Ethiopia
Ethiopia has a specific law to tackle disinformation, the Hate Speech and Disinformation Prevention and Suppression Proclamation No.1185/2020, as well as a restriction on disinformation in its Electoral, Political Parties Registration and Elections Code of Conduct Proclamation No. 1162/2019.
The former is aimed at curbing the historical tensions around hate speech and violence within the country, and the latter at protecting electoral processes from interference. However, both laws present a number of problems from a human rights perspective. They are loosely-defined in their scope, meaning that authorities could interpret them as giving them power to restrict a wide range of speech. They also carry penalties which are potentially disproportionate in their severity, and may result in a chilling effect on freedom of expression.
We assess these laws in more detail below along with two examples of how the Hate Speech and Disinformation Proclamation is being applied in practice to the detriment of freedom of expression.
No. Article 5 broadly criminalises the dissemination of disinformation and Article 2 provides a vague definition of disinformation. It is defined as “speech that is false, is disseminated by a person who knew or should reasonably have known the falsity of the information and is highly likely to cause a public disturbance, riot, violence or conflict”. From this, it is not clear how to determine whether speech is “false” or what is “highly likely to cause a public disturbance, riot, violence or conflict”.
Yes. Speech should only be restricted where some clear, objective harm might be caused. Here, there is a clear objective of preventing violence and upholding public order, which has been recurrent in Ethiopia. Nevertheless,greater clarity over what constitutes a “disturbance” or “conflict” would still be helpful.
Yes. Article 6 provides that “speech will not be considered as disinformation” if “a reasonable effort has been made under the circumstances by the person making the speech to ensure the veracity of the speech”. Moreover, Article 2 defines disinformation as speech that is false and is disseminated “by a person who knew or should reasonably have known the falsity of the information”.
No. Article 7.3 creates a criminal offence of disseminating “disinformation on public meeting by means of broadcasting, print or social media using text, image, audio or video”. This would be determined by a court. However, in parallel, the law also imposes obligations on social media service providers. Article 8.1 requires social media service providers to “endeavor to suppress and prevent the dissemination of disinformation” on their platforms, and Article 8.2 requires them to act within twenty four hours to remove disinformation on their platforms upon receiving notification about its existence. This places the emphasis on social media service providers to determine which content is disinformation.
Potentially. Article 7 provides that disseminating disinformation via broadcasting, print or social media will result in imprisonment for up to one year or a fine of up to 50,000 birr. Disinformation disseminated using social media by an individual with more than 5,000 followers or through a broadcast service or print media will result in imprisonment for up to three years or a fine of up to 100,000 birr. Disinformation leading to violence or a public disturbance will result in rigorous imprisonment for up to five years.
If the maximum penalties are imposed without taking into account the circumstances of the offence, then sanctions may be disproportionate. This is particularly relevant for instances where no harm actually occurs. Imprisonment for a year is particularly disproportionate for “disinformation in and of itself” when no harm is caused.
Yes. Article 8.1 requires social media service providers to “endeavor to suppress and prevent the dissemination of disinformation” on their platforms, and Article 8.2 requires that they “act within twenty four hours to remove or take out of circulation disinformation or hate speech upon receiving notifications about such communication or post”. Failure to do so may lead to civil liability.
It is also worth noting that Article 8.4 requires the Ethiopian Broadcast Authority to prepare a report about social media enterprises and whether they have discharged their duties properly, and Article 8.7 provides the Council of Ministers with the power to issue further regulations setting out the detailed responsibility of social media service providers.
No. Article 157(3)(b) of the proclamation prohibits any person from distributing, or attempting to distribute, false information which incites hatred or fear or affects the election result “with the intention of disrupting or interrupting the election or exerting undue influence on the election process or the result outcome”. It is not clear how to determine whether the information is “false” or what type of behaviour would constitute “exerting undue influence on the election process”. Article 157(3)(b) thus fails to provide clear guidance for individuals and could give 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 harm might be caused. This law, and Article 157 in particular, is clearly aimed at protecting electoral processes from interference, which would constitute a legitimate aim. However, the broad scope of the provision makes it likely that restrictions could be pursued for aims outside of those considered legitimate under international human rights law.
