Category

Digital Rights

May 11
0

Why We Have Not Given Up on Processes: Making FOI Requests in Nigeria

By | Advocacy, Digital Rights, Internet Freedom

In the Civil Society space, it is almost trite to state that ‘Freedom of Information’ is an essential freedom. We advocate for the passage of laws that uphold this Freedom and after they are enacted we advocate for systems to ensure they are enforced. 

In Nigeria, the first phase of this advocacy journey was completed in 2011 when the President signed the Freedom of Information Bill into Law. It took years but we were grateful for its enactment.  We have also followed the journey of the Right to Information Bill in Ghana which was assented to by President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo on May 21 2019. 

While we celebrate the passage and assent of these laws, we are however expending time and resources focusing on putting the law to use. The thinking is that if a Freedom exists then we should be able to exercise it and if we can’t then we need to find out why. 

If you ever sent a Freedom of Information request to a public institution in Nigeria, the chances that you got a response to your request are dangerously low. Somehow it would seem that the freedom to access information exists only as a concept with no corresponding obligation on those who hold the information (to supply it). 

But indeed such obligation clearly exists in the very law that vests and affirms the right. As an Organization, we have sent a wide range of FOIs touching on our thematic focus and have had a range of experiences from multiple requests and from one Public Institution to another . However, despite disappointing realities such as the total ignoring of our requests sometimes, we still believe in the processes set down in the law and are always willing to  legally challenge such refusals. 

One of such scenarios presented itself in 2017 when we wrote a Freedom of Information request to the Ministry of Science and Technology regarding information on the building and launch of two of two new satellites by the National Administration of Space Research and Development Agency (NASDRA). We were interested in the intended use of the satellites and their specifications. 

It’s good to pause here to explain the rationale behind FOI Requests. We have found that many regard the request for information as a criticism of work or disagreement with policy, but that’s not necessarily true . At the heart of the FOI requests we send, is a genuine inquiry into facts. As we all know, fake news and the spread of false information have attempted to devalue the quality of public discourse and knowledge. So, when we ask public institutions clear questions, we are attempting to elicit the right information from the right sources. 

That said, our request to the Ministry of Science and Technology was not granted. As many Civil Society Organizations will attest to, this is not a strange ‘reaction’ from a public institution. For us however, the fact that this reaction was anticipated did not make it acceptable. 

Section 20 of the Freedom of Information Act clearly provides that any applicant who has been denied access to information to apply to the Court for a review of the matter within 30 days after the public institution denies the application. So we took advantage of that provision and approached the court seeking for a declaration that the failure and/or refusal of the Respondents to disclose or make available to the applicants the information amounts to a violation of the applicants’ right of access. We also sought for a Declaration that the failure and/or refusal of the Respondents to disclose information amounts to wrongful denial of access to information and finally prayed the court for an order of mandamus compelling the respondent to disclose the specifications of the two new satellites and the details of their intended use.

We argued our case and so did the Ministry. Particularly, the Ministry argued that since the information was not under their supervision, it was impracticable for them to supply it. They also argued that the Agency (NASDRA) had no immediate plan to build and launch new satellites. This argument, though simple, revealed something profound to us. If the Ministry had simply responded to our FOI request with the information that the Agency had no immediate plans to build and launch new satellites, we doubt that we would have had to resort to the Courts. We wondered (and still wonder) if we could conclude that the Nigerian public institution would rather answer to the courts than to the citizens.  

The Court reviewed our arguments vis-a-vis applicable laws and reiterated that Section 7 of the Act gives us the right of access to the court to compel the release of the information. The court also pointed out that the law allows the original public institution to transfer the request for information to another agency which it believes has the information that is being requested from it. 

Finally, the court granted all our reliefs and ordered that the Respondents grant the request sought and where they are not in possession of the information requested, they should explain so in a letter and anchor their explanations under legally stipulated exemptions. We were also awarded the cost of N100,000 in our favour. 

This was yet another interesting reveal where we saw the balance of the scale of justice  leaning towards rights and affirming the responsibilities that have to be carried out  in order for those rights to be effectively exercised. 

Of course, we attempted to enforce this judgment but that has proven difficult in itself especially because the subject in focus is arguably moot. 

But we have gotten more from this case than a response to our letter might have given. We have tested the law and it worked, at least in this scenario. We have seen a court of competent jurisdiction hold a public institution accountable to the people it serves and we have strengthened our commitment to seeking, sharing and addressing public information from the proper sources.  This is why we have not given up on processes. 

The author of this article, Adeboro Odunlami is a Legal Officer at Paradigm Initiative

 

May 04
0

The CoronaVirus pandemic reminds us that Digital Rights are Human Rights

By | Digital Rights

On January 9, 2020, at the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) Annex building in Abuja, the Presidential Broadband Committee held another session to set an agenda for the provision of affordable and reliable broadband access for the over 190 million Nigerians. Together with input from the private sector, civil society and other professionals, their goal was to ensure that the gains of Nigeria’s Broadband Plan 2013 – 2018 were expanded upon in the new plan. Nigeria’s new Broadband Plan 2020 – 2025 was published in March and set the agenda for the development of broadband infrastructure in Nigeria for the next five years.

Among the select organizations presenting evidence at the Broadband Committee’s session in January was Paradigm Initiative. A facet of our contribution focused on the need for accurate measurement of broadband access metrics in Nigeria. This is to ensure that reliable statistics on how many Nigerians really have access to broadband, and the quality of broadband quality of service, is captured. Our reasoning was that in Africa it is often the case that dodgy statistics are on display which paints far rosier pictures than the reality. Thankfully that was not the case with Nigeria.

