The deliberate restriction of access to the internet on social media applications like Twitter, Facebook, WhatsApp and YouTube plus mobile money services imposed by the government through Uganda communications Commission (UCC) and telecommunication companies is what I would refer to as an internet shutdown in Uganda. The country has experienced different types of shutdowns including; total shutdowns which involve complete blocking of internet services like broadband carriers and mobile data services and can happen at a countrywide or regional level. The other form is partial shutdowns where governments restrict access to certain apps or websites to stop citizens from sharing information with others. And lastly, the use of OTT to limit internet access. Usually ‘National Security’ is the theatrical/ostentatious excuse stated by the government to the people for such noxious acts. 

One of the most important facets of national security is military security which translates into the capacity of a nation to defend its borders and citizens from any weaponized attack. Making it extremely ambiguous for the state to use ‘National security’ as a way of controlling freedom of speech. According to Stephen Walt security is the study of the threat, use, and control of military force.[1] This definition is obsolete due to the rise of new economic, environmental and social security challenges, risks, threats and the emergence of the new international relations actors and agendas.[2]

Internet shutdowns continue to be an on-going global trend in many countries situating into the ‘securitization move’. Many governments that have used this tactic to restrict online communication and transactions have violated human/speech rights.

The linkage between the securitization theory and cyber security is relatable. In order to make it exceptional, the theory of securitization falls into place when a threat is overly marginalized to fit a referent object. This is identified through elements like: a securitizing Actor: whoever “securitizes” something, a referent Object: something to be protected, an audience: person to be convinced with the security speech and an extraordinary measure: action (s) to protect the referent object.[3]

It is evident through research that internet shutdowns and state violence go hand in hand. And sadly, Uganda’ securitization of matters to do with the internet rate back from 2006. Given the fact that Uganda has signed treaties relatable to freedom of speech, for example a right to information law, known as the Access to Information Act in 2005,[4] one cannot comprehend the fact that there could be another shutdown just as elections are around the corner. The history of these shutdowns is as follows.

  • In the 2006 elections, the Uganda Communications Commission (UCC) instructed ISPs to block access to the website of Radio Katwe for publishing ‘malicious and false information’ against the ruling National Resistance Movement and its presidential candidate.
  • On April 14, 2011, UCC instructed ISPs to temporarily block access to Facebook and Twitter for 24 hours to eliminate connecting and sharing of information. The order came in the heat of opposition-led “walk to work” protests over rising fuel and food prices. The reason given by the regulating committee was to prevent violence.
  • In the 2016 general elections, social media platforms were shut down twice by the Ugandan authorities. The first shutdown happened on February 18, 2016, on the eve of the presidential election. The restrictions lasted for four full days.
  • Another shutdown happened on May 11, 2016, where social media platforms including Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter and mobile money transfer services were once again blocked.

Hence, following these events, the state’s reason for such actions narrowed on securitization as “national security’’ was highly cited. Some of the justifications or excuses for the internet shutdowns were as strong as laws/treaties/mandates signed by the government defending their malicious acts like; the 2013 Communications Act which gives UCC broad powers and functions under Section 5 that permits the communications regulator to “monitor, inspect, license, control, and regulate communications services.” At the request of the government, the UCC has used this section to order ISPs to block access to social media and mobile money services during the 2016 elections. The use of such laws and treaties as weapons to control public debate and to silence political dissent, particularly at times of elections is predictable.

Overcoming the many disadvantages caused by internet disruptions is tricky especially if the government in service is not willing to take up any measures to settle its insecurities. According to Berhan’s (2018) report, internet shutdowns have a huge economic impact because businesses suffer immensely when people cannot communicate.[5] In Uganda, given the fact that most business owners transact mainly through mobile money services, when a shutdown occurs many get into losses. An estimate of over 2 million USD is lost for each day that the country shut down the internet.

The securitization of internet shutdowns in Uganda has killed off many economic activities creating injuries to the citizens through denied communication channels. Rights to livelihood, sources of income, freedom of speech are crumbling due to the selfish and vicious acts of the government.

Therefore, the government ought to have alternative measures of settling its rages like; improving transparency in government procedures should be top priority as authorities ought to scout for alternative ways to handle political unrest and anxieties instead of resorting to a shutdown policy. Internet service providers ought to challenge any illegal shutdown requests by the government. Therefore, by upholding the rule of law, telecommunication companies are able to reject or avoid strands of corruption. Through these, citizens will enjoy freedom of expression while holding the economy from suffering huge losses due to unsolicited internet shutdowns.

Written by; Nsekanabo Sheila

25/August/2020

Kampala Uganda.


[1] Sarah Tarry, ‘Deepening’ and ‘Widening’: An Analysis of Security Definitions in the 1990s’, Department of Political Science University of Calgary

[2] Vladimir Šulović 2010, ‘Meaning of Security and Theory of Securitization’

[3]Clara Eroukhmanoff 2018; ‘Securitization Theory: An Introduction’ Page 1

[4] Sandra Aceng 2019, ‘Will Uganda shut down the internet as opposition heats up for 2021 elections?’

[5] Berhan Taye 2018, ‘Time Is Up: Uganda In Court Over Internet Shutdowns That Violate Human Rights’

This Post Has One Comment

  1. Nabuguzi Kiwanuka

    We have basically been through various forms of lockdown, way before COVID-19 happened; and this time round, we may have to relinquish our devices to the government.

Leave a Reply