Internet shutdowns during protests: African telecom operators face up to their responsibilities

When the streets become too dangerous, protest moves online. That is where telecom operators come in: they are the ones who decide, often under government pressure, whether a call goes through or a message reaches its recipient. In an op-ed published by Global Voices as part of a series on protest in democracies, the organisation Ranking Digital Rights examines how this power has been used in Africa, and how operators all too often escape their responsibilities.

The starting point is harsh. According to the #KeepItOn coalition, which tracks internet shutdowns worldwide, the African continent experienced about a hundred of them between 2016 and 2025. Arrests, curfews and network shutdowns have become common tools for stifling dissent, while young people, from Cape Town to Cairo, take to the streets for a better future.

On both sides of the Congo River

The op-ed takes the example of the two Congos. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the protests, internet shutdowns and violence that marked Joseph Kabila’s long presidency and his hold on power until 2019 have been widely documented. In the Republic of the Congo, connections were slowed during the 2026 presidential election, as during the 2021 one.

In both countries, these restrictions coincided with politically sensitive moments. The text also mentions a more serious case: according to Ranking Digital Rights, the operator MTN allegedly allowed the Directorate General of Presidential Security in Congo-Brazzaville, a service accused in the past of extrajudicial killings, to use its official messaging service to urge the population to share information about opponents. The organisation believes the operator may thereby have contributed to human rights violations.

A power of life and death

Operators invest heavily in the infrastructure they own and run. As access providers, they control the flow of information, and therefore the very possibility of communicating. A shutdown does not only affect activists: it stops people calling a hospital or the police, paying by mobile money, working, reaching their family. In countries where the phone is also the wallet, cutting the network also means cutting the economy. Journalists lose the means to file their stories, and rumours thrive in the enforced silence.

According to Ranking Digital Rights, several major operators, including Airtel, Tigo, MTN and Vodacom, have been involved in network shutdowns or in handing users’ personal data to governments, in Africa and the Middle East. The #KeepItOn coalition also cites the role of Safaricom and Zain in restricting connections during protests.

The problem of opacity

The op-ed points to a lack of transparency at several levels. Licensing and spectrum allocation agreements between operators and governments are rarely public. Ownership structures are often complex, making it hard to identify who decides and who is responsible. And some operators have documented relationships with political leaders, which blurs their independence.

MTN and Vodacom are members of the United Nations Global Compact, under which companies commit to respecting human rights and not becoming complicit in abuses. According to Ranking Digital Rights, both groups have nonetheless carried out shutdowns and shared information about their users, often at times of unrest. The organisation even sees a worrying trend: some operators are becoming less transparent at precisely the moment they should be more so.

Ranking Digital Rights regularly publishes a ranking that assesses major digital and telecom companies on their commitments and practices regarding freedom of expression and privacy: publication of government requests received, policy on shutdown orders, protection of customer data. This kind of public assessment, read by investors and journalists, is one of the few levers that push operators to explain their choices. Several groups now publish transparency reports, even if their content often remains limited.

Total shutdown, throttling, targeted blocking

Not all restrictions are alike. A total shutdown cuts a country or region off from all internet access, sometimes also from text messages and calls. Throttling, more discreet, reduces bandwidth to the point where videos and photos cannot be sent, which prevents a protest from being documented without officially cutting the network. Targeted blocking hits certain social networks or messaging apps, which users sometimes get around with specialised tools.

These restrictions carry a considerable economic cost. In countries where payments, trade, transport and part of work go through the phone, every day of shutdown means losses for businesses, traders and households. Several studies have put it at millions of dollars a day for the economies concerned, not counting the effect on the confidence of foreign investors, who hesitate to set up in a country where connectivity can disappear overnight.

The operators’ difficult position

The operators’ situation also needs to be understood. Their licence depends on the government, and refusing a shutdown order can lead to sanctions, the arrest of their local staff or the withdrawal of their licence to operate. Several of them publish transparency reports and say they insist on written, lawful orders. That is exactly what digital rights advocates are asking for: public procedures, written orders, information for customers, and systematic recourse to the courts when an order seems disproportionate.

Demanding accountability

Ranking Digital Rights defends a simple idea: holding companies to account is also a form of protest. Public research, campaigns and legal action can change practices. The organisation cites a civil suit brought in Norway against the operator Telenor over its alleged role in Myanmar after the military coup. For African operators, listed on stock exchanges and concerned about their reputation with investors, pressure from shareholders and market regulators can also carry weight.

The debate goes beyond operators. Governments invoke national security or the fight against disinformation to justify shutdowns. But studies of their economic cost, and court rulings in several countries against shutdowns deemed disproportionate, show that they often do more harm than good. As Africa’s economy goes digital, every shutdown costs more. And the question of who can flip the switch, and under what rules, is becoming a major democratic issue. African parliaments, judges and regulators will increasingly have to answer it, as citizens challenge these decisions in court, as has already happened in several countries on the continent.