UNION AFRICAINE
AFRICAN UNION
~J~' .lb..l~I
African Commission on Human & Peoples • Rights
();
UNIAO AFRICANA
Commission Africaine des Droits de /'Homme & des Peup/es
31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North District, Western Region,P. 0 . Box 673, Banjul, TheGambia
Tel: (220) 4410505 / 4410506; Fax: (220) 4410504
E-mail: au-banju/fRlafrica-union.om· Web www.achor.ora
Communication 7 42/20
African Freedom of Expression Exchange & 15
Others (Represented by FOi Attorneys)
V
Algeria & 27 Others
.Adopted by the
African Commission on Human and Peoples• Rights
During the 6fi'AOrdinary Session done virtuallyfrom 13 July to 7 .August 2020
~ __A:::__~ _
, - ;~ ~
· ~~~
~,\,
....
.................................................
..............................................
Commissioner Solomon Ayele Dersso
Chairperson ofthe Aftican Commiuion
Human and Peoples' Rights
Ms. Lindiwe lCbnmaJo
Executive Secrewy to the Aftican on
mmission on Human and Peoples' Righas
~==::::-;:::;,,"
Decision of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights on Nonseizure
Communication 742/20 - African Freedom of ExP.ression Exchange & 15 Others
(Represented by FOi Attorneys) v Algeria & 27 Others
Summary of the Complaint
1. The Secretariat of the African Commission on Human and eoples' Rights (the
Secretariat) received a Complaint on 2'Z February 2020 from ¥rican Freedom
of Expression Exchange (AFEX), Africa Freedom of Information Centre (AFIC),
Association for Media Development in South Sudan (AMDISS), L'association
Pour Le Development Integre Et La Solidarite Interactive (ADISI-Cameroon),
Centre for Media Studies and Peace Buij.ding (CEMESP), Collaboration on
International ICT Policy in Eastern and Southern Africa (CIPESA), Freedom of
Expression Institute (FXI), Gambia Press Union (GPU), Human Right Network
f r Journalists ~ Uganda (HRNJ -U), Institute for Media and Society (IMS),
Inter afienal Press Centre (IP.C), Journaliste en Danger (JED), Media
Fou ' dation for West Africa (MFWA), Media Institute for Southern Africa
(MISA), Med1a-Rights Agenda (MRA) and West African Journalists Association
(WAJA) (the Coll)plainants), represented by Freedom of Information (FOi)
Attorneys.
2. The Complaint is submitted against Algeria,1 Benin, 2 Burundi, 3 Cameroon,4
Central African R public,5 Chad, 6 Congo Brazzaville/ Democratic Republic of
Congo, 8 Egypt, 9 Equatorial Guinea, 10 Eritrea, 11 Ethiopia, 12 Gabon, 13 Libya, 14
1 Algeria ratified the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (African Charter) on 20 March
1987.
2 Benin ratified the African Charter on 25 February 1986.
3 Burundi ratified the African Charter on 30 August 1989.
4 Cameroon ratified the African Charter on 18 September 1989.
5 Central African Republic ratified the African Charter on 27 July 1986.
6 Chad ratified the African Charter on 11 November 1986.
7 Congo Brazzaville ratified the African Charter on 17 January 1983.
8 Democratic Republic of Congo ratified the African Charter on 28 July 1987.
9 Egypt ratified the African Charter on 3 April 1984.
10 Equatorial Guinea ratified the African Charter on 18 August 1986.
11 Eritrea ratified the African Charter on 15 March 1999.
12 Ethiopia ratified the African Charter on 22 June 1998.
13 Gabon ratified the African Charter on 26 June 1986.
14 Libya ratified the African Charter on 26 March 1987.
'
C' •
~ .1
~ :
v •
4
~
l
~ICA
E'T
Liberia,15 Malawi, 16 Mali,17 Mauritania, 18 Morocco,19 Niger, 20 Nigeria,21 Sierra
Leone, 22 Somaliland, 23 Sudan, 24 The Gambia, 2s Togo, 26 Uganda 27 and
Zimbabwe, 28 States Parties to the African Charter on Human and Peoples'
Rights (the African Charter).
3. The Complainants allege that each of the Respondent States have on at least
one occasion intentionally disrupted or limited access to telecommunication
services, including the internet, for reasons whic are unjustifiable and
incompatible with the African C arter.