Advocacy for affordable and quality broadband access is one of the major thrust of the work of Paradigm Initiative’s digital inclusion effort. Working out of digital inclusion training centres in Ajegunle Lagos, Aba, and Kano in Nigeria; and through research and policy advocacy in our Yaba Lagos and Abuja offices, we are always working to ensure that Nigerians reap the optimum benefits of connectivity to the digital. After all, that’s the mission of Paradigm Initiative, clearly stated on the organization’s website—‘’Paradigm Initiative is a social enterprise that builds an ICT-enabled support system and advocates digital rights in order to improve livelihoods for under-served youth“.

Yet many a time it is abundantly clear that even for those for whom advocacy organizations advocate for, the issues for which we tirelessly advocate for are unclear. Public interest advocacy can be a very lonely fight. For instance, during the course of Paradigm Initiative’s advocacy work, we have sometimes been termed ‘’busy-bodies“. Yet, as the world battles the COVID – 19 pandemic, the suffering and deprivation the global pandemic has foisted on the world perhaps presents in sharp relief why digital rights advocacy is so important. In fact, we need not look at the broad subject of digital rights in its entirety, we only need to examine broadband accessibility and affordability and its impact on education.

In Nigeria which already boasts over 10 million out-of-school children, the COVID – 19 pandemic has now ensured that even those who had access to schools have now been denied access to education because schools have been shut down to prevent the spread of the pandemic. And while children in the developed nations of the world might have the luxury of online connections to their classrooms because of well developed, standardized national broadband infrastructure which ensures that broadband is a commonplace utility which is readily available for low and middle-income households, in Nigeria only the financial elite can afford the data costs which guarantees that level of uninterrupted, seamless, quality access to classrooms in this pandemic. In the Nigerian context, we are not talking here of the capped data plans such as 1 Gigabyte, 2 Gigabytes or 5 Gigabytes of data. We’re probably talking about the unlimited data plans which allow unlimited streaming or at the very least the very large capped data plans (above 100Gigabytes) monthly.

I might go into details of Nigeria’s Gross National Income per Capita ($5710 at 2018), or extreme poverty rate (about 50%), here to buttress this. However, it could be enough to simply ask this question, ’’How many of you reading this article can conveniently fork out the approximately N20,000—N25,000 ($50—$62.50) per month to secure the unlimited data plans, or the higher capped data plans described above?”. In a country where many salaries hover around the N30,000 ($75) minimum wage, many will find such monthly data costs prohibitive. The reality is probably that millions of parents who have managed to put their children through school will personally homeschool them, with all the flaws and gaps that come with that. The children of the financial elite will come out of this pandemic several paces ahead.

So there it is. Digital rights advocacy, rather than being a very abstract thing, is laid very bare in our sights as it relates to the quality of educational experiences children will face during this lockdown. In the advocacy meetings, research, coalition building and other activities that organizations such as Paradigm Initiative does, this is the crux of the matter. Access, or the lack of it, to affordable and quality broadband will enhance or stunt human development and potential. We probably didn’t need a pandemic to tell us that.

The author, Babatunde Okunoye is Research Officer at Paradigm Initiative

 

 

Apr 06
0

Africa: Encroaching on Digital Rights Under the Pretext of Containing COVID-19?  

By | Digital Rights, Internet Freedom

Digital rights violations in Africa have become commonplace in the past decade, with Internet shutdowns, social media app disruptions, illegal surveillance, arrest of citizens (for comments made online) and data privacy violations, amongst others, becoming regular occurrences. At Paradigm Initiative, our constant monitoring of the digital rights scene on the continent feeds into our advocacy work, and into our annual Digital Rights in Africa Report, the 2019 edition which was published on Thursday.

In the past 5 years in particular, the severity of digital rights violations on the continent has sunken to new lows, details of which never ceases to shock. Despite this, the COVID-19 outbreak, which has dominated headlines around the world in the past few weeks, and has made inroads into the continent, reignites our shock at the speed with which some state actors in Africa can hide under any pretext to limit human rights and freedoms. Granted that in the midst of a pandemic, certain civil freedoms can be limited for public safety, the accounts of human rights violations in Africa in the past weeks have often lacked a sense of proportionality and legality in some government efforts to ostensibly stop the spread of the virus.

At Paradigm Initiative, we’ve been monitoring and documenting the concerning cases of human and digital rights violations since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Through our Africa-wide and global community convened through the NetRights Africa coalition mailing list, we have been collating incidents of violations during the pandemic, and also offering support to community members.

This blog gives an overview of the major violations which have occurred in Africa since the onset of the pandemic, and also highlights the sobering reality that many of these violations only caught on on the continent once they had become “legitimized” in Europe and elsewhere, for example with Germany, Austria and Belgium amongst the countries using mobile phone surveillance to track the spread of the pandemic. This is a reminder to our partners in digital rights advocacy in the global North that it is often the case that facilitators of human and digital rights violations get emboldened in their acts when they’ve observed hitherto defenders of these rights abuse them.

We learnt recently that a 13-year-old boy became the latest casualty of brutal police enforcement of COVID-19 lockdowns in Kenya after he was hit by a bullet while standing in the balcony of his parent’s home. However, journalists and citizens have been particularly affected by government restrictions during the COVID-19 outbreak, with the arrest of Kaka Goni in Niger for a Twitter post about a suspected COVID-19 case in Niamey, the country’s capital; the arrest of Elijah Muthui Kitonyo for spreading what was termed fake news about the whereabouts of a COVID-19 patient in Kenya; and the implementation of more restrictions to the free movement of journalists in Nigeria following the announcement of lockdowns in the Nigerian states of Lagos and Ogun, and the federal capital, Abuja.

