Concerns have emerged that journalists and other civil society members in Uganda are experiencing adverse effects due to the country's growing digital surveillance system.
A detailed report by The Independent addresses a significant issue, [1] referencing the experience of journalist Canary Mugume from NBS Television, who has been a victim of phone thefts in two separate assault incidents he suspects were deliberate. In addition to the stolen devices, Freda Nalumansi Mugambe, [2] who is the research and advocacy lead at Unwanted Witness reported receiving a notification from Apple in the past alerting him to the possibility of spyware targeting him, which he believes may be linked to government surveillance aimed at accessing his personal or professional information.
A report by Unwanted Witness, [3] titled, Surveillance/Spyware: An Impediment to Civil Society, Human Rights Defenders and Journalists in East and Southern Africa, aligns with Mugume’s claims of suspected surveillance. The report outlines the evolution of surveillance in Uganda and several other nations, including Rwanda, Kenya, Ethiopia, Malawi, South Africa, and Zimbabwe. It describes a multifaceted system that integrates comprehensive monitoring with focused spyware initiatives. This advanced mechanism impacts not only journalists such as Mugume but also civil society members, human rights defenders, and opposition politicians across these regions.
The report highlights the significant role of civil society, human rights defenders, and journalists in bringing attention to government excesses in the examined countries. It states that these groups are essential for democracy as they advocate for the rights of citizens in these nations. “They foster accountability, inclusive governance, and, unfortunately, while they are at it, they do face repression and restrictive laws that impact their work,” said Freda Nalumansi Mugambe. “There is a massive collection of personal data by these different tools, and at the end of the day, this leads to discrimination, persecution of some people, abuses, especially against those who are marginalised.”
In recent years, Uganda has expanded its digital surveillance infrastructure, highlighted by [4] a facial recognition-based safe city project implemented by Huawei, a Chinese technology company, which has incurred significant government expenditure. This initiative is accompanied by mandatory biometric SIM registration linked to national identification, raising concerns as a potential surveillance tool. Additionally, the country has introduced digital number plates with real-time tracking capabilities, enhanced social media monitoring, and employed sophisticated spyware to access the devices of specific targets.
Ugandan police stated that the Chinese telecommunications company's extensive surveillance system will incorporate artificial intelligence software to assist in crime-fighting efforts. In 2019, Ugandan police officials [5] announced a CCTV camera system costing $126 million and supplied by Huawei Technologies, would reduce rising trends in violent crime.
Fred Enanga of [6] the Ugandan Police Force said, “We would like the public to know that the Ugandan Police Force has an existing contract with Huawei to install CCTV cameras country wide as a measure to strengthen law and order. The cameras are already transforming modern day policing in Uganda, with facial recognition and artificial intelligence as part of policing and security.” However opposition political leaders allege that the Ugandan government intends to utilize the system to monitor political opponents and assert control through coercive measures.
The expansion of Uganda's surveillance apparatus has attracted attention from the global community. The Yale Law School Initiative on Intermediaries and Information has [7] expressed significant concerns regarding the implementation of Uganda's National ID programme, primarily due to the obligation to enter a mandatory facial recognition database as a prerequisite for Internet access. The European Data Protection Board has [8] also stated that the processing of biometric data including facial recognition presents increased privacy risks. This situation underscores the necessity for strong safeguards, including the provision of alternative options for individuals who wish to opt out or for whom the technology does not function as intended.