Censorship and Freedom of Expression

Nigerian media is reporting that on November 12, the Nigerian police fired live bullets to disperse those protesting the continued imprisonment of Nigerian journalist Omeyele Sowore. The media describes the protestors as conducting a “sit-in” at the offices of the Department of State Services (DSS), though it is not clear whether the protestors were inside or outside the compound. There are no reports that the demonstrators were violent or that protestors were killed. But this is yet another troubling incident involving the security services, peaceful protestors, and the rule of law. This summer, clashes in Abuja between security services and Shias, an Islamic religious minority, led to an estimated four deaths. They were protesting the imprisonment, since 2015, of their ostensible leader, Sheikh Ibrahim el-Zakzaky. Representatives of the Islamic Movement of Nigeria (IMN), which is a Shia group, alleged that they were attacked by the police after protesting peacefully. Previously, in October 2018, dozens of IMN members protesting Zakzaky’s imprisonment were killed following clashes with security services in Abuja. Zakazaky’s imprisonment is based on a 2015 clash of his supporters and a military convoy, which led to the deaths of an estimated three hundred Shias. Like Sowore, Zakzaky’s imprisonment rests on dubious legal grounds (he, too, has been ordered released by the courts) and is enmeshed in the extra-judicial activities of the security services. The apparent readiness of the security services to use violence against peaceful protestors reflects poor police training and the use of the military in lieu of the police. Numbering only about 360,000 in a country with more than 200 million people, the police are underpaid, stretched thin, and often forced to fend for themselves. Morale is likely to be poor. Sowore was the presidential candidate for the Africa Action Congress in the 2019 elections. He was ostensibly arrested over his leadership of the #RevolutionNow political protest, though he is also the founder and publisher of Sahara Reporters, a well-regarded, New York-based news outlet that has reported on Nigerian government corruption. The DSS claims his protests are treasonous, but such charges appear wildly overblown. (For perspective, the government has declared the IMN terrorists.) Twice the courts have ordered his release on bail, and twice DSS has retained custody of him. This episode appears to violate freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and the law. Together, they are antithetical to President Muhammadu Buhari’s assertion that his administration believes in freedom, tolerance, and the rule of law.  Since the colonial period, there have been episodes in which the security services have operated without reference to the law or to civilian control. Notably, there was the extra-judicial murder of Muhammed Yusuf, leader of Boko Haram, while he was in police custody in 2009. That murder played a central role in Boko Haram’s ongoing war with the Nigerian state. Security service abuses are often cited as assisting Boko Haram recruitment. Similarly, there have been repeated episodes of security service violence against Shia protestors. The government has already taken some important first steps toward reform of the judicial system, but reigning in, training, and funding the security services should be a top priority. 

Ademola Bello is a Nigerian journalist and playwright. He received his master’s from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. On September 24, President Muhammadu Buhari of Nigeria delivered a speech at the United Nations General Assembly in New York. In it, he assured the world that his government believes in freedom, tolerance and the rule of law. He said, “The rule of law remains the permanent, the unchanging foundation of the world order.”  But on the same day that President Buhari spoke, his government ignored a court ruling ordering the release on bail of Mr. Omoyele Sowore, the founder of Sahara Reporters, a New York-based online news website that has reportedly extensively on government corruption in Nigeria. In fact, several Nigerian journalists and activists are unlawfully held in detention by the Nigerian government for reporting on widespread corruption and human rights violations.  Justice Taiwo Taiwo, who initially ruled that Nigeria’s Department of State Services (DSS) could detain Mr. Sowore for forty-five days, granted him bail on the condition that he surrender his passport. Mr. Sowore did so on September 25, but DSS did not release him, arguing that, among other things, he was not entitled to bail.  On October 4, a second judge, Ijeoma Ojukwu, presented new bail conditions that were much more stringent, including a demand to find two private landowners in Abuja who controlled land worth roughly $500,000 and who would stand for him as guarantors to meet his bail conditions. The judge also banned him from speaking with the press, not to participate in any rally, and not to leave Nigeria’s capital, Abuja. He has not yet met these new conditions.  Sowore was detained on August 3 by the DSS. He had called for a peaceful protest, tagged “Revolution Now,” to demand, among other things, that the Nigerian government end wholesale corruption, fight poverty, and provide universal education. He was charged with treasonable felony and insulting and harassing the Nigerian president based on comments made in a press interview. Usually based in New York, his trip to Nigeria was his first since revealing Nigeria’s Central Bank lost 500 billion naira (about $1.4 billion) in a failed private investment scheme. Sahara Reporters obtained and published audio recordings made by a whistleblower at the Central Bank of Nigeria. The recordings included Godwin Emefiele, the bank's governor, and other officials discussing how to cover up the loss.   The detention of Sowore comes as press freedoms and free speech continue to be curtailed by President Buhari. The nonprofit Committee to Protect Journalists has documented widespread harassment of journalists in the country, including unlawful detention and assaults.  Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees "freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” It is time for the UN and UNESCO to speak up about the Nigerian government’s unlawful imprisonment of journalists and activists like Omoyele Sowore. 