South Africa has in place, legislation which criminalizes the spreading of misinformation relating to COVID-19, while the country has also joined Kenya in implementing mobile phone tracking for COVID-19 surveillance. In Sierra Leone, the government has imposed a 12-month-long state of emergency, which gives security agencies emergency powers, apparently without approval of Parliament.

Throughout the duration of the pandemic, we will continuously monitor the situation in collaboration with our NetRights Africa community. Our monitoring and analysis will inform the nature of support we mobilize for this digital rights community. With their support, and the support of the broader international digital rights community, we are confident that digital rights in particular, and human rights in general, will be defended during this period; and that learnings from this period will inform our preparedness for future emergencies.

The author of this article, Babatunde Okunoye, is the Research Officer at Paradigm Initiative.

 

 

 

Apr 02
1

COVID-19: States use of digital surveillance technologies to fight pandemic must respect human rights

By | Digital Rights, Internet Freedom

The COVID-19 pandemic is a global public health emergency that requires a coordinated and large-scale response by governments worldwide. However, States’ efforts to contain the virus must not be used as a cover to usher in a new era of greatly expanded systems of invasive digital surveillance.

We, the undersigned organizations, urge governments to show leadership in tackling the pandemic in a way that ensures that the use of digital technologies to track and monitor individuals and populations is carried out strictly in line with human rights.

Technology can and should play an important role during this effort to save lives, such as to spread public health messages and increase access to health care. However, an increase in state digital surveillance powers, such as obtaining access to mobile phone location data, threatens privacy, freedom of expression and freedom of association, in ways that could violate rights and degrade trust in public authorities – undermining the effectiveness of any public health response. Such measures also pose a risk of discrimination and may disproportionately harm already marginalized communities.

These are extraordinary times, but human rights law still applies. Indeed, the human rights framework is designed to ensure that different rights can be carefully balanced to protect individuals and wider societies. States cannot simply disregard rights such as privacy and freedom of expression in the name of tackling a public health crisis. On the contrary, protecting human rights also promotes public health. Now more than ever, governments must rigorously ensure that any restrictions to these rights is in line with long-established human rights safeguards.

This crisis offers an opportunity to demonstrate our shared humanity. We can make extraordinary efforts to fight this pandemic that are consistent with human rights standards and the rule of law. The decisions that governments make now to confront the pandemic will shape what the world looks like in the future.

We call on all governments not to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic with increased digital surveillance unless the following conditions are met:

  1. Surveillance measures adopted to address the pandemic must be lawful, necessary and proportionate. They must be provided for by law and must be justified by legitimate public health objectives, as determined by the appropriate public health authorities, and be proportionate to those needs. Governments must be transparent about the measures they are taking so that they can be scrutinized and if appropriate later modified, retracted, or overturned. We cannot allow the COVID-19 pandemic to serve as an excuse for indiscriminate mass surveillance.
  2. If governments expand monitoring and surveillance powers then such powers must be time-bound, and only continue for as long as necessary to address the current pandemic. We cannot allow the COVID-19 pandemic to serve as an excuse for indefinite surveillance
  3. States must ensure that increased collection, retention, and aggregation of personal data, including health data, is only used for the purposes of responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. Data collected, Fed, and aggregated to respond to the pandemic must be limited in scope, time-bound in relation to the pandemic and must not be used for commercial or any other purposes. We cannot allow the COVID-19 pandemic to serve as an excuse to gut individual’s right to privacy.
  4. Governments must take every effort to protect people’s data, including ensuring sufficient security of any personal data collected and of any devices, applications, networks, or services involved in collection, transmission, processing, and storage. Any claims that data is anonymous must be based on evidence and supported with sufficient information regarding how it has been anonymized. We cannot allow attempts to respond to this pandemic to be used as justification for compromising people’s digital safety.
  5. Any use of digital surveillance technologies in responding to COVID-19, including big data and artificial intelligence systems, must address the risk that these tools will facilitate discrimination and other rights abuses against racial minorities, people living in poverty, and other marginalized populations, whose needs and lived realities may be obscured or misrepresented in large datasets. We cannot allow the COVID-19 pandemic to further increase the gap in the enjoyment of human rights between different groups in society.
  6. If governments enter into data sharing agreements with other public or private sector entities, they must be based on law, and the existence of these agreements and information necessary to assess their impact on privacy and human rights must be publicly disclosed – in writing, with sunset clauses, public oversight and other safeguards by default. Businesses involved in efforts by governments to tackle COVID-19 must undertake due diligence to ensure they respect human rights, and ensure any intervention is firewalled from other business and commercial interests. We cannot allow the COVID-19 pandemic to serve as an excuse for keeping people in the dark about what information their governments are gathering and sharing with third parties.
  7. Any response must incorporate accountability protections and safeguards against abuse. Increased surveillance efforts related to COVID-19 should not fall under the domain of security or intelligence agencies and must be subject to effective oversight by appropriate independent bodies. Further, individuals must be given the opportunity to know about and challenge any COVID-19 related measures to collect, aggregate, and retain, and use data. Individuals who have been subjected to surveillance must have access to effective remedies.
  8. COVID-19 related responses that include data collection efforts should include means for free, active, and meaningful participation of relevant stakeholders, in particular experts in the public health sector and the most marginalized population groups.