4. The Complainants aver that in June 2016, tR~ government of Algeria blocked
social media access in a bid to curtail ex ination malpractices among
secondary school students. The claim that tfte same ploy ..was used by the
government in 2019 to disrupt acc;ess to the i~ernet over protests calling for
the resignatiOl}-Of President Abdelazi Bouteflika. Further averring that the
government sljµt down internet access .in places .Jjke TiziOuzou, Bejaia and
some parts of the capital city. 'Fhe Complainants aver that network data from
the netblock internet observatoi; showed that internet access was restricted
in egions of Algeria from the 14 to 15,September 2019.
5. Th <Som lainants ·aver that on 28 April 2019, at approximately midnight, the
authoptjes i Benin shut a_o wn tne internet hours before polling was to begin
in the country's parliamentary.,..eiections. They aver that the shutdown lasted
for fifteen (JS) flours and this severely affected the ability of media
organizatio~ and civil s6cieties to report on the election. The Complainants
allege that Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) which made it possible for most
organizations to circumvent online censorships were also rendered inaccessible
in the country.
6. The Complainants aver that on 19 April 2015 protests erupted in Burundi
against the bid by President Nkurunziza to extend his term in office. They
15 Liberia ratified the African Charter on 29 December 1982.
16 Malawi ratified the African Charter on 23 February 1990.
17 Mali ratified the African Charter on 22 January 1982.
18 Mauritania ratified the African Charter on 26 June 1986.
19 Morocco is not a party to the African Charter.
20 Niger ratified the African Charter on 21 July 1986.
21 Nigeria ratified the African Charter on 22 July 1983.
22 Sierra Leone ratified the African Charter on 27 January 1984.
23 Somahland is neither a party to the African Charter nor a member State of the African Union.
24 Sudan ratified the African Charter on 11 March 1986.
25 The Gambia ratified the African Charter on 13 June 1983.
.--
.
26 Togo ratified the African Charter on 22 November 1982. /,,;,:.,.0-. 0~"E~~iv 4~;·, ,,,
,}..i:
27 Uganda ratified the African Charter on 27 May 1986.
_,0
scCR 4P.,4,
,0 ,
\\
t ·,
28 Zimbabwe ratified the African Charter on 12 June 19
~
1'
'i,.,
l!1 .: J
.,
\
'· <-Yo 4~11/CAI
ilf"1EfTOE
allege that in response to the protest, the government shut down social media
platforms without stating any reason for the disruption. They allege that access
was subsequently restored on 13 May 2015.
7. The Complainants aver that on 17 January 2017 Cameroon's national
telecommunication and internet service provider shut down internet services
in the North-west and South-west regions of the country. They allege that the
disruption lasted for ninety-four (94) days and was subsequently restored on
20 April 2017. They allege that barely six (6) months after the internet was
restored, the government effected another shut down on 1 October 2017 during
clashes between protesters and security agents-in the Anglophone regions of
the country. They allege that the internet shut dotvn disrupted all facets of life,
and was designed to undermine people's bility to Reacefully protest, access
information and share their stories - including documentation on police
brutality and other human rights abuses
8. The Complainants aver that on 2. une 2014 a suspens·on orcf'er from the
as addressed to
Telecommunication Ministry. of Cen cil. Af ican Republi
telecommunication companies, dii;.ectin them to shut down Short Message
System (SMS) services.. in the country antl sever all international roaming
connections. They allege that the government lift d its order on 26 July 2014
after coordinated resistance from four telecommunication companies operating
";I, '4.
~
within the c untry.
Y,
9. Th Complain ts aver that on 28 March 2018 the government of Chad ordered
mobile qperators to disconnect access to social media platforms following
pub ic protest in Hie country. They, allege that internet shut down has become
a reoc urring yent in the.counfr .,,.the first shut down was on 18 February 2016,
when ele tronic 1email services were disconnected following wide circulation
of a video
idencing the sexual assault of a high school student. The
Complainants•allege that auring the 2016 presidential elections the government
shut down tlie internet for 48 hours and again on May 9 2016, and only restored
it on 2 December 2.016.
11. The Complainants aver that on 31 December 2018, the government of the
Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) ordered the shutdown of the internet and
all telephone services during the country's presidential elections. They aver
that the connection was only restored on 20 January 2019. The Complainants
allege that similar orders were given in the past. They aver that on 28 February
2018 the government ordered internet service providers to block access from
9am to 9pm during a nationwide protest over President Joseph Kabila's refusal
to leave office upon expiration of his tenure. They further aver that in January
2015, the government ordered a complete shutdown of internet and SMS
services during demonstrations against a proposed electoral bill to extend
President Kabila' s term beyond the constitutional limits.