Potentially. Article 157(3)(b) requires that the offence be committed with the intention of disrupting the electoral process or exerting undue influence on the election process or the result outcome, which implies an intention to deceive.
Yes. Determinations will be decided by a court.
Potentially. Violation of Art 157(3)(b) may result in a fine of Birr 30,000 to Birr 50,000 (USD 590 to 980) or simple imprisonment of not less than six months or not exceeding one year. These sanctions would be disproportionate if the maximum penalties are imposed without taking into account the circumstances of the offence. This is particularly true for instances where no harm occurred.
N/A.
Bekalu Alamrew, an Ethiopian journalist with YouTube broadcaster Awlo Media Center, was arrested on November 4, 2020 for disseminating false news. The action relates to an unspecified media report that was produced by the journalist which alleged that the federal government and national army were directly involved in the killing of 200 ethnic Amharas. He was granted bail and released after being detained for over two weeks.
Potentially. Awlo Media Center claimed that at the time of the arrest, the officers did not produce a warrant and refused to answer questions about why they were taking the journalist into custody. The Office of the Federal Attorney General later claimed that Alamrew had been arrested on suspicion of contravening the Hate Speech and Disinformation Prevention and Suppression Proclamation, but did not provide the specific section of the law the journalist had contravened.
No. Restricting speech may be legitimate if made in the pursuit of a legitimate aim, including for respect of the rights or reputations of others, for the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals. Here, the vague reasons given by authorities for Bekalu’s arrest, and his detention without formal charges, indicate that the action was not related to concerns about public safety or security but instead was a clear case of journalist harassment.
No. In the absence of a legitimate aim, no action would be necessary or proportionate.
Ethiopian journalist Dawit Kebede, managing editor of the online news outlet Awramba Times, was arrested on 30 November 2020, on accusations of disseminating false news, inciting violence, and attempting to violate the constitution. Whilst no specific publication was cited, it is believed that this action was in relation to his commentaries on the conflict between the Ethiopian federal government and forces in Tigray region, and his criticism of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed and his party. Kebede was kept in custody without formal charge for over 3 weeks, and was shot and killed in suspicious circumstances in January 2021.
Unclear. Police alleged that Dawit had disseminated false information, which is prohibited in the Hate Speech and Disinformation Prevention and Suppression Proclamation. However, sources did not cite particular legal grounds for his arrest and detention, and no charges were formally made.
No. Restricting speech may be legitimate if made in the pursuit of a legitimate aim, including for respect of the rights or reputations of others, for the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals. There is no evidence that Dawit’s reporting had posed any objective public harm, and his detention without formal charges for a considerable amount of time indicates a clear case of journalist harassment.
No. This action was made in pursuance of an illegitimate aim and therefore both unnecessary and disproportionate.
Journalist Yayesew Shimelis was arrested and charged in April 2020 for allegedly violating the Hate Speech and Disinformation Prevention and Suppression Proclamation by disseminating disinformation. The disinformation in question relates to a Facebook post that suggested the government had prepared 200,000 burial places in response to COVID-19.
Yes. The arrest and charges were made under Articles 5 and 7.4 of the Hate Speech and Disinformation Prevention and Suppression Proclamation. The journalist was sentenced for deliberately and recklessly disseminating false information without an attempt to verify the authenticity of the information and without taking into consideration the prevailing circumstances. He was also charged with violating Article 74, which applies for disinformation offences where the individual has a social account with over 5,000 followers or when committed through a broadcast service or print media.
No. Restricting speech may be legitimate if made in the pursuance of public health, public order, or to protect the rights of others. Here, the action appears directed at tackling legitimate aims relating to public health (COVID-19) and public order. The post also contained an objectively false statement and was sent to over 100,000 followers.
However, even if objectively false, the circumstances do not suggest an intention to cause harm or that the post in question would cause further harm if not removed. As such, the action cannot be said to tackle an objectively legitimate aim.
No. This action was not made in pursuance of a legitimate aim and appears to be a clear case of journalist harassment. There does not appear to be an intention to cause violence or undermine the government’s effort to address the pandemic and the journalist in question was held by the police for three weeks before any charges were brought.
Furthermore, without a legitimate aim, any response would be disproportionate, even if the journalist were to receive a minor penalty upon conviction.