Signatories:

7amleh – Arab Center for Social Media Advancement
Access Now
African Declaration on Internet Rights and Freedoms Coalition
AI Now
Algorithm Watch
Alternatif Bilisim
Amnesty International
ApTI
ARTICLE 19
Asociación para una Ciudadanía Participativa, ACI Participa
Association for Progressive Communications (APC)
ASUTIC, Senegal
Athan – Freedom of Expression Activist Organization
Barracón Digital
Big Brother Watch
Bits of Freedom
Center for Advancement of Rights and Democracy (CARD)
Center for Digital Democracy
Center for Economic Justice
Centro De Estudios Constitucionales y de Derechos Humanos de Rosario
Chaos Computer Club – CCC
Citizen D / Državljan D
Civil Liberties Union for Europe
CódigoSur
Coding Rights
Coletivo Brasil de Comunicação Social
Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA)
Comité por la Libre Expresión (C-Libre)
Committee to Protect Journalists
Consumer Action
Consumer Federation of America
Cooperativa Tierra Común
Creative Commons Uruguay
D3 – Defesa dos Direitos Digitais
Data Privacy Brasil
Democratic Transition and Human Rights Support Center “DAAM”
Derechos Digitales
Digital Rights Lawyers Initiative (DRLI)
Digital Security Lab Ukraine
Digitalcourage
EPIC
epicenter.works
European Digital Rights – EDRi
Fitug
Foundation for Information Policy Research
Foundation for Media Alternatives
Fundación Acceso (Centroamérica)
Fundación Ciudadanía y Desarrollo, Ecuador
Fundación Datos Protegidos
Fundación Internet Bolivia
Fundación Taigüey, República Dominicana
Fundación Vía Libre
Hermes Center
Hiperderecho
Homo Digitalis
Human Rights Watch
Hungarian Civil Liberties Union
ImpACT International for Human Rights Policies
Index on Censorship
Initiative für Netzfreiheit
Innovation for Change – Middle East and North Africa
International Commission of Jurists
International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
Intervozes – Coletivo Brasil de Comunicação Social
Ipandetec
IPPF
Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL)
IT-Political Association of Denmark
Iuridicum Remedium z.s. (IURE)
Karisma
La Quadrature du Net
Liberia Information Technology Student Union
Liberty
Luchadoras
Majal.org
Masaar “Community for Technology and Law”
Media Rights Agenda (Nigeria)
MENA Rights Group
Metamorphosis Foundation
New America’s Open Technology Institute
Observacom
Open Data Institute
Open Rights Group
OpenMedia
OutRight Action International
Pangea
Panoptykon Foundation
Paradigm Initiative (PIN)
PEN International
Privacy International
Public Citizen
Public Knowledge
R3D: Red en Defensa de los Derechos Digitales
RedesAyuda
SHARE Foundation
Skyline International for Human Rights
Sursiendo
Swedish Consumers’ Association
Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy (TIMEP)
Tech Inquiry
TechHerNG
TEDIC
The Bachchao Project
Unwanted Witness, Uganda
WITNESS
World Wide Web Foundation
Apr 01
0

Droits numériques en Afrique francophone: ce qu’il faut retenir du premier trimestre 2020  

By | Digital Rights, Internet Freedom

L’Afrique francophone a enregistré plusieurs types de violations des droits numériques dans cette dernière décennie. Entre 2017 et 2020, les acteurs clés des pays francophones ayant enregistré des violations régulières, notamment le Cameroun, le Tchad, la RDC, le Togo, le Bénin, le Burundi, l’Algérie… ont été sensibilisés et formés sur la préoccupation de la situation du respect des droits de l’homme en ligne sur cette partie du continent. La publicisation de la notion des droits numériques en Afrique francophone est un effort des organisations de défense des droits numériques au niveau international, notamment Paradigm Initiative qui s’est investie ces dernières années pour lutter contre les violations diverses en matière des droits numériques. La vulgarisation des concepts clés liés aux droits numériques comme les libertés de l’Internet et sur Internet, la sécurité numérique, la liberté d’expression en ligne, les politiques publiques du numérique par des campagnes, des plaidoyers et des activités diverses de formations à l’endroit des leaders de la société civile ont permis aux utilisateurs Internet d’être mieux édifier sur leurs droits et des mécanismes à suivre pour revendiquer en cas de violations.

Lire notre Rapport 2019 sur les droits numériques en Afrique >>> ici 

Mais malgré tous ces efforts, les gouvernements continuent de développer des astuces ingénieuses pour violer les droits des utilisateurs en ligne, régulièrement dans des contextes électoraux et de crise. De nouveaux mécanismes de violations sont ainsi développés à travers des plans de surveillances et de contrôles de masse des populations connectées pour des fins politiques. Ceci se fait le plus souvent sous le prétexte de lutter contre le terrorisme ou la cybercriminalité. Certes, ces fléaux sont des réels menacent, mais la plupart des gouvernants utilisent de travers.

Les violations enregistrées dans les trois premiers mois de l’année 2020 ont permis de mieux comprendre une fois de plus le contexte dans lequel les gouvernements souvent en accord avec les opérateurs et fournisseurs d’accès Internet violent les libertés sur Internet ou arrêtent les activistes/blogueurs pour des objectifs politiques. Enfin, les gouvernements exploitent régulièrement des opportunités comme des accidents ou des incidents involontaires pour violer les droits de l’homme en ligne.