12. The Complainants aver that on 28 Januar 2011 the government of Egypt
instigated a total internet shut down, so as t co tain •street protests in major
cities around the country. They ave th t • January 2016 oci~ media access
was blocked in the weeks leadin o the a~iversar¾ of the 2011 uprising and
fall of President Hosni Muparak's egime. They allege tflat on 24 May 2017 an
unknown body within the Egyptian government blocked a least 50 websites.
They further allege that on September 2 19 access to social~edia and news
platforms were disrupted amidst public protests.
/
13. The Complainants aver that_onJ7 OctobeJ. 2017 t e)'g overnment of Equatorial
Guinea authorized that intefnet access Be blocked ahead of a nationwide
election, and\subsequently deployed security~forces across the country. They
allege that access-to the websites of opposition parties have been blocked since
20 3.
...
14. The Go'mplain.,ants aver that sometime in May 2019 media and internet services
were dis upte bx the government of Eritrea without any explanation or
commen as to f!le disruption. The Complainants believe that disruption begun
on 8 May 2019 and was used as a tool to prevent the organization of protests
that could have disrupted the Independence Day celebration on May 24.
15. The Complainants aver that on 11 July 2016, 30 May 2017 and 11 June 2019,
Ethiopian authorities shut down the internet for nearly twenty-four (24) hours.
They allege that the government resorted to this repressive measure under the
pretext of protecting the integrity of national examinations. They further allege
that on 18 September 2018, access to the internet was shut down in Jijiga, Dire
Dawa and Harar (Eastern Ethiopia) following violent protests in the region.
announced their coup attempt. They allege that a few hours later an internet
shut down which lasted for twenty-eight (28) hours was effected.
17. The Complainants aver that on 18 February 2011, an internet shut down which
lasted 15 hours was experienced in Libya, in an effort to prevent antigovernment protests. They allege that another shut down was effected in June
2018 and in September 2018 facebook was temporarily blocked in Tripoli and
several other cities. The Complainants allege that the blockage coincided with
militant groups clashes in the capital. They further allege that a similar
situation had occurred in April 2015 and the Libyan Post Telecommunications
and information Technology Company (LPTie ) denies responsibility for the
disruption.
18. The Complainants aver that on 7 June 2019 th~ government of Liberia ordered
mobile internet service provider "tq shut qown so"'cl ifi media platforms during
anti-corruption protests. They Hege that access to these platforms were
the government citing national
restored on the evening of«the same clay, with
i \ '<;
security as the reason for the . hutdow .
19. The Complainants av,er that on 21_:Max 2019 lyfalawi experienced poor internet
connectivity nationwicle after voting
was con~ ucted on the Presidential,
~
Parliamentclfy and local c ;,1~illors' elec i ns. 'They allege that nationwide
connectivi~ fell to eighty (80) 2e cent of the•normal levels during the counting
and announcement of initial polling results.
•
20. T
th
Au
happ
M
plainants ayer that Mali experienced its first internet shut down on
e run-of
•dential elections and again on 15 and 16
at llp
espectively. They allege that the outage
befor
winner was to be announced.
21. The Complainants aver that on 22 and 23 of June 2019, the government of
Mauritania imposed a near-total internet blackout following Presidential
elections held o~, 22 June 2019. They allege that similar shut down had been
experienced from 27 to 31 May 2019 during the nationwide high school
entrance test and the high school diploma examinations. They allege that the
shutdown was effected under the pretext of preventing examination
malpractices.
22. The Complainant avers that in the new year of 2016, Morocco's
Telecommunication Regulatory National Agency (ANRT) banned the use of
free mobile internet calls made through mobile phone connections. They allege
that the ANRT justified the ban by asser • ~ t:ra1~;JJ of the service providers
had the required licence to grant the se
I :r
:\
:-'ta
23. The Complainants aver that from 22 to 24 January 2015 officials in Niger
ordered a total internet shut down blocking text messages and social networks,
ostensibly to prevent potential riots.
24. The Complainants aver that in 2013 the Nigerian military shut down mobile
telephone services in Adamawa, Borno and Yohe state (North-east Nigeria), as
part of the counter-terrorism operations against the Boko Haram insurgency.
They allege that the Nigerian military failed to accomplish its objective and the
attacks continued throughout the period telecommunication services were cut
off. They allege that this had a catastrophic effect on persons affected, as the
sick and injured were cut off from medical Help, commercial and food supplies.
25. The Complainants aver that on 31 March 2018 t e government of Sierra Leone
ordered an internet shut down and,.di connected all mobile communication
services during the run-off of the{Presidential e@cti ns. Tney allege that all
internet carriers were shut down while the vote countin process was ongoing,
and the outage lasted for ninehours.
