Benin
Benin currently has no specific legislation to counter disinformation. However, two laws include strict restrictions on the dissemination of false information: Loi N° 2017-20 du 20 Avril 2018 portant code du numérique en République du Bénin and Loi N° 2015-07 du 20 Mars 2015 portant code de l’information et de la Communication en République du Benin.
These laws raise serious concerns from a human rights perspective. They are both ill-defined in their scope, meaning that authorities could interpret them as giving them power to restrict a wide range of speech, and Loi N° 2017-20 in particular allows for restrictions in pursuance of aims which would not be considered “legitimate” according to international human rights standards. Both laws 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 detail below. We also include three examples of how Loi N° 2017-20 is being enforced in practice.
No. Article 266 prohibits “the publication, distribution or reproduction, by any means whatsoever, of false news, fabricated, falsified or falsely attributed documents to third parties when, made in bad faith, it will have disturbed the public peace […] or is likely to undermine the discipline and morale of the armed forces”. 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 disturb the public peace or undermine the discipline and morale of the armed forces. Article 266 therefore does not 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. The aims pursued under Article 266 appear to be directed at protecting public order and national security, which are legitimate aims. However, there is a risk that illegitimate restrictions might be pursued under the ambiguous wording of “discipline and morale of the armed forces”, which could be interpreted in a broad sense to include illegitimate aims.
Potentially. Article 266 prohibits the dissemination of false news when done “in bad faith”, which implies the intention to deceive.
Yes. It will be decided by a court.
Potentially. Article 266 imposes a penalty of imprisonment of six months to three years and/or a fine of 500,000 to 2,000,000 CFA francs (USD 840 to 3,360). If the maximum prison and fine sentence were applied without considering the circumstances of the offence or the actual harm caused, these penalties would be disproportionate. The minimum penalties may also be disproportionately heavy in cases where no harm actually occurs. If made in pursuit of an illegitimate aim, any sanctions would be disproportionate.
N/A.
No. Article 550(3) broadly criminalises the dissemination of false information against a person. It is not clear how to determine whether information is “false” and the scope of what is considered to be information “against a person”. Article 550(3) 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 550(3) are unclear as there is no requirement for any intention to cause harm, or any particular harm to be caused. This is particularly troublesome as there is no indication that a legitimate aim is being pursued.
No. Article 550(3) does not specify that the act must be committed intentionally or with knowledge. It only specifies that the dissemination has to be “against a person”.
Yes. This is a criminal offence and will be decided by a court of law.
Potentially. Violation of Article 550(3) may result in a fine of 500,000 CFA to 1,00,000 CFA and between one to six months of imprisonment, or both. 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.
Casimir Kpedjo, the managing editor of the newspaper Nouvelle Economie, was arrested and charged with publishing false information in April 2020. These charges stem from articles shared by Casimir on Facebook which alleged that the government was nearly 725 million USD in debt and in breach of a 2019 finance law.
Yes. The editor was arrested and charged for violating Article 550(3) of the Loi N° 2017-20 du 20 Avril 2018 portant code du numérique en République du Bénin.
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 actions taken against the editor appear to be politically motivated and not directed towards an objectively legitimate aim.
No. These actions were not made in pursuance of a legitimate aim so any response would be unnecessary and disproportionate.
In January 2020, journalist Aristide Hounkpèvi was arrested at his home for allegedly publishing false news via social media. He had previously tweeted about the possibility that the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Benin might be appointed as ambassador to Paris. He was kept in custody for five days before being released for lack of evidence.
Yes; reports indicate that the action was taken under alleged violation of Article 550(3) of Loi N° 2017-20 du 20 Avril 2018 portant code du numérique en République du Bénin.
No. Restricting speech may be legitimate if made in the pursuance of public health, public order, or to protect the rights or reputations of others. There was no evidence that Hounkpèvi’s social media posts included false information or posed any real threat to individuals’ rights or public safety, and as such Hounkpèvi’s case was dismissed by the prosecutor. The action is a clear attempt to intimidate a journalist.
No. The action does not pursue a legitimate aim, therefore is neither necessary nor proportionate.
Beninese journalist Ignace Sossou was arrested and charged in December 2019 for “harassment by means of electronic communications”. This action stems from tweets the journalist made at a workshop on disinformation that both Sossou and the prosecutor attended in which the prosecutor made critical comments on Beninese laws. Sossou was eventually released in June 2020 after six months of detention.
Yes. Sossou was charged and convicted under Article 550(3) of the Loi N° 2017-20 du 20 Avril 2018 portant code du numérique en République du Bénin.
No. Restricting speech may be legitimate if made in the pursuance of public health, public order, or to protect the rights or reputations of others. Here, reports clearly indicate that the journalist was prosecuted due to the critical comments they shared online, which had no risk of causing any public harm. The actions were clearly targeted at silencing the journalist and would not constitute a legitimate aim.
No. The action was made in pursuance of an illegitimate aim and thus any response would be unnecessary and disproportionate.
Virgile Ahouansè, news director of internet radio station Crystal News, was arrested and detained for 48 hours in December 2022 in relation to an investigation he had published on alleged extrajudicial killings by Beninese police. He was charged with spreading false news aimed at disturbing the peace and sentenced in June 2023 by Benin’s Special Court for Economic Offences and Terrorism (CRIET) to a fine of 200,000 CFA francs and a year’s suspended prison sentence.
Unclear. Ahouansè was reportedly charged and sentenced with spreading false news in violation of Article 550 of the Loi N° 2017-20 du 20 Avril 2018 portant code du numérique en République du Bénin. However, this article provides for a penalty of only one to six months for the publication of false news (whereas longer prison sentences of up to two years are provided for harassment or causing emotional distress through electronic communications). The grounds on which Ahouansè was sentenced to one year in prison are therefore unclear.
No. Restricting speech may be legitimate if made in the pursuance of public health, public order, or to protect the rights or reputations of others. While a copy of Ahouansè’s report is not publicly available and so we cannot verify the truth of his reporting, it seems likely that the action was taken to silence public interest reporting that is critical of the police rather than in pursuit of a legitimate aim.
No. In the absence of a legitimate aim, no action would be considered necessary or proportionate.