Rupture de la fibre optique et fermetures d’Internet

Le 15 janvier 2020, le câble sous-marin WACS (West Africa Cable System) reliant la partie Ouest-Afrique à l’Europe (Londres) a été accidentellement endommagé en affectant considérablement la qualité de la connexion Internet dans plusieurs villes des 12 pays desservis en Afrique, principalement les pays francophones. Au total, le WACS dispose de 14 terminaux, donc 12 en Afrique et 2 en Europe. Plusieurs gouvernements et opérateurs d’Internet dans la zone Afrique francophone ont justifié des perturbations de l’Internet par cet incident.

En janvier, le Cameroun a enregistré de fortes perturbations sur son réseau Internet. Le 17 janvier 2020, la Cameroon Telecommunications (Camtel), l’opérateur public des télécoms au Cameroun en charge de la gestion de la fibre optique au Cameroun a publié un communiqué pour annoncer la perturbation du réseau Internet à la suite d’un accident sur le câble sous-marin WACS. Avant ce communiqué, l’observatoire Internet NetBlocks avait déjà montré que les médias sociaux et les services de messagerie ont été perturbés.

Le 11 mars 2020, la République Démocratique du Congo (RDC), a enregistré une nouvelle coupure d’Internet à la suite d’une nouvelle rupture du câble sous-marin selon les opérateurs. La population a été suspendue d’accès au web et aux réseaux sociaux pour plusieurs heures. Cette coupure d’Internet intervient près de trois mois après les deux premiers incidents qui avaient privé le pays d’Internet et une dizaine d’autres pays africains.

Élections et fermetures d’Internet

Les autorités togolaises ont sérieusement perturbé les connexions Internet pendant le premier tour des élections présidentielles dans le pays en février 2020. Les utilisateurs Internet ont été victimes de la suspension des réseaux Internet le 22 février 2020, date du premier tour du scrutin présidentiel. Selon la presse locale, cette rupture de la connexion Internet visait à étouffer les revendications électorales sur Internet au bout d’un processus entaché de fraudes. Le président Faure Gnassingbé, au pouvoir depuis 2005 a été réélu au premier tour des élections contre toutes attentes pour un quatrième mandat. Bien avant ces perturbations des réseaux Internet, Paradigm Initiative a signé une lettre adressée aux autorités du pays dans le cadre de la coalition #KeepItOn de Access Now avec d’autres organisations de défense des droits de l’Internet, dans l’optique d’attirer l’attention du gouvernement togolais sur les conséquences d’une coupure d’Internet sur le processus électoral.

Lire notre Rapport 2019 sur les droits numériques en Afrique >>> ici 

En Guinée, les autorités ont fermé Internet pour une durée d’environ 2 heures le vendredi 20 mars 2020 à la veille des élections reportées dans le pays. Les opérateurs Orange, MTN et Cellcom Guinée ont entamé les travaux sur le câble sous-marin le 19 mars après avoir informé qu’une coupure de réseau Internet allait intervenir de 1 heure du matin à 13 heures le 21 mars et de 1 heure à 9 heures le 22 mars, pour une intervention menée par Orange Marine, la filiale de l’opérateur télécom Orange dédiée à la pose et la maintenance de câbles Internet sous-marins. Le lendemain, la situation s’est aggravée ; le pays a été coupé des services de réseaux sociaux, rendant l’utilisation du VPN obligatoire dans les communications du pays. Les travaux sur le câble sous-marin ont été reportés ainsi que le référendum constitutionnel. Le référendum adopté permettra au président Alpha Condé âgé de 82 ans de briguer un troisième mandat. Une partie de la population conteste le référendum avec manifestations organisées dans plusieurs parties du pays. Dans une déclaration signée par Paradigm Initiative et d’autres organisations dans la coalition #KeepItOn, la correspondance demandait au gouvernement de surseoir les chantiers sur le câble sous-marin dans une période critique de lutte contre le Covid-19.

Fake news et violation des droits numériques ?

Le Maroc a adopté, le jeudi 19 mars, le projet de loi n° 22.20 relatif à l’utilisation des réseaux sociaux et canaux similaires dans le pays. Le projet de loi adopté et présenté par le ministre de la Justice s’inscrit dans le cadre des mesures juridiques et institutionnelles de lutte contre les nouveaux modèles de cybercriminalité. L’un des objectifs de cette loi est de lutter contre les fausses informations sur le Covid-19. Les activistes en ligne craignent que cette loi encourage les violations des libertés sur Internet au Maroc.

En début 2020 au Benin, plusieurs acteurs de la société civile et des organisations de défense des droits des journalistes ont formulé des plaidoyers pour demander la libération du journaliste béninois Ignace Sossu condamné le 24 décembre 2019 à 18 mois de prison ferme pour des publications controversés sur les réseaux sociaux. En effet, le 19 décembre 2019, à la suite d’un atelier sur les infox organisé par CFI à Cotonou, Ignace Sossou présent aux échanges avait relayé sur ses pages Facebook et Twitter des propos attribués au procureur de la République du Bénin. Une plainte initiée par ce dernier avait alors été déposée contre Ignace Sossou. Le procureur de la République du Bénin signifiant que les propos relayés sortaient de leur contexte.

Rigobert Kenmogne, l‘auteur de cet article  est responsable programme droits numériques en Afrique Francophone

Lire notre Rapport 2019 sur les droits numériques en Afrique >>> ici 

Feb 25
0

 Vacancy: Program Officer, Digital Rights (East Africa)

By | Digital Rights, DigitalJobs, Internet Freedom

Paradigm Initiative (PIN) is a social enterprise that builds ICT-enabled support systems and advocates for digital rights in order to improve livelihoods for underserved African youth. Our programs include digital inclusion programs – such as the Life Skills. ICT. Financial Readiness. Entrepreneurship (LIFE) training program and the Dufuna program – and a digital rights program. PIN’s operational headquarters is in Lagos, Nigeria, and maintains digital inclusion offices across Nigeria (Aba, Ajegunle, Kano) and digital rights offices in Yaounde, Cameroon; Accra, Ghana; Abuja, Nigeria; Arusha, Tanzania and Lusaka, Zambia.