26. The Complainants aver that prior to the Presidential elections on 11 November
2017, the National Electoral Cowmission~(NEG) of,,Somaliland announced that
it had orde~ed telec ommunication companies to block social media access in
Somaliland 'from
13 Novem~ r 2017 until elections results are declared. The
<
Complainants lege that this order.was subsequently effected under the guise
of • being nee ssary to curb fake news and rumour mongering.
27. The G:o:rn lainants ave that in Ser.tember 2013 the government of Sudan shut
down t e inte net for tw nty-fo (24) hours in order to prevent the spread of
a peaceful protest following tlie government's decision to lift state subsidies
from basi foocl 'terns and fuel. They allege that on 19 December 2018, another
shut down was ordered by the government following wide spread protests
demanding an improvement in the quality of living. The Complainants further
allege that on 3 June 2019, an internet shut down was ordered by the
government following a brutal dispersal of protesters who were demanding a
return to civilian rule. They allege that internet access was only restored
following a court decision on 19 July 2019 ordering all providers to restore
access to the internet.
28. The Complainants aver that on 30 November 2016, the government of The
Gambia ordered the shutdown of access to the internet and international phone
calls, while the country prepared for its Presidential elections scheduled for 1
December 2
..
~~ I
"'
'\ <'Yt>..4i'7?~AIN1oI)(, x.'>
••,,,."E ET DES 'tr-,$';
.
,... ,.,..,.
29. The Complainants aver that in September 2017 the government of Togo
ordered a countrywide internet shut down during anti-government protests.
They allege that the first incident happened on 5 September 2017 when internet
access was shut down a day before a scheduled anti-government protest. The
second incident they allege happened on 20 and 21 September 2017, when
access to social media was blocked, several platforms rendered inaccessible and
SMS services disrupted.
30. The Complainants aver that from the 18 to 21 February 2016, the government
of Uganda ordered that social media platforms and mobile money apps be
blocked for 72 hours. They allege that this was do e during the parliamentary
elections, in an evident attempt by the government to control the flow of
information. The Complainants further allege that in May 2016 during the
inauguration of President Yoweri Museyeni, t e overnment shut down access
to the internet without warning or n tifi ation.
31. The Complainants aver that in July 2016 Zimbabwe's telecommunications
regulator, the Postal and Teleco~unications Regulato:ry Authority of
Zimbabwe (POTRAZ) ordered ser ice providers to block access to WhatsApp
during social unrest in the countrx. They allege that on 18 January 2019 Econet
Wireless Zimbabwe, the country's largest mobile phone operator, announced
that it had lfeeµ directed by the government to shut down all internet access
until furthe notice. They allege that although no reason was provided, there
was speculations that the government decided to cut off access to prevent or
Ii ·t the circulqtion of images showing security forces responding violently to
pwtes s.,_ They furt er allege thaf 1 ter ~•week of no internet connection in the
coun~ i'1-li&,h Court on 21 Januw-y 2019 ruled that the Minster of State who
orde ed the • ternet sHutdo
did not have the authority to do so under the
Interception of Communications Act 2007, and ordered the restoration of access.
~
~
32. The Complainants avert at internet in the above-mentioned States had been
shut down under the guise of national security, protests, strikes and exam
malpractices. TI\e aver that it only serves to provide the government with the
power to intimidate and discourage journalists and ordinary citizens from
expressing critical views that might be deemed offensive or insulting.
34. The Complainants state that they are unable to pursue or exhaust domestic
remedies as none of the Respondent States have the jurisdiction to hear and
determine an action by the Complainants against all the State Parties, and for
the violations which affect a vast majority of people on the African Continent.
They contend that the serious violations perpetrated by the Respondent States
requires special measures to remedy the situation
Articles alleged to have been violated
35. The Complainants alleges violation of Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the African
Charter.
Prayers
36. The Complainants request the
an and Peoples'
Rights (the African Co~sion) to
(a) A declaration that the,actions o t e es ondent States.in shutting down
or instigating the shut
t in their res ective countries
violates Articles. 9, 10
·can Charter, and amounts to
unlawfu
unjustifi
ith, the complainants' rights to
freedom
pressio
mo
ly and freedom of association.
A
(b) A declaration that the actions of the Respondent States in shutting down
or instigatin& the shutdo n of the internet in their respective countries
amounts to unlawful and µnjustifiable interference with the rights of all
tpe c'tizens of tfie affec-te& countries as it is incompatible with the
(c) An order that the matter be brought to the attention of the Assembly of
Heads,of States and Government of the African Union and request it to
take urgent measures to prohibit the practice of internet shutdowns in
Africa or other measures to prevent its reoccurrence.
