Advertisement

Online freedoms face test in Uganda case against Facebook

Saturday September 03 2016
ug fb

A defamation case pitting a prominent Ugandan lawyer against Facebook, the world’s most popular social networking site, is unfolding as a key test to the limits to online freedoms. TEA GRAPHIC | NATION MEDIA GROUP

A defamation case pitting a prominent Ugandan lawyer against Facebook, the world’s most popular social networking site, is unfolding as a key test to the limits to online freedoms.  

On July 29, a judge in Ireland ordered Facebook, which boasts some 1.7 billion users worldwide, to reveal identifiable information of a one Tom Voltaire Okwalinga (TVO).

Ugandan lawyer Fred Muwema asserts TVO defamed him through posts made between March 17 and 24, 2016 for which he wants to bring legal proceedings against the person behind the Facebook page where they appeared.

The disposition was adjourned until October 6.

In a sworn affidavit, Facebook said it has soaked up pressure from Kampala over demands to reveal identities of government critics. It argues that, given such demands, revelation of TVO’s particulars puts his/her very life at “grave risk and by extension all others who hold and express dissenting views via Facebook.” 

“Since the hearing, I have been informed by Facebook’s head of public policy for Africa, Ebele Okobi, that Facebook has in the past received multiple requests from the Ugandan government actors and others affiliated with Uganda’s President Museveni, to take down content from TVO’s page, to shut down the page, and/or to reveal TVO’s personally identifiable information,” reads the affidavit sworn by Jack Gilbert, Facebook’s lead litigation counsel for Europe, the Middle East and Africa (EMEA).

Advertisement

“Ms Okobi informed me that… In February 2015, Godfrey Mutabazi, the executive director of Uganda’s Communication Commission, directed a number of requests to Facebook to take down content on TVO’s page that included details of a charge of corruption levelled at Mr Mutabazi himself, and to disclose information that would identify TVO.

“When Facebook refused the requests, Mr Mutabazi attempted to call Facebook before Uganda’s parliament to compel it to produce the information to facilitate the arrest of the person or persons behind the account,” he added.

A threat to State

As a result of these conversations, including a number of phone conversations between Mr Mutabazi and Ms Okobi, during which the former argued that "TVO was a threat to the Ugandan state and must be turned over and stopped. Facebook was made aware of the government’s interest in arresting TVO,” Mr Gilbert’s affidavit says.

Mr Mutabazi, however, denied making any such demands. He said as a national regulator, the UCC has only maintained normal interactions with Facebook as it is required to, which are mainly aimed to control abuse of the platform; a mutual interest both sides share.

“I’m not the one who decides whether any content is harmful to an individual or a threat to national security. I am obliged by law as a regulator to receive and process complaints from users of any communication platform, which I bring to the attention of the managers concerned,” Mr Mutabazi said.

“But Facebook is also under obligation to respect not only national laws but also its own, which do not permit the use of fake names, or generating and sharing harmful content. If there is any content over which a complaint is raised it is within their policy to remove it,” he added.

In June last year, police arrested Robert Shaka, a cybersecurity specialist, on suspicion that he was TVO. He was accused of issuing “offensive communications,” which police said is criminal under Section 25 of the Computer Misuse Act, 2011.  Mr Shaka is challenging this law before the Constitutional Court.

Chapter Four Uganda, a non-profit civil liberties organisation, which provided legal support to Shaka, said the Muwema-Facebook battle portends an unattractive precedent. Governments, not just Uganda’s, are likely to find it easier to use intermediaries like Facebook to stifle online dissent.

“While enjoyment of freedoms in regions like ours where governments taken any measures to curtail them needs to be actively promoted, we also need to be responsible for our actions online. Just because there is a medium where you can say whatever you want, it should not be license to act irresponsibly.

Advertisement