General News
Group Backs Constitutional Challenge against X Restriction in Tanzania
Paradigm Initiative (PIN) has thrown its support behind an ongoing constitutional case before the High Court of Tanzania challenging restrictions on access to X, formerly known as Twitter, in the East African country.
A determination on the matter is expected on May 22, 2026.
The case was filed in 2025 by Tanzanian lawyers, Tito Elia Magoti and Kumbusho Dawson Kagine, as a public interest constitutional challenge against the Minister for Communications and Information Technology, the Tanzania Communications Regulatory Authority (TCRA), and the Attorney General.
The applicants are seeking judicial intervention on the constitutionality of actions restricting access to digital platforms under the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania and the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act.
The dispute stems from restrictions imposed on May 20, 2025, which have rendered X inaccessible to users in Tanzania except through the use of Virtual Private Networks (VPNs).
The applicants argued that the restriction violates constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 18, 20 and 29, including freedom of expression, access to information and freedom of assembly.
They further contended that the measures were blanket in nature, disproportionate in impact and introduced without public consultation or clear legal justification.
According to court filings, the restriction has disrupted access to public health information, affected digital and media-related livelihoods, constrained journalistic activities and undermined civic participation.
The applicants also noted that forcing citizens to rely on VPNs imposes additional financial and potential legal burdens while fragmenting communication within the country.
Supporting the suit, PIN said restrictions of such nature undermine constitutional guarantees and risk establishing disproportionate state control over digital spaces.
Executive Director of PIN, Gbenga Sesan, said the case raises critical questions about the limits of state power in regulating digital platforms.
“Where restrictions are imposed, they must meet constitutional thresholds of legality, necessity and proportionality.
“Blanket disruptions of access to widely used platforms threaten not only freedom of expression but also the broader ecosystem of civic participation and access to information,” Sesan said.
In response, the respondents denied claims that the restriction on X in Tanzania constitutes a global concern.
They maintained that the action was lawful and necessary to ensure public safety, public health and public morals.
The respondents further argued that the owner of X had been given prior notice to comply with Tanzanian laws and procedures before the restriction was imposed.
They said access to the platform was restricted due to the owner’s alleged failure to comply with local regulatory requirements.
The case remains pending before the High Court of Tanzania, with observers saying its outcome could define constitutional boundaries for digital platform restrictions and shape digital rights jurisprudence across the region.
Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) has announced that it will begin enforcing statutory requirements on the contents of company business letters from August 1, 2026, warning that defaulting companies will face sanctions.
The commission disclosed this in a public notice signed by its management and posted on its X handle on Wednesday.
Recall that under the Companies and Allied Matters Act 2020, company business letters are required to clearly display key details, including the company’s registered name, registration number, directors’ present forenames or initials and surnames, any former forenames and surnames, and the nationality of every non-Nigerian director.
The requirement applies to all company business letters, including invoices, quotations, official correspondence and other business documents.
According to the CAC, the enforcement will cover the full application of Sections 304(1), 304(2) and 304(1)(c) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act 2020.
The commission said, “Commencing the 1st day of August 2026, the Commission shall enforce the full application of the requirements of sections 304(1) & (2) and (1)(c) of the Act with respect to company business letters with attendant sanctions for non-compliance.”
It reminded companies registered under the Act “to state in legible characters on its business letters, the present forename or initials and surname; any former forename and surname; and nationality of every non-Nigerian director as well as the company’s name and registration number.”
The commission urged affected companies to comply with the provisions before the enforcement date to avoid sanctions.
“The Commission remains committed to transparency, accountability and customer satisfaction as it strives to build a more resilient and responsive corporate regulatory environment,” the statement added.
Using Artificial intelligence (AI) for travel planning saves time and simplifies trip prep but poses significant data security risks, as almost 86 percent of users report privacy concerns, according to Kaspersky’s latest findings.