Welcome to “Women Around the World: This Week,” a series that highlights noteworthy news related to women and U.S. foreign policy. This week’s post, covering October 25 to November 1, was compiled by Yuxin Lei and Rebecca Turkington.

China has championed the idea of 'cyber sovereignty'. While the U.S. and its allies have long opposed this concept, it has become more attractive to some countries as a way of managing cyber threats and mass demonstrations. These developments urge us to question: how much cyber sovereignty is too much cyber sovereignty?

The facts are not in dispute. On October 6, Houston Rockets General Manager Daryl Morey tweeted: “Fight for Freedom: Stand with Hong Kong,” igniting a political firestorm in Beijing. Other Rockets heavyweights soon weighed in. The owner of the team, Tilman Fertitta, quickly distanced himself from Morey’s tweet, and one of the team’s stars, James Harden asked forgiveness from China, stating, “We apologize. We love China.” Other opinions also crowded onto the court. Notably, Brooklyn Nets owner Joe Tsai published an open letter later that same night cautioning that “…there are certain topics that are third-rail issues in certain countries, societies and communities. Supporting a separatist movement in a Chinese territory is one of those third-rail issues, not only for the Chinese government, but also for all citizens in China.” Golden State Warriors coach Steve Kerr said he didn’t know enough to comment on the “bizarre international story.” The Chinese government, for its part, responded immediately by pulling all Chinese sponsorship of the Rockets (an NBA favorite in China and the home for nine years of China’s basketball commissioner Yao Ming). In addition, state-run China Central Television (CCTV) revoked plans to broadcast two highly anticipated exhibition games in Shanghai and Shenzhen between the Los Angeles Lakers and the Brooklyn Nets; and several events and a press conference around the Shanghai game were cancelled, including one to raise money for the Special Olympics. Despite this dispiriting turn of events, there is a bright spot. After a bit of fumbling, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver delivered an important set of remarks clarifying the association’s position and sending an important signal to all the parties involved: “Freedom of expression can engender very difficult conversations. But for those who question our motivation, this is about far more than growing our business. Values of equality, respect, and freedom of expression have long defined the NBA—and will continue to do so. As an American-based basketball league operating globally, among our greatest contributions are these values of the game… In fact, one of the enduring strengths of the NBA is our diversity—of views, backgrounds, ethnicities, genders and religions...with that diversity comes the belief that whatever our differences, we respect and value each other…”   Silver’s words matter at several levels. First, they make clear that all views, from Morey’s to Harden’s to Tsai’s (and including Kerr’s right not to comment) are welcome and should be expressed and understood with tolerance and civility. By championing the right to, and value of, such a diversity in viewpoints, Silver has elevated the NBA and delivered a much-needed reminder to all Americans about how to manage controversy in political discourse. Second, knowingly or not, Silver became one of the first heads of a major U.S. corporation to take on China in the latter’s efforts to use its market power to coerce international actors to comply with its political positions. The Philippines, South Korea, Japan, and Sweden have all faced politically motivated Chinese trade embargoes; virtually all multinationals are now under pressure to change the way they acknowledge Taiwan on their materials, websites, and even packaging to ensure that the island nation is not accorded status as an independent entity. And China has banned performers, including Richard Gere, Katy Perry, and Oasis, among others for their support of greater freedoms in Taiwan and Tibet. While a number of countries and individuals have refused to back down in the face of Beijing’s threats, many companies have elected to comply with Beijing’s demands in order to preserve access to the Chinese market. Yet the price of compliance is likely to get much higher. In its criticism of Morey’s tweet, China’s state-run broadcasting company CCTV stated, “We believe that any remarks that challenge national sovereignty and social stability are not within the scope of freedom of speech.” As I wrote recently, Beijing is increasingly seeking to force multinationals to align their political values and priorities with China’s. While Beijing’s traditional priority in this regard has been sovereignty issues, it is easy to imagine political obeisance required on other potentially sensitive topics, such as the Belt and Road initiative, human rights and religious practices, labor and employment, or Internet governance. Any issue can become one that seemingly threatens social stability. Finally, as the Trump administration seeks to navigate a new relationship with Beijing, the spirit of Silver’s remarks should serve as a reminder of the value of rooting an argument in American principles and law. The United States began the trade war, for example, from a similarly principled position (excluding the President’s focus on the bilateral trade deficit). It concentrated on holding China accountable for skirting or breaking international trade rules: stealing intellectual property, engaging in cyber economic espionage, coercing technology transfer, and putting in place non-market barriers to entry. Yet as the United States moves well beyond the parameters of righting trade and investment wrongs, it is losing both bargaining power with China and credibility globally. Commissioner Silver’s words merit attention not only because they are smart and right but also because they remind us more broadly of how Washington needs to conduct its relationships at home and abroad—with tolerance and respect and fundamentally rooted in American principles and values. It is hard to arrive at a clearer statement of not only what Silver wants the NBA to be but also what we all hope the United States can be. And perhaps there is one additional bright spot to be found. The Lakers-Nets game in Shanghai went on as planned. The stadium was full of Chinese fans who roared in anticipation every time LeBron James rolled down the court toward the hoop. Some things are truly universal.