Procedure
37. The Secretariat received the Complaint on 27 February 2020 and acknowledged
receipt of the same on 17 March 2020.
Analysis of the African Commission
38. Rule 115(2) of the African Commission's Rules of Procedure 2020 lists the
requirements to be met prior to the seizure of a Complaint, includi .' ,r
.;}:;"a~~
0I ..
~
P
~
\1
\
~
~
~
,
'
,.
'
~
'?
lto 4'111CAl!<loll~ '-<,,'>
'-11<11£ ET OES ~I)\'
•
preliminary assessment of the requirements under Article 56 of the African
Charter).29
39. To this end, the African Commission notes that the present Complaint has been
submitted against twenty-eight (28) States. Evidently, Somaliland Republic is
neither a member of the African Union nor a State party to the African Charter.
Accordingly the Commission lacks the requisite jurisdiction, pursuant to Rule
115(2) (g) of its Rules of Procedure 2020 to consider the Complaint against
Somaliland.
40. The African Commission notes that
submitted against the Kingdom of Mo
African Charter as it has neither si
Commission lacks the jurisdict'
Procedure 2020.
mplaint has also been
ta State Party to the
ty. Accordingly, the
f its Rules of
41. Therefore, the only States concerned by the present decision are: Algeria, Benin,
Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo Brazzaville,
Democratic Republic of Congo,'lEgypt, Equ torial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia,
Gabon, Libya, Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Sierra Leone,
Sudan, The Gambia, Togo, Uganda and Zimbabwe.
42. Rule 93 (2) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure (2010) empowers the
Commission to seize Complaints ~11!:.ging prima facie violations of the African
Charter by a State Party. The Corrurussion has held in its jurisprudence that
'prima acie is a decision or conclusioi{ tHat could be reached from preliminary
observation of an issue or a case without deeply scrutinising or investigating
into its valiclity or soundness' ,30 fn order for the Commission to arrive at a
finding f a prima facie violation, the Complainant is required to submit facts
which poi t to the likelihood that a right protected in the African Charter has
been violat~. In this sense, facts submitted should at least raise a rebuttable
presumption t at a violation has occurred.
43. The Commission notes the vagueness of the Complainants' submissions on the
nature of the alleged violations. The Complainants contend that the alleged
internet disruptions are in violation of Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the African
Charter, as they unjustifiably restrict the rights to freedom of expression, access
to information and association in the online environment. However, a cursory
review of the facts surrounding the Complaint reveals that the assertions
therein are largely vague, as the submissions reference general allegations
attributed to 'the government' of the Respondent States without information or
evidence on the specific incidents of the alleged violations. A clear example can
29 Communication 661/17 Amir Fa
gt;pt para 24.
10 Others (represented ln; Zimbabwe Law,;ers for
°Communication 306/05: Sam
3
Human Rights) v. Zimbabwe par
-~·; ,•
be seen in the narrative contained in paragraphs 18 to 23 above, which excludes
information on the authorities/bodies responsible or the consequence and
effect of the alleged disruption in each of the Respondent States. Given the fact
that the Complaint has been instituted on behalf of a broad spectrum of alleged
victims in the twenty - six (26) Respondent States, the vagueness of the
Complainants' submissions is clear indication that proper information and
facts surrounding the Complaint are yet to be ascertained.
The Commission reiterates that a finding of a prima Jacie case requires that the
Complainant must have submitted preliminary evidence indicative of a
violation. 31 In the present instance, the Commission notes that the
Complainants have not formulated specific' alleg tio nor provided evidence
which allows the Commission to reasonably infer that a prima facie violation of
the African Charter arises from the f~cts adduced.
44. Considering that the Complai ants have faUed to substantiate and adduce
evidence in support of the allegatio raised against the Responlient States, it
therefore follows that the C m12laint~ oes not meet the criteria provided under
Rule 93 (2) (d) of the Commission's Rules of P ocedure (2010 .
Decision of the Commission
45. Based on its analysis, the Afr'can Commiss·on decides not to be seized of this
Communication as it does not fulfi~ the criteria for Seizure provided under Rule
93 (2) of the Commission's Rules o Procedure (2010).
e Virtually, this 66th Ordinary Sessi
13 July to 7 August 2020 1
lt..
I •
\
\
\
•.
31
( ¥(11A.
Communication 383/10: Mohammed Abdullah Saleh Al-Sad v The Republic of Djibouti para. 143