Digital Bans, Surveillance and Human Rights in African Democracies

Author: Damilola Bello

October 30, 2025

[Image credit: Photo-Love / ECFR]

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to examine how digital repression by selected African democracies across East, West, North, and South Africa violates the human rights of the African populace. The study uses ideology and ideological state apparatuses as its framework. The scope has been narrowed down to how digital repression in Africa is often weaponized for unlawful control. In Africa, digital bans have often been used by governments to curb uprisings and psychologically condition the minds of Africans to normalize perpetual oppression. The inhibition of the spread of ideas through increasingly surveilled online platforms has far-reaching consequences not just for these countries, but globally.

In an evolving world, digital technologies have become definitive to democracy, having decentralized political authorities by providing citizens a means for expression. This is especially true in Africa, where  the internet provides a platform for public accountability through activism, advocacy, campaigns, etc. This form of self-expression through digital technologies is valuable for citizens in emerging democracies where traditional media is often state-controlled. Unfortunately, across Africa, governments are using digital bans to silence alternative opinions and maintain political authority through coercion. This situation is proof of what Louis Althusser (1970) theorized in his book Ideology and Ideological State Apparatus. He proposed that ideological and repressive state apparatuses are tools by which the state reproduces its dominance not only through force (repressive state apparatuses such as the military and the judiciary) but also through deliberate psychological conditioning using social institutions and technologies (ideological state apparatuses such as the media, schools, religion, and other social institutions). Thus, it is obvious that the recurring tendencies of African governments to appeal to the legitimacy of their political authority in order to suppress citizens’ genuine opinions are gross violations of the fundamental rights of the African populace. When digital expressions are criminalized, citizens are not only physically violated, but also psychologically conditioned to self-censor, which leads to an unending cycle of internalized oppression and eventually social silence.

Theoretical Framework: Ideology, Oppression and Digital Control

Louis Althusser, the French Marxist philosopher, examined how the state maintains political authority in his 1970 essay, “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses”. He asserted that the power of the state is not only maintained through the military, but also through shrewd ideological conditionings.

When we talk about these in light of digital governance in African democracies, these concepts become especially relevant. Phenomena such as internet bans, mass surveillance by the government, the arrest of online protesters, and the passage of government-serving cybercrime laws serve as examples of repressive state apparatuses because they make the citizens fearful by threatening them through forceful consequences. Meanwhile, state-controlled media and education systems function as ideological apparatuses that portray expressions of dissent (such as online protests) as dangerous or unpatriotic. As a consequence, citizens resist alternative narratives.

This dual strategy results in a generalized and comprehensive cycle of oppression. Africans are not only punished for speaking out but are also being subconsciously programmed to believe that silence is safety. As it is, the use of digital repression is becoming increasingly normalized on the continent, and we are approaching a reality in which freedom of expression is reduced to a privilege rather than a fundamental right. In many cases, people do not perceive their rights as violated because the ideological narrative has framed digital control as necessary for “national security,” or “social stability.” In other situations, people choose to keep quiet online to protect their lives from the unrepentant elites.

Case Studies: Internet Bans and Rights Violations in Africa

A. West Africa: Nigeria & Ghana

For many Nigerians, digital bans became very obvious during the 2020 #EndSARS protests. In response to the ubiquitous youth-led demonstrations in Nigeria against police brutality, the Nigerian government not only severely harassed and injured the people to silence them, but also banned Twitter after it was used to coordinate the protests and to criticize Nigerian politicians. The ban of Twitter violated Nigerians’ right to freedom of expression and also deliberately disrupted the flow of public information. Surveillance technologies, including spyware acquired from foreign companies by the Nigerian government, have also been used to monitor unsuspecting activists and journalists. Unfortunately, the judiciary, which is required to check and balance executive power to maintain the rule of law, is a part of the cycle of oppression. The judiciary, acting as a repressive state apparatus, has legitimized absolute unfairness through court orders against media houses. The result? Citizens, especially the youth, are gradually conditioned to stay away from digital activism so as to avoid unlawful arrest, reinforcing a culture of silence in Nigeria.