Last week, the Committee to Protect Journalists ranked Eritrea "the most censored country in the world." That unsurprising conclusion is only the latest dubious distinction for Eritrea, a state that often seems frozen in an authoritarian limbo in the midst of a region characterized by profound changes.  The much-heralded 2018 peace deal with Ethiopia removed the Eritrean government’s primary rationale for its vice-like grip on power and disregard for the civil and political rights of its people, but it did not in fact lead to the opening of political space. In June, over a hundred prominent African intellectuals wrote to President Isaias Afwerki, expressing concern about political prisoners and the steady stream of young asylum-seekers desperate to escape the constraints of life in the Eritrea that Isaias has created. In response, the Ministry of Information questioned their motives, declared them uninformed, and noted that policy formulation and implementation is the responsibility of “the government and the people of Eritrea alone.”  But Eritreans are not free to express themselves on these issues, and the government’s claim to legitimately represent the will of the people rests on its own self-regard and delusion. President Isaias and those who continue to enable him are right about some things. Eritrea’s history is a painful one, and they should not dismantle the machinery of repression that is so pervasive in Eritrea because of pressure from outsiders. They should dismantle it because Eritreans deserve better. A ruling elite so consumed by the past should be aware that history, including very recent African history, is replete with liberators who became oppressors. It is difficult to see the appeal in emulating their examples.  The status quo doesn’t just condemn Eritreans to languish under stifling state control, and it doesn’t just irrevocably tarnish Isaias’s legacy. It threatens the integrity and future of Eritrea itself. By denying citizens the right to freely debate their aspirations for Eritrea’s future, by refusing to implement the constitution to provide a frame for future decision-making, by conflating dissent with treason, the current government renders the state more and more brittle, and closes off avenues for peaceful, progressive political development. The autocratic paralysis at the top may achieve what so many years of international treachery and indifference could not—it may irreparably weaken the resilience of one of the world’s most resilient nations. 