The Program Officer will lead Paradigm Initiative’s Digital Rights advocacy efforts in the East African region. She (or he) will demonstrate competence in policy intervention, research, stakeholder management, capacity building, fundraising, all focused on the Digital Rights program in the region. The ideal candidate will have great interpersonal relationship skills and will work with the Communications team to ensure publicity and adequate communication on PIN’s various activities and interventions in the region.

Reporting to:

Senior Program Manager (Digital Rights) 

Roles and Responsibilities

  • Conduct desk research concerning ICT Policy issues with focus on digital rights issues: i.e. reviewing bills, laws, policies and government action which violate digital rights in countries in East Africa, as well as incidents which violate digital rights in these countries such as but not limited to arrests for comments made online, restriction of access online, Internet content blocking/throttling/take-downs, Internet shutdowns, Net neutrality violations, enacting of legislation and policies which violate digital rights, etc.
  • Provide expertise and counseling on regional and global policies in accordance with international best practices in order to ensure maximum output
  • Engage relevant national, regional and global institutions on digital rights issues for East Africa focused on digital rights issues such as but not limited to freedom of expression, data privacy, censorship, surveillance, etc.
  • Participate in public hearings of ICT-related policies and ensure contribution/inputs
  • Representing Paradigm Initiative in meetings and conferences as required
  • Help in setting up meetings between policymakers and PI to discuss such needs as may arise regarding legislation or policies that affect Internet Freedom in concerned countries.
  • Monitor digital rights violations and developments in the region and work with the team to document, communicate and seek redress for violations, where necessary
  • Producing materials for communications advocacy including but not limited to policy briefs, fact-sheets, infographics, press releases, newsletters, etc.
  • Assist in organizing and coordinating digital rights advocacy or relevant internet policy development training
  • Fund (and other resources’) mobilization for the Digital Rights program
  • Share daily news reviews and recommendations for action
  • Share relevant ICT policy updates daily on Twitter, Facebook, etc.
  • Submit weekly/monthly/final reports/event reports and others as might be requested/required by your line manager
  • Support logistics needs and assume responsibilities that may be assigned to you during events, meetings, workshop, convenings hosted by Paradigm Initiative in any part of the world.

Key Result Areas

  • Train media, civil society, activists, at-risk citizens, policymakers and relevant stakeholders on digital rights in the East Africa region
  • Advocate for, and communicate around, digital rights issues in the East Africa region
  • Engage relevant national, regional and global institutions for digital rights issues in the East Africa region
  • Promote best practice policy efforts and instruments in the East Africa region
  • Mobilize funds for the Digital Rights program, especially in the East Africa region
  • Develop and implement policies that enhance the organization’s output and services
  • Undertake other tasks in accordance with job expectations
  • Be a leading voice in policy conversation in the region

Research/ Policy Analysis

  • Produce blogs on topical issues in Digital Rights in the region
  • Produce at least two country reports for the Digital Rights in Africa report
  • Author or co-author at least one policy brief in a year
  • Support other research efforts within the organization and/or with our partners
  • Host a quarterly policy review session to analyse, critique and make recommendations on relevant draft or existing legislation, policy or regulation.

Communication Strategies

  • Provide weekly social media content to the Communications team
  • Work with the Communications to commission and execute media campaigns

Stakeholder / Media Relations

  • Initiate and maintain relationship with leading digital rights defenders, policymakers, journalists/ media houses and other relevant stakeholders in the region, working with the Communications team to ensure relationships are leveraged optimally
  • In partnership with the Communications team, ensure adequate coverage of events and activities in the media

Financial Management / Sponsorship

  • Manage budget and ensure accurate financial reporting to the Finance and Assets Unit
  • Increased interest in sponsorship through a proactive grant application process

Salaries and Benefits

Commensurate with experience, plus other benefits such as health insurance, pension contributions, communication allowance, sabbatical leave, paid leave, maternity/paternity leave, dependent relative allowance and 13th-month salary.

How To Apply

Apply via this FORM (https://forms.gle/zrqmDaYoSA9wURQB7)

Deadline:

March 13, 2020 (Do apply immediately, if you are interested in the role, as applications will be reviewed as received, and candidates may be shortlisted and interviewed before the closing date.)

Resumption: Immediately

 

Feb 20
0

Togo: l’élection 2020 sans coupure d’Internet est-elle possible?

By | Digital Rights, Internet Freedom

Environ 3,6  millions de Togolais sont attendus aux urnes le 22 février 2020 pour le premier tour de l’élection présidentielle au Togo. Sept(7) candidats, dont le président sortant Faure Gnassingbé, sont en lice pour cette compétition électorale.

Le président Faure Gnassingbé, au pouvoir depuis 2005 après avoir succédé à son père, est candidat  pour un quatrième mandat dans un contexte de tension passive. En mai 2019, les députés togolais avaient voté une révision constitutionnelle qui permettait non seulement à Faure Gnassingbé de se représenter en 2020 et 2025, mais aussi de bénéficier d’une immunité à vie « pour les actes posés pendant les mandats présidentiels ».

