Background 

The Score is a Londa digital rights index developed by Paradigm Initiative that evaluates compliance of the country to key human rights elements described in the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information. The Score index looks at the principles of the Declaration and assesses if a country has adhered to the prescribed provisions of the soft law. The Score can be used by civil society actors to inform the ACHPR on the performance of a country with regard to compliance with Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, benchmarked against the ACHPR’s Declaration, in periodic shadow reports. The Score is also a reference tool for governments who wish to review their compliance with the Declaration, and they will be able to review their performance over a few years as the Londa report continues to document and review digital rights and digital inclusion in various countries. Any reference to The Score should cite the relevant Londa report as a source.

Methodology Explainer

Indicator 1: Internet shutdowns

Where there is a total shutdown across all or some social media platforms, the country should receive a score of 1. Where there is no recorded incident, it is a score of 5. If there is an internet shutdown in the year under review but the judiciary immediately orders that the conduct of the government was a violation of human rights, then the country should get a score of 3 due to the balance of powers.

Indicator 2: Inexistent laws, policies and other measures to promote universal, equitable, affordable and meaningful access to the internet

If no law or policy exists, then the score is 1. If there is an actual law or policy, then it is above average and a 3 is appropriate. If there are other practical measures being taken, then the score is a 4 or 5 depending on the degree to which additional action is taken based on the existing law or policy. If only a practice exists that is not backed by law or policy, then it is mild compliance with a score of 2. 

Indicator 3: False News Criminalisation

Where there is false news legislation which is the key indicator (KI), that is a total violation even if the law is not in use. That would attract a score of 1. The law should be repealed to ensure it is not hanging as a threat to freedom of expression. Where the courts have said in the year under review that the law should be repealed, then that is a 3. If the law is repealed absolutely and does not exist anymore then the score is 5. 

Indicator 4 (ACHPR P38(2)): Sedition Legislation

Where there is a law criminalising sedition and insult of authorities, that is a total violation even if the law is not in use. That would attract a score of 1. The law should be repealed to ensure it is not hanging as a threat to freedom of expression. Where the courts have ruled in the year under review that it should be repealed, then that is a 3. If the law is repealed absolutely and does not exist anymore then the score is 5. 

Indicator 5: Arbitrary Arrests and Harassments of the Media, Human Rights Defenders (HRDs) and Citizens

Arbitrary arrests and harassment of the media, HRDs and citizens for online conduct, are total violations and attract a score of 1. Where no incidents were recorded, and this is established through thorough research and checks with media organisations to confirm, the score is a 5. If the courts have ruled clearly against the violations in the year under review, calling for required safeguards for the media in response to the arrests, then the score is a 3 for balance of powers. 

Indicator 6: Data Protection Legislation

Where there is no data protection legislation at all, the score is a 1. Where there is a bill, this is a score of 2 as this is mild action towards compliance. Secondary legislation that fills gaps while the process of a proper law is in place gets a score of 3. Where there is a data protection law with no regulations or the Data Protection Authority demonstrates a lack of independence in the year under review, there is considerable compliance so a score of 4 is due. A score of 5 means there is primary legislation, an independent Data Protection Authority (DPA) and the DPA publishes reports of actions taken.

Indicator 7: States shall not require the removal of online content by internet intermediaries without due process

When countries issue content removal orders without judicial oversight, they score 1. Where information on this indicator is not readily accessible both on the government or internet intermediary part, a score of 3 is due to promote transparency and proactive disclosure from the government on compliance with due process. 

Due process as highlighted by the ACHPR Declaration includes requests that are as follows:

1. a) clear and unambiguous;
2. b) imposed by an independent and impartial judicial authority;
3. c) subject to due process safeguards;
4. d) justifiable and compatible with international human rights law and standards; and
5. e) implemented through a transparent process that allows a right of appeal. 

Indicator 8: Invasion of Privacy of Communications

Where there is a clear indication of surveillance of communications or procurement of tools for that purpose in the year under review or deliberate monitoring of social media accounts and seizure of tools, then the score is 1. If there is a law that does not pass the tests of proportionality and necessity, and unjustly orders this without judicial oversight, it is a 1 as well. If the law provides for judicial oversight and is enforced fairly, then that is a 5 as it conforms with international standards of due process. A score of 3 would apply where the law provides for judicial oversight, but it is not complied with, and there is proof of invasion of privacy. 

Indicator 9: Failure by the government to proactively disclose and disseminate information digital technologies

Where government websites generally are not up to date, and information is not readily accessible at least on ICT platforms, where we can readily check for information such as USF, procurement of ICT tools, content takedown requests, etc., and government services, then the score can be 2, considering that there are still marked gaps. The absence of a website or any other information channel would attract a score of 1. Where some efforts to maintain websites and update information on government online platforms exist, it is a score of 3. If the government is proactive and without being asked, has information constantly updated then that should get a score of 5. Justifications should demonstrate a clear reflection of this. 

Indicator 10: AI and Emerging Technologies National Strategies

Where there is no comprehensive national strategy, there is no compliance and it is a score of 1. Where it is in draft form, and there is a process towards enactment, then it is a 2. If there are other fragmented laws that casually mention automated decision making, it is a score of 2. Where there is a law or policy, then it is a 5. The score shows the existence of a strategy and not the implementation.  

Indicator 11: Adoption of specific child laws, policies and measures promoting children’s digital safety and privacy online

Where there is no clear child online policy or law, or a clear amendment to a Children’s Act to provide for children’s online safety, then the score is 1. In the event of an ongoing amendment effort such as a bill, the score is a 2. If the law is in existence without active use, it would get a score of 4. If the law exists and is actively used to protect children, the country gets a score of 5.

Indicator 12: Digital Inclusion

This indicator assesses the existence of digital inclusion measures such as the Universal Service Fund and impactful programmes aimed at bridging the digital divide and ensuring that groups like youth, women and persons with disabilities (PWDs) are not left behind. If measures exist and are being deployed adequately to address all groups including PWDs, with proof of impact, then it is a score of 5. If other groups are still struggling, then a score of 3 is due. Where there are no measures or efforts, then the score is 1. 

Score Range

The assigned points between 1 and 5 demonstrate a fair range of values assigned to each compliance level to provide for ease of assessment. The combined points assigned to the key indicators reflect the overall score and performance of each country out of a total score of 60. This enables the ability to compare scores and measure the progress of respective countries each year. The scores are based on an evaluation of readily accessible information on measures taken and incidents noted by researchers.

The scores depict the following:

1. Totally non-compliant.
2. Mildly compliant, which is a mild attempt at compliance with critical gaps.
3. Moderately compliant, where there are areas of improvement. 
4. Considerably compliant, with minimal areas in need of reform.
5. Fully Compliant, demonstrating no concerns.