Recently, Ugandan civil society organizations warned about the likelihood of increasing political violence leading up to the country’s 2021 general elections. Disturbing incidents of opposition figures like Bobi Wine being arrested and beaten, journalists being punished for covering those who challenge the state, and people associated with the new political opposition, like Michael Kalinda, being abducted, tortured, and even killed certainly support the case for sounding the alarm.  Uganda is not doomed; it’s an impressive country in many respects and countless Ugandans are interested in working together to build a peaceful, more democratic, and prosperous future. But over the course of Museveni’s 33-year governing tenure, clientelism and intolerance for political challenges that resist co-option have become prominent features of the state. Realistic plans for the future have to grapple with the possibility that instability will grow, and that the end of 75-year-old President Museveni’s tenure, however it comes, will be a catalyst for violent competition as entrenched interests resist change. It is not at all clear that the United States is prepared for the possibility of a Ugandan unraveling. As the largest troop contributing country to the African Union Mission in Somalia, or AMISOM, Uganda has been a critically important partner in combating al-Shabab and supporting the fragile government in Mogadishu. Uganda also currently hosts over a million refugees, more than any other African state. If Uganda is destabilized, the potential for contagion in an already volatile region is substantial, particularly for neighbors like South Sudan, Rwanda, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. One hopes a range of contingencies are being thought out, and that energetic diplomacy is working to tip the scales towards peaceful, positive outcomes for Uganda and the region. The worst thing the United States could do would be to assume the status quo will persist.

There has been a string of arrests of media personalities and suspensions of media outlets in Nigeria. Recently, some of the arrests have been related to support for a protest tagged “Days of Rage” and #RevolutionNow, against what supporters consider a failure of governance, but the harassment of media in Nigeria is nothing new.  In January 2019, Nigerian Security Services raided multiple offices across the country of the Daily Trust, one of Nigeria’s largest circulation newspapers, apparently angry at its published reports about upcoming army operations against Boko Haram. President Buhari quickly ordered the military to leave the newspaper’s offices, raising questions at who exactly had ordered the raids. In April, an activist known as IG Wala was sentenced to seven years in jail for organizing a peaceful demonstration and for making “unsubstantiated allegations” against a public official, the chairman of the National Hajj Commission. He is in the process of appealing the ruling. He had been denied bail, which he requested on health grounds until his appeal could be heard. He was then transferred to a remote prison. In June, DAAR Communications, owner of African Independent Television and RayPower FM radio, had its license suspended indefinitely, allegedly for failure to pay licensing fees and for the presence of hate speech and suspect information from social media in its programming. The following day a Federal High Court judge ordered the reopening of the networks. The owner of DAAR communications had accused the director general of the National Broadcasting Commission of editorial interference and political bias.  On August 2, Abubakar Dadiyata Idris, was apparently kidnapped. Family and friends are saying that he has been arrested by the SSS. Known as Dadiyata, he was a fierce critic of Governor Umar Ganduje of Kano state. The next day, the SSS arrested Omoyele Sowore, editor of Sahara Reporters, ostensibly for supporting the #RevolutionNow Lagos demonstration. He was also the presidential candidate for African Action Congress in the 2019 elections. His support for the demonstration was, according to the police, grounds for arresting him for advocating violence. There is a national and international campaign by some human rights advocates for his release. Allegations against those arrested appear to be a mixture of the mundane, such as the failure to pay licensing fees, and various forms of incitement or criticism of government officials. It is worth noting that in at least some cases, courts have reversed arrests and suspensions. The specifics of each case are obscure, at least for someone based outside of Nigeria. But people in authority are clearly nervous. The country is facing serious challenges ranging from Boko Haram to Middle Belt conflict over water and land use that falls along ethnic and religious lines. Amid these crises, social media in Nigeria, as elsewhere, can be irresponsible. Governor El-Rufai of Kaduna state has made explicit reference to the role of “fake news” to the Rwandan genocide. Nevertheless, what appears to be an acceleration of media arrests and intimidation must be cause for concern. 

