On January 22, the National Communication Authority (NCA) of South Sudan issued a directive to block all social media platforms nationwide, effective immediately.
Signed by the Director General, Napoleon Adok Gai, the directive cites Sections 9(g)(f) and 34(6) of the National Communication Act, 2012, as its legal foundation. The order, which is set to last for a minimum of 30 days and up to 90 days, is justified on grounds of public safety, mental health concerns, and the circulation of violent content, particularly about South Sudanese refugees in Wad Medani, Sudan.
This unprecedented decision has sparked widespread condemnation from the citizens, the civil society, and human rights organizations. Critics argue that the directive is a disproportionate and unjustifiable restriction on the fundamental freedoms, undermining constitutional protections and the democratic principles in South Sudan.
The directive stands in violation of South Sudan’s Transitional Constitution, 2011 (as amended), which guarantees the freedom of expression and access to information under Article 24(1). While the NCA references provisions of the National Communication Act, 2012, these must comply with the Constitution, which holds supremacy over national laws.
Under the international human rights law, restrictions on fundamental freedoms must adhere to the principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality. The NCA directive lacks sufficient evidence or rationale to meet these criteria, rendering it arbitrary and excessive.
Key Concerns with the NCA Directive
1. Weak Justification
The directive claims that blocking social media is necessary to address “extreme violence” depicted online and mitigates its impact on public safety and mental health. However, it fails to provide specific evidence or a clear explanation of how such a measure would achieve these goals. This ambiguity raises questions about the true intent behind the decision and undermines its credibility.
2. Disproportionate Measure
The blanket blocking of all social media platforms for up to 90 days is an extreme and overly broad action that disproportionately infringes on the rights of millions of South Sudanese. A more balanced approach, such as targeted removal of harmful content, would be effective without violating the constitutional freedoms.
3. Negative Societal Impact
Social media is a vital tool in South Sudan for communication, education, advocacy, and humanitarian coordination. Its blockage disrupts the efforts of civil society organizations, silences the marginalized voices, and prevents the dissemination of critical information. Furthermore, the absence of reliable communication channels could create an information vacuum, fueling the spread of rumors and misinformation.
4. Lack of Oversight and Accountability
The directive appears to have been issued unilaterally, without consultation with key stakeholders, including civil society groups, legal experts, or representatives of digital platforms. This lack of transparency and stakeholder engagement undermines democratic governance and raises concerns about the unchecked power of regulatory bodies.
Analysis of the NCA Letter
The NCA letter reveals several problematic aspects:
1. Legal Basis Cited
The directive references Sections 9(g)(f) and 34(6) of the National Communication Act, 2012, which relate to public safety and national security. However, these provisions do not explicitly authorize such a sweeping restriction. The invocation of these laws in a broad and indiscriminate manner conflicts with the Constitution’s guarantees of the freedom of expression and access to information.
2. Insufficient Evidence
While the letter references violent content related to the suffering of South Sudanese refugees, it does not provide concrete evidence linking social media usage to public harm. Social media often plays a crucial role in raising awareness and advocating for vulnerable populations, making its blanket restriction counterproductive.
3. Indefinite and Arbitrary Timeline
The directive mandates a minimum blockage of 30 days, extendable to 90 days. This arbitrary timeframe exacerbates the restriction’s impact on citizens’ rights, creating uncertainty and eroding public trust in government actions.
4. Public Interest vs. State Control
Although the directive claims to aim at creating a “safe digital environment,” its implementation suggests an effort to suppress public discourse rather than genuinely address public safety or mental health concerns. The absence of clear evaluation criteria or oversight mechanisms further undermines its legitimacy.
Recommendations
To address the legal, societal, and governance issues raised by this directive, the following actions are recommended:
1. Immediate Lifting of the Social Media Blockage:
The government should revoke the directive and restore access to social media platforms to uphold the constitutional rights and foster public trust.
2. Targeted and Proportionate Measures:
NCA should adopt targeted measures to address specific harmful content, such as enhanced monitoring and collaboration with digital platforms, rather than imposing blanket restrictions.
3. Stakeholder Engagement:
Future decisions on digital regulation must involve consultations with civil society organizations, legal experts, and other stakeholders to ensure inclusivity, accountability, and adherence to the democratic principles.
4. Strengthening Legal and Constitutional Safeguards:
South Sudan must reinforce constitutional and legal protections to prevent regulatory bodies from overstepping their authority and infringing on the citizens’ fundamental rights.
Conclusion
The NCA’s directive represents a significant threat to the freedom of expression and access to information in South Sudan. While the stated rationale emphasizes public safety and mental health, the lack of transparency, evidence, and proportionality undermines its legitimacy and raises concerns about its true intent.
In a fragile democracy, safeguarding the constitutional freedoms is essential to fostering trust, unity, and sustainable development. The government must prioritize protecting the rights of its citizens and adopt balanced approaches to address public safety concerns without compromising democratic principles.
The writer, Malual Bol Kiir The writer is a peacebuilder and a crusader for a better South Sudan (malualbk2005@gmail.com)
The views expressed in ‘opinion’ articles published by Radio Tamazuj are solely those of the writer. The veracity of any claims made is the responsibility of the author, not Radio Tamazuj.