African governments use social media to monitor citizens

USA top, Asia grows in strength in IMD World Digital Competitiveness ranking

A report by US-based democracy watchdog Freedom House says many Africans are unknowingly under surveillance by their own states via social media platforms. Zimbabwe and Sudan are among the countries to be singled out

Zimbabwean blogger Munya Bloggo saw it coming — the gradual deterioration of Internet freedom in the southern African country.

 “It started off with the Internet shutdown in January for a few days,” Bloggo told DW in an interview. “Then the method changed to trying to silence different voices online, from activists to even comedians,” said Bloggo, who is also project manager officer for Magamba, an urban culture and civil rights organization. 

As a blogger, Bloggo is accustomed to online threats and cyberbullying. But even he admits that the risks keep growing.

“In 2017, one of our colleagues was arrested and detained for five days at a maximum-security prison for allegedly trying to overthrow a legitimately elected government using social media,” he said.

Threat to activists

According to the 2019 Freedom on the Net report published by Freedom House, governments are increasingly turning to social media to garner huge amounts of data from citizens to identify perceived threats and often to silence opposition. 

The report warns that social media surveillance threatens civil rights activism on digital platforms.

“This often includes using artificial intelligence, and in many cases, security agencies are automating their mass surveillance of social media,” Isabel Linzer, an expert at Freedom House on internet freedom in sub-Saharan Africa, told DW in an interview. “We have seen this in several sub-Saharan Africa countries, such as Kenya, South Africa, Angola, Nigeria and Uganda.”

Zimbabwe also has what is known as the Interception of Communications Act. “The name of that law itself tells you what kind of powers the Government has given itself. They’ve given themselves the power to intercept different people’s devices, people that they consider being of interest or activists that are ‘troublemakers,’” Musonza said.

“It’s something that deters people from expressing themselves freely because you never know when that law can be applied to you,” blogger Munya Bloggo said. “Whatever you tweet or say online can be interpreted by the state as trying to overthrow the government.”

Zimbabwe has been struggling with a weak economy, which the government has blamed on Western sanctions. As a result, many Zimbabweans care more about how to put food on the table than restrictive internet laws, Musonza said.

Social media’s role in Sudan’s revolution

Social media played a crucial role in last year’s protests in Sudan that eventually led to the ousting of former President Omar al-Bashir. “If it were not for social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and WhatsApp, I don’t think anyone in the world would hear about Sudan and the revolution,” Sanosi Osman, DW’s correspondent in Khartoum, said.

During the reign of al-Bashir, censorship and internet surveillance by state actors was prevalent. The new government in Sudan promised change, and it still enjoys popularity among those who took part in the uprising. 

“The government understands that they are the result of this uprising. They know better than to throw away these freedoms and rights of the people,” Osman said. “If they start blocking or using their authority to deny people their rights, they will go out [to protest] on the streets again,” he added.

However, Osman said that he still faces difficulty accessing certain websites such as Netflix, PayPal and Adobe in Sudan. He attributed the problem to the sanctions that were put in place during the former regime.

Weaponization of information during elections

Freedom House’s Isabel Linzer said the watchdog was concerned by the weaponization of information, especially at election times. 

“We saw misinformation, for example, around the elections in Nigeria,” she said. One of the most troubling findings, she explained to DW, “is that propaganda and false information on elections are generally more effective than some other means of trying to control how the population votes.”

Who then should be responsible for ensuring there is internet freedom for all? “Everybody. Tech companies, the government, civil society they all have a role to play,” Linzer said.

According to Linzer, the Government can play a key role in implementing rules for elections protecting free speech: “Civil society can help push the Government to make those rules and raise awareness around things like elections, which we see as a flashpoint for internet freedom violations.”

Tech companies, lastly, have a responsibility to work closely with partners on the ground to understand key issues and the context in those countries and how their platforms are being used, she said.  

Sign Up