For instance, sharing sensitive details like your passport number or credit card can expose you to data breaches and identity theft.
Hackers can also use AI to imitate airlines or hotels to steal your money.
However, data security risks awareness is also high, which security experts call a good sign.
Kaspersky global research, revealed what drives active AI users to charge chatbots and AI-powered tools with the important responsibility of travel planning and how they estimate the security of such services.
The survey shows that the primary motivation for turning to AI in travel planning is to save time and simplify preparation, with 73 percent of users globally pointing out these benefits.
Other important advantages of AI in traveling, named by 65 percent of respondents, are the search for information about the main attractions in the chosen location and personalised recommendations tailored to individual preferences. Additionally, 63 percent leverage AI to find the most favourable offers, while 61 percent trust it to uncover information that would otherwise be hard to find.
In fact, nowadays with the help of AI, an individual travel itinerary, matching all the requests and budget of a particular traveller, can be created in just a few clicks.
However, information provided by chatbots always needs to be double checked.
There have already been several instances where tourists encountered issues because they trusted AI too much and did not conduct their own research for the trip.
What is more, not only the information, but even links provided by AI need to be checked, as there may be malicious and phishing links among them.
Before clicking on a link from an AI chatbot it is recommended to check it with a cybersecurity solution, such as Kaspersky Premium, empowered with phishing detection.
AI and security
Apart from setting a route and searching for information, AI in travel planning in many cases is also responsible for booking hotels and even tickets, which inevitably requires sharing personal data.
The Kaspersky global survey revealed that not all travellers are ready to entrust AI with their personal information.
Almost half (48%) of global respondents see security risks in AI usage and try not to share any sensitive data with it.
Together with those, 37% who do not have many security concerns about AI still try to be careful while working with it.
86% of those who use AI for travel planning think about data security while working with these tools. Only 14% of travellers are confident that sharing any data with AI is totally secure.
According to the survey, travellers in Spain, the United Kingdom, Indonesia, Malaysia, and South Africa express the greater concerns about AI-related risks, while those in China, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia in contrast display higher confidence in the security of AI systems.
“The survey highlights a noteworthy level of caution among travellers who use AI, which is a promising sign. A rational attitude is crucial for any type of online interactions, especially when we talk about personal data sharing. After all, your ‘private’ conversations with AI can still be exposed to cyber threats, or a favourable offer discovered by a chatbot may turn out to be nothing more than a scam.
This doesn’t mean you should abandon these digital tools altogether. Instead, stay mindful, avoid oversharing personal information, and think carefully while choosing which task you can assign to the AI. By doing so, AI-powered services can evolve into reliable assistants that help you tackle a wide range of challenges safely and effectively,” commented, Vladislav Tushkanov, Group Manager at Kaspersky AI Technology Research Center.
Justice Yellim Bogoro of the Federal High Court in Lagos has declared the N60 billion fine imposed by the Advertising Regulatory Council of Nigeria (ARCON) on Facebook Nigeria Operations Limited Illegal.
Justice Bogoro stated that ARCON regulator exceeded its legal authority and breached the company’s constitutional right to a fair hearing.
He, who made the declaration while delivering judgment in Suit marked, FHC/L/CS/2205/2024, declared ARCON’s Notice of Violation/Demand for Compliance dated 21 October 2024, unconstitutional, unlawful, null, and void, and barred the agency from taking further steps to enforce it.
The judge also held that ARCON lacked the statutory power to impose fines for alleged criminal violations under the Advertising Regulatory Council of Nigeria Act, 2022, without first obtaining a conviction from a court or other competent tribunal.
The dispute arose from ARCON’s claim that Facebook Nigeria displayed advertisements on Facebook and Instagram to Nigerian audiences without prior approval from the Advertising Standards Panel, contrary to provisions of the ARCON Act and the Nigerian Code of Advertising.
Following these alleged breaches, the regulator ordered the company to cease displaying the advertisements and imposed an N60 billion penalty.
