Internet Shutdowns and Platform Regulation: An African Framework

The Problem: Shutdowns and Impunity

Across Africa, governments are increasingly resorting to internet and platform shutdowns to control online communication. Eight out of ten Africans have experienced internet shutdowns since 2015. These shutdowns, often deployed during election periods to ostensibly address misinformation and hate speech, have also occurred during peaceful demonstrations and national exams. Digital rights activists have rightly criticized this practice for shrinking civic spaces in Africa's authoritarian and fragile democracies, where 50% of countries are classified as "Not Free" and 43% as "Partly Free."

But a critical dimension often escapes the spotlight: the power asymmetry between African governments and digital platforms, which limits their bargaining power to demand accountability, and the stark inequality in content moderation in African markets.

In 2020, 87% of efforts to combat misinformation on Facebook were directed towards English content — despite only 9% of users being English speakers. In 2022, Twitter shut down its only office in Africa, laying off content moderation staff entirely.

This content moderation inequality exposes African users to the most toxic version of these platforms. Meta is currently facing a $2 billion lawsuit for its alleged role in fanning ethnic violence in the Ethiopian civil war, which resulted in over 600,000 deaths — making it the deadliest conflict of the 21st century. African governments are turning to internet shutdowns to fill the gap created by the absence of an effective regulatory strategy. Previous attempts at regulatory intervention have resulted in extreme restrictions, accelerating internet fragmentation across the continent.

Why Western Theories Fall Short

The Information Fiduciary Model

In the U.S., scholars like Jack Balkin and Jonathan Zittrain have advocated for an information fiduciary theory that imposes a fiduciary duty on digital platforms for users' benefit. This strategy could theoretically compel equitable resource allocation for content moderation in markets like Africa. However, it does not address state-initiated shutdowns or account for African states' uneven bargaining power, which limits their ability to demand transparency or enforce accountability. The theory has also faced criticism for its incompatibility with digital platforms' existing extractive business models.

The Brussels Effect

Another approach is to leverage Anu Bradford's Brussels Effect theory to transpose the EU's Digital Services Act (DSA) to African countries. The idea is that the EU's influence will restructure global compliance along the lines of EU law, setting a minimum global standard from which African countries can benefit.

However, simply transposing the DSA will not address market-specific challenges: the existing power disparity between Africa and EU regulators, Africa's shortage of technical expertise, and the need to maintain competitiveness of homegrown alternatives. There are also legitimate concerns that autocratic regimes could abuse the DSA's rigid framework to consolidate power while gaining international legitimacy.

The Proposal: An AU-Led Multi-Stakeholder Framework

Africa needs an effective strategy that not only balances the competing interests of users, platforms, and states, but also addresses what Larry Lessig calls "norms, markets, and architecture" — the extra-legal factors that shape law's real-world impact.

The proposal: African countries should leverage the African Union's multi-stakeholder participatory process to develop a balanced regulatory and enforcement framework that is grounded in human rights principles and contains enforceable transparency and accountability mechanisms. This framework must prevent undue censorship and internet fragmentation while restricting capricious internet shutdowns.

Specifically, this framework should introduce extra safeguards to mitigate against the risks of abuse by establishing a central independent body to address regulators' technical resource challenges while providing a unified process. It should address the nuances of the African market that imported frameworks consistently miss.

Why the AU Level Works

Enhanced bargaining power. Individual African countries lack the leverage to negotiate with global tech platforms. A unified continental approach changes the calculus entirely, creating a market of over 1.4 billion people that platforms cannot ignore.

Legitimacy and transparency. A multi-stakeholder process involving governments, civil society, academia, the private sector, and affected communities introduces greater legitimacy to the regulatory process. Transparency means that countries will be less inclined to take extreme measures like internet shutdowns.

Peer accountability. The soft accountability mechanism inherent in the multilateral process creates positive peer pressure — even for autocratic regimes. When regulatory processes are visible and participatory, it becomes harder to justify unilateral shutdowns.

Reduced fragmentation. A continental framework prevents the proliferation of incompatible national regulations that fragment the digital space and create compliance burdens that disproportionately harm smaller, homegrown platforms.

Building on Existing Foundations

This strategy aligns with the AU's vision for a digital single market and builds on existing continental policy frameworks: the Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information in Africa, and the Declaration on Internet Governance. These instruments provide the normative foundation; what is needed now is an enforceable accountability mechanism for social media platforms operating on the continent.

Platform regulation in Africa is complex, but this is a great place to start the conversation.

The path forward requires leadership from African institutions, input from African communities, and frameworks designed for African realities. Imported solutions have consistently fallen short. It is time for the continent to build its own.