Violence attributed to online hate speech has increased worldwide. Societies confronting the trend must deal with questions of free speech and censorship on widely used tech platforms.

At the end of May, new rules were introduced, to take effect on June 11, that would have severely limited the press’s access to the National Assembly. According to the Nigerian Guild of Editors, the rules are “primitive, undemocratic, and blatantly anti-press and anti-people.” Under the new rules, to cover the National Assembly, a media outlet would be required to have a daily circulation of forty thousand copies or five thousand daily views online. Among other requirements, journalists must also show two years of experience in covering the National Assembly, and be members of the journalists’ union. Commentators had suggested that if the rules had gone into effect, the beneficiaries would be government-owned media because they are larger in readership and are more likely to meet other requirements.  There is speculation that the clerk of the National Assembly, Alhaji Mohammed Sani-Omolori, was behind the new rules. Sani-Omolori is by profession a lawyer and a member of the Royal Family of the Ohinoyi of Ebiraland. He was allegedly angry at media reporting of his six-hour grilling by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), published in mid-May. The EFCC had also seized his passport, and was apparently investigating the way the presiding officers of the National Assembly were elected. That the rules came shortly after the story went public could indicate a connection. Happily, the proposed rules seem to have been withdrawn, however coverage of the swearing-in of members of the National Assembly will still be unusually restricted. Journalists still face an uphill battle. According to Freedom House’s press freedom reports, press freedom has been at the lower end of the “partly free” category since 2002, when Freedom House issued its first grade of Nigeria.  Retaliation against and intimidation of journalists are not uncommon. In Port Harcourt, it has been reported that a journalist was beaten by members of the Special Anti-Robbery Squad for reporting on their alleged beatings of civilians. At the beginning of 2019, members of the military raided the offices of one of Nigeria’s largest circulation newspapers, apparently following coverage of setbacks in the fight against Boko Haram and the Islamic State in West Africa. It was not clear if the raid was ordered by President Muhammadu Buhari, though he did order the security services to vacate the various offices they had occupied.

In its controversial copyright overhaul, the EU struggles to balance intellectual property protection with the free use of the internet. 

This week: Social media platforms race to remove video of Christchurch terror attack; EU levies third antitrust fine against Google; Russia rolls out new censorship laws; and top aluminum company hit by ransomware attack. 

Increasing collateral damage is an effective way of fighting censorship and expanding internet freedom. If we want to keep it that way, we ought to know its limitations

In the run-up to last year’s presidential and parliamentary elections in Zimbabwe, hope was palpable in Harare. Civil society activists, journalists, and business leaders marveled at how political space had opened up in the wake of the coup that ousted longtime President Robert Mugabe. It was as if an entire country had opened up the windows to let in fresh air. Citizens reveled in their ability to speak freely, and voiced their hopes that unconstitutional laws that had legitimized repression and restrictions on political and civic engagement would be repealed, so that the freedoms they were enjoying didn’t feel contingent on the whims of authorities. Today, President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s government is indeed taking action to address those laws, including the notorious Public Order and Security Act (POSA) and Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. These are welcome, long-sought reforms—and they are among the steps necessary for building the confidence that will unlock sanctions relief. However, these victories for Zimbabwe are ringing hollow because they occur against an alarming backdrop of state-sponsored violence and intimidation. In January, the state’s brutal response to popular protests killed seventeen and injured scores more. Within just the last week, two opposition members of parliament, Charlton Hwende and Joana Mamombe, have been arrested and charged with treason. Authorities arrested prominent civic leaders, including Pastor Evan Mawarire and Rashid Mahiya, on similar charges. For Zimbabweans, the windows have slammed shut again. Whereas last year citizens experienced freedom without the legal framework to protect it, now it appears that Zimbabwe will be characterized by repression regardless of the law, helped along by a deeply compromised judiciary. The legal landscape may shift, but fear remains the constant organizing principle for Zimbabwe’s government.

Leading global figures have released a new "Declaration of Principles for Freedom, Prosperity, and Peace." Call it Atlantic Charter 2.0.