercrimes Act 2015 has been adjusted to reflect the fine of not less than five million shillings or to imprisonment for a term not less than three years or to both.

Analysis of Twitter Activity During the 2016 Presidential Debates in Uganda

By CIPESA Writer |
The 2015/2016 electioneering season in Uganda set a precedent in the use of social media as a means for politicians to reach out and engage with citizens. It was the first time in Uganda that a candidate announced they would run for President via YouTube and also saw candidate Yoweri Museveni (the incumbent) seek out a more tech-savvy media team to keep abreast with the widening channels of civic engagement.
While some of the candidates maintained personal Twitter accounts and actively engaged in the online conversations, others remained dormant, although they had Twitter accounts.
In partnership with Outbox we present the first of a three-part series into the key themes shaping the online conversation of Ugandans during the electioneering process.
The report explores the level of Twitter activity, interaction and conversational trends with specific focus on the #UgDebate16 hashtag during the 1st presidential debate held on January 15, 2016 and 2nd debate, which was held on February 13, 2016. During both debates, the hashtag trended locally and gained popularity as far as South Africa.
See the full report here: Analysis of Twitter Activity During the 2016 Presidential Debates in Uganda – Monitoring Uganda Elections Series 01 #UgDebate16
 
 

Dialogue on Internet Rights and Freedom in Kenya

By Marilyn Vernon |
In Kenya, whereas the use of the internet had expanded into all areas of day to day living, the threat of government surveillance and interference has impacted upon user confidence in the security of their online interactions. This comes after several local bloggers and social media users have been arrested and in some cases charged with misuse of licensed telecommunications equipment.
“The Kenya Government continues to use national security as a bigger right that trumps constitutional rights,” said Henry Maina, Regional Director of Article 19 East Africa. He said arrests and intimidation of government critics for expressing their opinions online “had become the norm” under the guise of national security.
Maina was speaking at an event aimed at promoting awareness on internet freedoms in Kenya. Organised by the Bloggers Association of Kenya (BAKE) under its Internet Freedoms Citizen Education Campaign, the event also aimed to help participants develop a deeper understanding of human rights online based on the African Declaration on Internet Rights and Freedoms. The declaration outlines 13 principles of human rights standards in internet policy formulation and implementation in Africa. These include openness, internet access and affordability, freedom of expression, right to information, and freedom of association and assembly.
The other principles are cultural and linguistic diversity, right to development and access to knowledge, privacy and personal data protection, security, stability and resilience of the internet, equality (gender and marginalized groups), right to due process, and democratic multi-stakeholder internet governance.
Kenya has one of the fastest growing rates of internet users in Sub-Saharan Africa, with the Communications Authority of Kenya (CAK) reporting an internet penetration rate of 54.8%. Coupled with the installation of fibre optic networks, the country also boasts the highest bandwidth with the fastest speed within the East African Community.
Social media remains a key contentious area on internet freedom in Kenya, where content posted has resulted in prosecution on unclear grounds. In December 2014, blogger Robert Alai was arrested and charged with undermining the authority of a public officer contrary to Section 132 of the Penal Code, by allegedly calling President Kenyatta an “adolescent president” in a blog. He was again arrested in February 2015 for offending a businessman online by linking him to a land saga that involved the illegal acquisition of the Langata Primary School playground.
Journalist Abraham Mutai was arrested following tweets he posted on corruption in the Isiolo County Government and was charged with the “misuse of a licensed communication platform to cause anxiety.”Another case in January 2015, involved a Kenyan student, Alan Wadi who was prosecuted and jailed for one year for insulting President Uhuru Kenyatta on social media.
More recently, the eruption of a Twitter storm dubbed #uhuruinkenya which mocked government spending on foreign trips had led to the alleged take down of a website created under the same hashtag. However, the Kenya Network Information Centre (Kenic), Kenya’s domain registry operator, denied taking down the site. The website isuhuruinkenya.co.ke which, is set to display a “YES” or “NO” when the president is in or out of the country respectively, has since been restored and is accessible within the country.
Also speaking at the event, Nanjira Sambuli, iHub Research Manager, stated that such incidents demonstrated that user vulnerability “is a very real threat” and reiterated the need to help users understand and make sense of digital safety and security, particularly the Terms of Service for social media platforms.
The issue of hate speech across ethnic and religious lines was also discussed, during which participants highlighted the need for user ethics and responsibility such as questioning and verifying sources before sharing information. “Security starts with you as the user,” noted Sambuli.
Kenya is party to a number of international human rights instruments and is a member of the Freedom Online Coalition – an intergovernmental coalition committed to advancing freedom of expression, association, assembly, and privacy online – worldwide. In 2012, Kenya hosted the Annual Freedom Online Coalition meeting in Nairobi. The previous year, it had hosted the global Internet Governance Forum (IGF) under the theme Internet as a catalyst for change: access, development, freedoms and innovation. However, these positive steps in the country’s recognition of internet freedom are subject to legislative and institutional hurdles, thereby making it difficult for citizens to freely enjoy their rights online.
The online conversation around the event was conducted with the hashtag #iFreeKE.
For further reference on what internet freedom means to Kenyan users see the Kenya Internet Freedoms campaign video.
 