Compared to Nigeria, Ghana has maintained a freer digital environment, but still, concerns have risen about the use of surveillance on the citizens’ digital activities. Another point of concern is the strategic cybersecurity laws implemented in 2020 that could be used against citizens with differing opinions from the government. For instance, during the 2020 general elections in Ghana, opposition figures accused the Ghanaian government of monitoring their digital communications, and there were no refutations that were backed by the constitution from the government.

B. East Africa: Ethiopia & Tanzania

In Ethiopia, the government has shut down the internet several times during times of political instability, particularly during the Tigray conflict. These digital bans often occur at the same time as military violence or electoral manipulation, often revealing the government's intention to control the flow of information. By cutting off communication, the state reinforces its repressive control and signals that information sharing itself is a threat to the life of the citizens. The psychological effect is one of isolation and disempowerment, especially in rural regions where digital access is already limited.

Tanzania uses more regulatory control and legal punishment to restrict digital spaces. Under the leadership of President John Magufuli, bloggers and online content creators were required to pay high taxes, thereby reducing citizen journalism and enabling control of public narratives. As a result, citizens who criticized the government online were often arrested and prosecuted by the judiciary, who continued to be accomplices in censorship. These kinds of measures provide an example of Althusser’s ideological apparatus in action, where law, media, public education, religious, and other social institutions mold an obedient populace by framing alternative opinions as deviant.

C. North Africa: Egypt & Morocco

Egypt has become one of the most surveilled states on the continent of Africa. Since the 2011 Arab Spring, the Egyptian government continues to monitor digital activities in the country, often arresting thousands of activists, journalists, and even normal citizens for social media posts deemed “anti-state”. Advanced surveillance technologies, including facial recognition and internet monitoring tools, have been used on several occasions to track the digital activities of citizens. On the other hand, the judiciary arm of government often categorizes these supposed violations under broad anti-terrorism laws, thereby making it easier to unfairly judge the victims.

In Morocco, the discovery of Pegasus spyware usage has exposed the extent to which journalists and human rights defenders in the country are being monitored. While the government denies these allegations, reports by Amnesty International and Citizen Lab show that the people who were criticizing the government were being monitored.

D. Southern Africa: Zimbabwe & Malawi

Zimbabwe has a history of digital bans, especially during politically sensitive moments, such as post-election protests in 2019. The state often justifies these bans with reasons such as public safety, but the timing reveals a strategy to curb resistance and delay mobilization. When we place this timeline in tandem with arrests of activists and strategic agenda-setting from state media, a pattern revealing the use of both repressive and ideological tools is immediately recognized.

In Malawi, while digital freedom is relatively stronger, the recent enactment of cybercrime and e-transaction laws has raised concerns. Activists warn that vaguely-worded clauses about “offensive communication” could be used to prosecute dissent. The judiciary’s role in interpreting such laws will determine whether Malawi moves toward openness or repression. If used ideologically, these laws may slowly normalize the idea that online dissent is unacceptable, thereby subtly changing the public perception of what is lawful or ethical digital behavior.

This regional breakdown reveals that despite different political histories, the use of internet bans across Africa is often systematic rather than incidental. These strategies serve not only to disrupt information but also to condition citizens through fear, thus fulfilling both repressive and ideological functions as outlined by Althusser.

Psychological Consequences

Beyond the impacts of digital bans on the structure of a country as well as its administration, there are also psychological consequences. The restriction of free speech, the anchor of democracy,  affects the way people think and act long term, even extending beyond the duration of the bans. When the people of these African countries witness the arrest and severe punishment of others for expressing opinions that are opposing the government online, they begin to connect digital expression with danger. This results in self-censorship, not necessarily because the people are happy with how they are being governed, but because fear becomes a survival mechanism. Thus, they come to associate staying silent with keeping their lives. Subsequently, this forced silence across multiple countries leads to a series of echo chambers on an international level, and the status quo remains unchallenged. This leads to a cycle where each generation becomes more and more comfortable with repression and less likely to demand reform.

Policy Recommendations

To address the repression of human rights through digital bans and break the cycle of silence in African democracies, multi-level policy reforms must be adopted. The aim of these recommendations is to strengthen protections for internet freedom and ensure accountability in governance in order to foster a society that is rooted in human dignity and lawful governance.