Plusieurs partis d’opposition et des responsables de la société civile, dont les évêques du Togo, ont demandé le 13 novembre 2019 la « suspension » du processus électoral et l’ouverture d’un dialogue avec le pouvoir pour permettre la recomposition de la Cour constitutionnelle. Cette proposition a été rejetée.   Plusieurs Togolais voient en ce refus,   une manœuvre du camp de  Faure Gnassingbé pour se maintenir au pouvoir.

Craintes d’une fermeture d’internet pendant les élections

Le Togo a un taux de pénétration d’accès Internet de 6,8% (2017) et  compte 3,687,036 d’utilisateurs Internet en 2019 selon Internet World Stat.   Cinq (5) Fournisseurs d’Accès Internet à savoir Togo Telecom, IMET, CAFE, BIB et IDS opèrent dans le pays. Dans le contexte actuel de l’élection, plusieurs Togolais de l’intérieur et de la diaspora craignent  une coupure d’internet susceptible d’entacher profondément le processus électoral. Ils craignent aussi une surveillance de l’internet et le contrôle des communications électroniques dans le pays durant cette période. Ces actions violant les droits numériques pourraient cibler principalement les autres candidats et les différents groupes politiques de l’opposition.

Des perturbations de la connexion d’Internet avaient été enregistrées au Togo dans la journée du 22 janvier 2020.  Ces perturbations avaient été justifiées par des « coupures multiples de liens internationaux au niveau du Portugal et de l’Espagne ».

Les populations craignent que la même excuse ne soit donnée pour expliquer d’éventuelles perturbations de la connexion Internet  avant, pendant ou après le scrutin.

La réponse des organisations de défense des droits numériques

En réponse aux craintes, Access Now, une organisation de défense des droits numériques et ses partenaires, donc Paradigm Initiative et plusieurs autres organisations de défense des droits de l’homme en ligne ont publié une déclaration collective interpellant le gouvernement togolais  à s’engager à ne pas couper internet pendant les élections, mais aussi à  abandonner tout projet de censure ou de contrôle de l’internet par des outils technologiques pendant cette période.

Des séquelles des coupures d’Internet

Le Togo n’a pas encore totalement oublié les séquelles des dernières violations des droits numériques et des libertés de l’internet dans des contextes politiques similaires. Selon le Rapport 2017 sur les Droits Numériques en Afrique de Paradigm Initiative, « les services Internet et de télécommunications au Togo ont été interrompus entre le mardi 5 septembre 2017 et le dimanche 10 septembre 2017 ».  Le réseau Internet a été aussi perturbé le 19 septembre de la même année avec blocage des  réseaux sociaux et de la messagerie mobile. Les fermetures d’internet de septembre 2017 étaient une réponse du gouvernement aux protestations des citoyens réclamant un changement démocratique profond dans le pays, après plusieurs décennies de contrôle de l’appareil politique par une même famille. Comme pour toute perturbation d’Internet, des impacts ont été signalés au Togo avec de graves conséquences sur la société. Access Now, avait évalué les pertes de 5 jours de fermeture d’Internet (du 5 au 10 septembre) au Togo à hauteur minimum de « 1,8 million de dollars, soit 300 000 $ par jour ».

L’auteur de cet article, Rigobert Kenmogne est le Responsable du Programme Droits Numériques en Afrique Francophone chez Paradigm Initiative

Feb 17
0

 Paradigm Initiative Urges Ethiopian Government to Rethink Hate Speech Law

By | Digital Rights, Internet Freedom, Press Release

Arusha, Tanzania, February 17, 2020 — On 13th February the parliament of Ethiopia passed the much-contested proclamation on fake news and hate speech regulation with nearly 300 votes from the lawmakers in support.The country started speaking publicly about developing such a law in 2018 and announced passage of the proclamation by the government in November 2019.

The history of Ethiopia has always had the government keeping a upper hand on the citizens through oppressive laws and internet censorship.Waves of protests have been on the rise since 2015 with violence and human rights violations highly observed at such times including killing of protestors and regular internet shutdowns.

Content has been a landscape that the country has tried to control by taking down websites and maintaining monopoly of  the telecom sector .Despite the progress made since Prime Minister Abiy took over, the information space is still highly regulated, with last year alone reporting more than 3 shutdowns.

With rising tensions and communal violence since 2018 the government has since claimed that such were fuelled by online speech.Following the attempted coup in Oromo state last year and the killing of about 86 people the Prime Minister was quoted saying, “For the sake of national security, internet and social media could be blocked any time necessary.” The state has since gone on to have more shutdowns hence silencing dissent by making online avenues inaccessible for people to exercise their rights.As Ethiopia approaches elections in August this year, a free and fair election demands the ability to exercise free speech and opinion by all Ethiopians, this bill comes in time to take away that right.

Law makers claim that hate speech and fake news are much to blame for the rising ethnic tensions in the country hence its important that they legislate this ahead of the elections.The law is vaguely done and leaves room for biased interpretations this includes definitions such as hate speech which means “speech that promotes hatred, discrimination or attacks against a person or an identifiable group, based on ethnicity, religion, race, gender or disability.”This leaves room for the law to be used as a weapon to incriminate free speech in the upcoming elections as it’s not clear or objective enough.

The new legislation also stops dissemination of information cited as fake, hateful among other things without clearly identifying the process of determining whether speech is inciting, hateful and/or fake.The danger is the implications this will have on free speech as well as a free press as the law also targets  media such as social media as avenues of hate speech and fake news dissemination.This makes the already shaky ground of digital rights in the country even more unstable not guaranteeing transparency and free elections.The laws criminalize this offence with fines as high as 3000$  and jail time of up to 5 years for violations of the proclamation which are not realistic.