Apparently dissatisfied with the development, Facebook Nigeria, through Mofesomo Tayo-Oyetibo (SAN), its lawyer, challenged the action, arguing that ARCON lacked the legal authority to determine criminal liability or impose punitive sanctions via an administrative notice without allowing the company to defend itself.
The company also argued that it does not own or operate Facebook or Instagram, claiming both platforms are owned and controlled by Meta Platforms Inc., a separate foreign entity.
But ARCON, represented by Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), contended that Facebook Nigeria acts as Meta’s operation in Nigeria and should therefore be held responsible for regulatory violations related to advertisements on the platforms.
The regulator further argued that the notice was simply a compliance directive, allowing the company the option to comply, pay the specified violation fee, or face prosecution.
However, Justice Bogoro dismissed the regulator’s arguments.
The judge stated that Facebook Nigeria is a distinct legal entity from Meta Platforms Inc. and that ARCON failed to present credible evidence showing that the Nigerian company owns, operates, or controls Facebook or Instagram.
The court maintained that the argument that Facebook Nigeria represents Meta’s interests in Nigeria was insufficient to establish liability for the alleged advertising infractions.
Regarding fair hearing, the court ruled that ARCON violated Section 36 of the Constitution by accusing the company of misconduct and imposing a N60 billion fine without first hearing its defence.
Justice Bogoro also held that Section 57(4) of the ARCON Act explicitly requires the regulator to provide a fair hearing before imposing any penalty.
The court further found that the alleged violations were criminal because Section 34 of the ARCON Act designates the unlawful exposure of advertisements as an offence.
The judge also held that, since the Act stated that punishment can only be imposed “upon conviction,” ARCON had no authority to impose the N60 billion fine through an administrative process.
He insisted that, regardless of what ARCON called it, the demand was a fine that could only be imposed by a court following proper judicial procedures.
As a result, the court invalidated the Notice of Violation/Demand for Compliance.
It declared ARCON lacked authority to impose fines for breaches of Sections 34(3), 54, or other criminal provisions of the ARCON Act.
Justice Bogoro also issued a perpetual injunction preventing ARCON, its officers, agents, and associates from enforcing the October 21, 2024 notice against Facebook Nigeria.
CAC to Sanction Companies with Incomplete Business Letters From August 1
BVN Enrollments Hit 69.55m- NIBSS
CBN Warns against Rejection of N100 Banknotes
Data Protection Industry Hits N16.3Bn in 3 Years- NDPC
NCC Seeks Cost-Based Pricing Framework for Ducts
NASENI Moves to Digitize CCB’s 5m Assets Declaration and Operations
Mobile Internet Gender Gap Widest in Africa – GSMA
Nigeria Launches FreeTV Nationwide
CANAL+ Partners Samsung to Pre-Load DStv Stream on New Samsung TVs In Nigeria, Other African Countries
Lebara Nigeria Launches Lebara Play, Africa’s First Telecom-Owned Micro-Drama Platform
News2 days agoNRC, Ponzi Scheme Collapses Resulting Loss of Billions of Naira
General News3 days agoIHS Nigeria, FCT-HSES Concludes Clean Cooking Energy Campaign “Project Breathe Clean Air” in Abuja
E-Business3 days agoKaspersky Transforms Threat Intelligence Reporting into an Interactive Content Hub
News3 days agoMicrosoft to Lay Off 4,800 Workers
Broadcasting3 days agoNELFUND Investigates 34 Universities Over Students’ Missing Tuition Refunds
Telecom3 days agoAirtel Africa Cuts Diesel Dependence by 9.1m Litres
Telecom3 days agoA New Blueprint – How Strategic Collaboration is Rewriting the Narrative on Youth Drug Abuse
News3 days agoAccess Bank, Fifth Chukker and UNICEF Renew Commitment to Expanding Educational Opportunities for Nigeria’s Most Vulnerable Children