 

The Challenge of Tackling Online Violence Against Women in Africa

By Evelyn Lirri |
The story of a 19-year-old student from Kenya who committed suicide after a man she met through Facebook threatened to publish her nude photos came to the limelight on the heels of the opening day of the Forum on Internet Freedom in East Africa, which took place in Kampala, Uganda.
The forum, organised by the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA), under the OpenNet Africa Initiative, drew a cross-section of people from Africa and beyond, including human rights defenders, academics, , law enforcement officers, communication regulators, media, and the tech community to debate issues impacting online freedom of expression and cyber security in Africa. The emerging issue of online violence against women (VAW), a growing problem worldwide, was among the key topics discussed.
Panelists at the Forum said cyber violence against women exists in several forms, including stalking, sexual harassment, surveillance, revenge pornography, public shaming and use of images or videos to manipulate individuals. It is particularly carried out through email, social media such as Facebook, Twitter and mobile phone instant messaging platforms like WhatsApp.
Ruth Nsibirano, a gender expert from Makerere University, said it is difficult to quantify the extent of cyber VAW in Africa because of several inhibitions including the culture of silence.
“In many cases when women report this kind of violence, they are blamed for causing it and so they end up keeping quiet instead of speaking out,” explained Dr. Nsibirano. She added that many women were reluctant to report their tormentors because of the fear of reprisal and, in other cases, they did not know where to seek redress.
According to Jan Moolman, a feminist activist with  the Association for Progressive Communications (APC) who was on  the panel that discussed gender-based online violence, women’s access to the internet and technology remains low, especially in developing countries, leaving the conversation on internet rights to be dominated by men. She noted that in some African countries, online VAW was targeted at public figures, largely because of the nature of their work.
“We need policies and legislation by governments to say this kind of behaviour online is unacceptable. Just like we are responding to violence against women offline, we need to do the same online,” said Ms. Moolman.
Despite the ongoing reports of harassment and intimidation, Ms. Moolman urged more women and girls to join online spaces in order to be part of the conversation against the vice and how to ensure they are safe when they use different online platforms.
Nanjira Sambuli, a research manager with iHub Kenya, said cases of violence against women are usually difficult to prosecute because the evidence is hard to present.
“The cases that come to the limelight are likely a representative of what we don’t hear or see. We need to work towards frameworks that allow people to report anonymously. That way, we shall have a better sense of what is happening,” she said.
Ms. Sambuli highlighted the fact that efforts to combat violence against women have thus far been mainly offline, with fewer strategies put in place to document the harm that happens online and ensure women know where to seek help when they have been violated.
“The internet especially social media platforms are spaces where people are beginning to negotiate and understand what it means to have freedom and what the boundaries are. The internet should be a space where citizens can engage, learn and build a better society,” she added.
Among the possible efforts to curb the vice, Dr. Nsibirano called for increased education of women on the dynamics of the internet through school curriculums. “That way, we shall get more women who will be knowledgeable when these crimes happen,” she said.
Many countries across Africa do not have specific laws under which offenders can be prosecuted. In Uganda, some offenders have been charged under the Anti Pornography Act, 2014, but participants noted that this law was not sufficient to address the problem given that the same law could be used to prosecute the victims.
“Digital evidence is an area that the world is still trying to figure out,” noted Ms. Sambuli. She stressed the need for laws not to aggravate the infringement of victims’ privacy during investigations and prosecution of VAW crimes.