Burkina Faso
Burkina Faso currently has no specific legislation to counter disinformation. However, there are laws that include restrictions on online disinformation: the Penal Code, the Legal Regime of the Online Press and the Legal Regime of Audiovisual Communication.
These laws raise concerns from a human rights perspective. The scope of prohibited expression is not clearly defined, potentially providing authorities with power to restrict a wide range of speech; and the aims they pursue are not clearly legitimate ones according to international human rights standards. Furthermore, the penalties for sharing disinformation are potentially disproportionate in their severity.
We assess these laws in detail below.
No. Article 86 prohibits the “publication or reproduction, through the online press, of false news, fabricated, falsified or misleading documents, likely to undermine public peace”. It is not clear how to determine whether news or documents are false, or how it would be determined whether the sharing of such news or documents would be likely to undermine public peace. This article therefore fails to provide clear guidance for individuals and provides an overly wide degree of discretion to those charged with the enforcement of this law.
Potentially. Speech should only be restricted where some clear, objective public harm might be caused. The restriction in Article 86 appears to pursue the legitimate aim of public safety, however it is possible that the term “public peace” may be interpreted more broadly to allow for restrictions pursuing potentially illegitimate aims.
No.
Unclear. While the law refers to the Penal Code in the determination of appropriate penalties, which would be decided by a court, journalists and media organisations have also been held accountable for violations of this law by the Superior Council of Communications (CSC) under administrative proceedings. The CSC is a government body and is therefore not an independent and impartial authority.
Potentially. Article 86 states that dissemination of false news “is punished in accordance with the provisions of the Penal Code”. The Penal Code provides for a fine of 1,000,000 to 10,00,000 FCFA and between one to five years of imprisonment (Article 312-13). In practice, however, violations have also resulted in suspensions by the CSC, which while not mentioned as penalties in the text of the law, are provided for in separate legal instruments. If penalties, whether penal or otherwise, are imposed without taking into account the circumstances of the offence, then sanctions may be disproportionate. This is particularly the case where no harm actually occurs.
N/A.
No. Article 130 prohibits the “dissemination or reproduction of false, fabricated, falsified or misleading news, likely to undermine public peace”. It is not clear how one would determine what constitutes “false, fabricated, falsified or misleading news”, or how to ascertain whether the sharing of such information would be likely to disturb public peace. This article therefore does not provide clear guidance for individuals and risks giving an overly wide degree of discretion to those charged with the enforcement of this law.
Potentially. Speech should only be restricted where some clear, objective public harm might be caused. The restriction in Article 130 appears to pursue the legitimate aim of protecting public safety, however it is possible that the term “public peace” may be interpreted more broadly to allow for restrictions pursuing potentially illegitimate aims.
No.
Unclear. While the law refers to the Penal Code in the determination of appropriate penalties, which would be decided by a court, journalists and media organisations have also been held accountable for violations of this law by the Superior Council of Communications (CSC) under administrative proceedings. The CSC is a government body and is therefore not an independent and impartial authority.
Potentially. Article 130 states that dissemination of false news “is punished in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Code”, while the Criminal Code provides for a fine of 1,000,000 to 10,00,000 FCFA and between one to five years of imprisonment (Article 312-13). In practice, however, violations have resulted in suspensions by the CSC, which – while not mentioned as penalties in the text of the law – are provided for in separate legal instruments. If penalties, whether penal or otherwise, are imposed without taking into account the circumstances of the offence, then sanctions may be disproportionate. This is particularly the case where no harm actually occurs.
N/A.
No. Article 312-13 of the Penal Code criminalises the intentional dissemination of false information which is likely to make others believe that the destruction of property or an attack against persons has already occurred or is likely to take place. It is unclear what is included in the scope of information that pertains to the destruction of property or an attack against persons. Article 312-13 thus fails to provide clear guidance for individuals and provides an overly wide degree of discretion to those charged with the enforcement of this law.
No. Speech should only be restricted where some clear, objective public harm might be caused. The aims pursued by Article 312-13 appear to be targeted at public order and national security as this particular offence is located within a section of the Penal Code on “Crimes and Minor Offenses against the Security of the State”. However, the broad scope of speech that potentially pertains to the destruction of property or an attack against persons suggests that restrictions may fall outside the scope of what is normally considered “public order”.
Potentially. Article 312-13 requires that the offence be committed “intentionally”. While it is unclear whether this simply means intention to send the information, or a specific intention to send false information, it is likely that the court will assess the authors intention to deceive.
Yes. This is a criminal offence and will be decided by a court of law.
Potentially. Article 312-13 may result in a fine of 1,000,000 to 10,00,000 FCFA and between one to five years of imprisonment. If the maximum fine and prison sentence are imposed without taking into account the circumstances of the offence, then sanctions may be disproportionate. This is particularly the case where no harm actually occurs. However, there is an absence of information as to how these penalties are imposed in practice, which makes it difficult to determine whether they are proportionate.
N/A.