1. Amend Digital Rights in National Constitutions and Laws

African governments must recognize access to the internet and digital expression as fundamental rights in their constitutions. In addition, laws criminalizing unclear offenses such as “offensive communication” or “cyberharassment” must be reviewed and amended to comply with the principles of proportionality under international human rights law.

2. Strengthen Regional Legal Instruments and Enforcement

The African Union, Economic community of West African States and Southern African Development Community must make progress by moving beyond declarations and develop regional frameworks to protect digital rights and ensure that it is being enforced. This includes creating a digital rights charter for the continent that would be modeled on the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation or Freedom Online Coalition guidelines, with mechanisms that will ensure compliance for member states.

3. Support Digital Literacy and Civic Education

To counter ideological control and minimize the culture of silence, civil society organizations should lead activities directed at teaching and training citizens on digital literacy and human rights education. Youth programs in schools and universities should emphasize digital responsibility, safe activism, and critical media analysis to empower the next generation of digital citizens.

4. Protect Journalists and Activists

Special legal protections and support mechanisms should be introduced and enforced for journalists and human rights defenders in cognizance of their digital activities. This includes legal help and secure digital communication platforms backed by state or civil society resources.

By implementing these policies, African democracies can begin to experience a digital environment that protects expression and challenges authoritarian tendencies thereby nurturing the public trust. These reforms must be driven by citizen engagement and regional cooperation to get optimum results.

Conclusion

The digital space that was meant to be used as a platform for citizen journalism and democratic participation is increasingly being transformed into a tool of control across Africa. Through internet shutdowns, surveillance, and the criminalization of online dissent, authoritarian governments are using both repressive and ideological state apparatuses to reshape public perception in order to maintain power. These actions not only violate international legal obligations under instruments like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights  and International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights, but also erode the psychological foundation upon which self-agency and democratic consciousness are built.

As shown through case studies from Nigeria to Ghana, from Egypt to Morocco, digital repression in Africa is not a momentary or sporadic event. Based on facts and evidence, these digital bans are strategic and psychologically corrosive. Citizens are not only punished for speaking; they are taught, over time, through the pattern of repression to silence themselves, even subconsciously. This internalized censorship is perhaps the most dangerous form of repression, as it kills political imagination before it is even born. However, with intentional policy reforms and regional cooperation, African states can reclaim the internet as a tool for empowerment rather than oppression.

---

Glossary

• Activism / Digital Activism – Actions taken to bring about political or social change, especially using digital tools like social media.

• Authoritarianism – A system of governance characterized by strong central power and limited political freedoms.

• Civic Education – Teaching people about their rights, roles, and responsibilities in a democratic society.

• Cybercrime Laws – Laws created to regulate online activities.

• Digital Ban / Internet Shutdown – The deliberate cutting off of internet services by governments, often during protests or political crises.

• Digital Literacy – The ability to understand, use, and critically analyze digital platforms and messages effectively.

• Digital Repression – The use of state power to control or restrict digital expression and freedoms.

• Echo Chamber – A situation where ideas are reinforced within a closed system, almost making alternative viewpoints impossible.

• Ideological State Apparatus (ISA) – A concept by Louis Althusser referring to institutions like schools, media, and religion used by the state to subtly shape people's beliefs to maintain the status quo.

• Ideology – A system of ideas used to justify socio-political and economic power structures.

• Judiciary – The branch of government that is responsible for interpreting the law and administering justice.

• Mass Surveillance – The large-scale monitoring of people’s digital activities, often using advanced technologies like spyware or facial recognition.

• Psychological Conditioning – A process where repeated experiences or narratives gradually change how people think or behave, often leading to self-censorship.

• Repressive State Apparatus (RSA) – Another Althusserian concept referring to institutions like the police, military, or judiciary that use coercion to maintain state power.

• Self-Censorship – When people choose to avoid expressing their opinions due to fear of punishment.

• Surveillance Technologies – Tools used by governments or institutions to monitor individuals’ online and offline activities, e.g., spyware, facial recognition software