Paradigm Initiative urges the government of Ethiopia to reconsider this regulation and come to the realization that hate speech cannot be combated by regulating speech but rather it will only fuel rights violations and lead to greater damages.

It is essential that the government of Ethiopia reaffirms its commitment to human rights by keeping speech free and building legal frameworks to promote democracy and good governance hence steering the nation to stability rather than legislate restrictions.

We commend efforts made so far by the government such as the unblocking of several websites that had been blocked during a period of instability in the nation, however, methods employed then didn’t work and similar methods of censorship won’t make progress.It’s imperative that the online space be proved to  be safe spaces respected by the government as an avenue for citizens to exercise their constitutional rights.

 

 

Feb 13
0

Mozambique: Challenges of Ensuring Privacy without Harming Essential Freedoms

By | Digital Rights, ICT Policy, Internet Freedom

In July 2019, Mozambique made amendments to the Penal Code (No. 35/2014, of 31 December) to protect Privacy. The new law criminalises all types of invasion of privacy using mobile phones and computers i.e. capturing, altering and publishing images, audios and videos without consent from the subjects recorded or photographed.

One could spend up to one (1) year in jail or face a fine, for breaking this law, particularly for invading the privacy of intimacy of family or sexual life. An offender could face an equal penalty for secretly observing or listening to persons in a private place or for disclosing details of the serious illness of another person.

This legislation comes after a young man filmed the scene of a car accident where victims lay strewn on the ground while others cried out for help. The author of the video ‘amusingly’ filmed this horrific scene, which angered a lot of Mozambicans.

Some activists have welcomed the new law as a timely and relevant measure to protect victims against the invasion of privacy especially on social networks and through electronic media. Also, activists are calling for sensitization on the new law so that people are aware of their parameters when it comes to sharing private information into the public domain, particularly which is not of public interest or with intent to slander or blackmail the victims.

On the contrary, other activists are wary of the legislation’s far-reaching consequences on Internet freedom, press freedom and freedom of expression in the country, which already has a press law, right to information law and an electronic transactions Act which penalises slander. While these laws already assure citizens the right to honour, good name, reputation and defence of image, the changes to the penal code highlight an attempt to stifle access to information and prevent further scrutiny of public figures, especially that the law was approved in a haste.

Mozambique has enjoyed a relatively good record with regard to freedom of expression and freedom of the media, however, the above report paints a picture of what most countries will continue to battle with, in the process of balancing privacy laws with free speech and press.

The increased uptake of digital technologies empowers everyone to capture, create and disseminate information, with or without the subject’s consent. Ordinary citizens on the other hand, have to battle striking a balance between what they put in the public domain through their daily activities and using  mobile phones while maintaining their privacy and managing how their information is used and shared.

What we should be more worried about, however, is giving greater power to governments to target journalists and push back on ‘unwanted content’, using privacy laws. In addition, we should worry about increasing their power to shield misconduct and corruption. A functional democracy allows for enhanced transparency and accountability of political figures, and individuals’ participation in the political process.

While others would argue that, more privacy leads to less openness, individuals have the right to creativity and self-expression, and information is a key driver of innovation and economic growth. 

Perhaps more work remains in sensitizing users on ethics and etiquettes that govern the use of social media and digital technologies, at the same time ensuring that privacy laws do not infringe on people’s right to information and speech, alongside, protecting the press from government intrusion, content regulation, and censorship.

It is however important for the freedom of expression community to be wary of the emergence of privacy-themed legislations that may become a tool to restrict freedom of expression. Such policies must have clear definitions of terms and must not punish expression under the guise of protecting privacy

As a new country added to Paradigm Initiative’s scope of work, we will continue to monitor how this development unfolds, as well as the state of press freedom and freedom of expression in Mozambique.

The author of this article, Bulanda Nkhowani, is Paradigm Initiative’s Digital Rights Program Officer for Southern Africa. 
Feb 11
0

Data Breach by LIRS: Why NITDA must wield the big stick

By | Digital Rights, Press Release

In December 2019, the personal data of numerous taxpayers in Lagos State was leaked on the payment portal of the Lagos Internal Revenue Service (LIRS), violating not only their right to privacy under the Constitution but also the provisions of the Nigeria Data Protection Regulation (NDPR) 2019 issued by National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA) – the regulator. 

It should be noted that we had expressed reservations over the ability and suitability of NITDA   to play the role of a data protection agency in Nigeria. One would have thought the agency would work to prove doubters wrong by ensuring that violations against its regulations are duly punished.

We are mindful that the Digital Rights Lawyers Initiative (DRLI) has filed suit No. FHC/L/CS/56/2020 against both LIRS and NITDA on the data breach seeking orders mandating NITDA to fine LIRS as provided under the NDPR to the tune of 2% of their annual gross revenue. We are monitoring this process and we will work with the litigant to ensure it is seen to a reasonable conclusion

In addition to the specified fine, the NDPR provides for compensation for victims of a data breach, but the Lagos State government has said nothing about this,  in spite (or despite?) of their admission of guilt. 

We hereby call upon NITDA to stop paying lip service to data protection In Nigeria and to fulfill its role as a regulator on one hand and Lagos State government to compensate victims of the data breach as admitted. NITDA must give an update on all data breaches reported to it since the inception of the NDPR. 

Finally, Nigeria should enact a data protection law duly passed by the National Assembly and signed by the president. The law should set up an independent Data Protection Authority with core mandate for data protection in Nigeria.

Signed

Enough is Enough Nigeria (EiE) and Paradigm Initiative (PIN)
    en_USEnglish
    fr_FRFrench en_USEnglish