In June 2021, the Superior Council of Communication (CSC) suspended the Omega Media Group’s radio and TV programmes for 5 days, permitting them only to broadcast music. The Omega Group had previously broadcast news about terrorist attacks perpetrated on the night of June 4 to 5 in a village in the province of Yagha, via their radio and television channels, social media and website. The CSC alleged that there were several mistakes in their news reporting.
Yes, the decision of the CSC makes reference to the Law No. 059-2015 on Audiovisual Communication.
Potentially. Speech restrictions may be legitimate if made in the pursuance of public order, public morals, public health, national security, or to protect the rights of others. The CSC stated that this false information caused panic among the populations, and that their action was aimed at protecting public safety. However, facts that the CSC stated were false were later contested as true by the village’s mayor, and it seems from external reports that Omega’s broadcast contained only minor errors. If true, this would indicate that the restriction was motivated by a desire to cover up government negligence with respect to ongoing violence, which would not be a legitimate aim.
Potentially. No fines or prison sentences were levied, and the suspension was limited to five days. However, before the suspension Omega Group had already taken steps to correct the false information, potentially demonstrating willingness to cooperate and lack of intention to cause harm. Civil society groups like RSF have argued, therefore, that the suspension was not proportionate. If the action was taken in pursuit of an illegitimate aim, no sanctions or penalties would be proportionate.
In June 2023, the Conseil Supérieur de la Communication suspended French television channel La Chaine Info for three months, accusing the outlet of spreading ‘false information’. This is in response to a report published by LCI journalist Abnousse Shalmani on deadly violence and attacks in the country in the preceding months. The CSC said that Shalmani’s statements were baseless and exaggerative, and held LCI responsible for allowing such “erroneous information” to be disseminated through its channel.
Yes. The CSC states in its decision that Shalmani’s remarks were made in violation of Article 312-13 of Burkina Faso’s Penal Code.
Unclear. Legitimate aims include respect for the rights or reputations of others and for the protection of national security, public order, public health or morals. Without access to the report in question, it is difficult to verify whether Shalmani’s claims were indeed exaggerated or false; and if they were, they may indeed have posed a risk to public order or public safety. However, it is more likely that the action was taken in response to Shalmani’s praise of the French army and criticism of the military junta government’s handling of the outbreak of violence across Burkina Faso, merely to silence political criticism. This does not constitute a legitimate aim.
Unclear. Without access to the report in question, it is difficult to assess whether a three-month suspension was proportionate to the allegedly false information published. If, however, the information was true, the aim would have been illegitimate and therefore no action taken would be necessary or proportionate.
Two foreign correspondents from Le Monde and Libération newspapers were expelled from Burkina Faso in April 2023, in response to reporting relating to allegations of training of child soldiers in Burkina Faso. The junta-led government described the investigation as a “manipulative” attempt to tarnish the image of Burkina Faso.
No. There was no legal basis cited for the expulsion of the two journalists by the junta. The Law on the Legal Regime of the Online Press and the Law on the Legal Regime of Audiovisual Communication do not explicitly provide for suspensions or expulsions as penalties. While violations of these laws have previously resulted in suspensions provided for in separate legal instruments, there appears to be no legal basis in the case of these correspondents.
No. Speech restrictions may be legitimate if made in the pursuance of public order, public morals, public health, national security, or to protect the rights of others; but here it appears that the two journalists were expelled in order to undermine and discredit their reporting on the issue of child soldiers and criticism of the junta.
No. In the absence of a legitimate aim, no action would be considered necessary or proportionate.
Burkina Faso's junta-led government suspended French news outlet Jeune Afrique in September 2023 until further notice, in relation to an article the outlet published about the Burkina Faso army. Communications Minister Rimtalba Jean-Emmanuel Ouedraogo said in a statement that Jeune Afrique was spreading baseless allegations designed to “discredit” the national armed forces.
No. There was no legal basis cited for the suspension. The Law on the Legal Regime of the Online Press and the Law on the Legal Regime of Audiovisual Communication do not explicitly provide for suspensions or expulsions as penalties. While violations of these laws have previously resulted in suspensions provided for in separate legal instruments, there appears to be no legal basis in the case of this suspension.
No. Speech restrictions may be legitimate if made in the pursuance of public order, public morals, public health, national security, or to protect the rights of others. In this instance it seems that the outlet has been suspended in order to silence political criticism, which is not a legitimate aim.
No. In the absence of a legitimate aim, no action would be considered necessary and proportionate.
Burkina Faso’s military government suspended Radio France Internationale in December 2022, claiming that the outlet had broadcast false reports and given voice to armed groups. This action was taken in response to a broadcast by RFI featuring a statement from the leader of an armed group and mention of an alleged coup attempt against President Captain Ibrahim Traore, which the government denies.
No. No legal basis was cited for the suspension, and RFI claims that its broadcasting was suspended without prior notice and without implementation of appropriate procedures put in place by the national communications regulator.
No. Speech may only be restricted in pursuance of public order, public morals, public health, national security, or to protect the rights of others. This action is clearly an attempt to silence political criticism against the junta and is not in pursuit of a legitimate aim.
No. In the absence of a legitimate aim, no action would be considered necessary or proportionate.