Article Open University Law Journal 2013, Vol. 4, No. 1:100-114

eAccessibility for persons with disability in Tanzania: an assessment of policy and legal frameworks

Patricia Boshe

Abstract

This article assesses the role of policy and legislation in promoting

eAccessibility. The latter concerns the design and supply of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) products and services, with particular

regard to ensuring that they can be used by persons with disabilities and other vulnerable social groups. Using Tanzania as the main focus, the

present article highlights inherent features in the country’s policy and legal

framework typical in designing eExclusive legislations making persons with disability unable to use ICTs effectively. The article commences by providing

the understanding of the concept eAccessibility and its defined elements. It

then analyses legislation in effecting eAccesibility. The article also assesses compliance of Tanzanian legislation to eAccessibility obligations as imposed

by the Convention of the Right of Persons with Disability as adopted in August 25, 2006 by the 8th session of the UN Ad Hoc Committee, in New

York (CRPD). Finally, the article ends with a conclusion.

Key words: e-Accessibility, persons with disability, law,policies.

Introduction The use of ICTs to persons with disability not only allows them to communicate but

accommodate them in the mainstream of the community in so many ways1. It

improves their individual lives2 and allows them to participate in the global economy

Assistant Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Open University of Tanzania.

E-mail: patricia.boshe@out.ac.tz. 1 UN-DESA, From exclusion to equality: Realizing the rights of persons with disability: handbook

for parliamentarians on the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and its optional

protocol. Geneva: SRO-Kundig, 2007.

http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/training14en.pdf 2PUSTRAL-UGM, ‘Technology Assessment for Universal Service Obligation Practices in Asean

Member Countries: Background papers’, December 2007, Centre for Gadjah Mada University,

2007, p. 35. http://www.pustral-ugm.org/tau/download/final/Background%20Papers.pdf

eAccessibility for persons with disability in Tanzania

101

with the rest of the community.3 This makes access and usage of ICT a very

important aspect of inclusion of persons with disability to their communities.

Nevertheless, persons with disability continue to form part of the most disadvantaged

minority living in the margin of the society for inability to access public facilities

including telecommunication services which deprive them life’s fundamental

experiences’.4 This is considered as discrimination and an infringement of human

right to persons with disability as articles 2 and 3 of the Convention on the Rights of

Persons with Disability imposes an obligation to member states to take positive

measures in ensuring persons with disability are afforded with equal access to ICTs.

Based on an understanding that access and usage to ICTs is no longer a luxury rather,

like water and electricity is considered to be a necessity hence should be available for

all on equity basis.5

Understanding eAccessibility As hinted in the introduction, eAccessibility focuses on the designing and supplying

of ICT products which can allow equal access and usage of ICT services to

vulnerable groups in a community. This means production of ICT products should

focus on all possible vulnerable people in a community and ensure that products

designed not only focus on limited vulnerable group but to all of them. For example,

providers of ICTs may install telephone booth with braille keyboard for visual

impaired person, with a height of more than 120 centimetres from the floor. This

booth cannot pass the test of eAccessibility as persons in wheelchairs cannot access

and use it without the assistance of another person.6

At times providers may claim to have installed or supplied accessible ICT products

based on the above understanding while in actual fact the product is either “partially

accessible” or even “relatively inaccessible” to vulnerable social groups. In this

regards, ITU illustrates that if a product is created as accessible to vulnerable groups

but its functions make usage complicated or hard to a certain group or even all

groups of vulnerable person, then such product is considered as partially or relative

accessible but not fully accessible.7

3Ambrosi A, et al., Word Matters: multicultural perspectives on information societies, C & F

Editions, 2005. 4 UN-DESA (n 2) p.1. 5Malik, P., ‘Universal service obligation: To incumbents’ in Samarajiva, R and Zainudeen A

(Eds.)., ICT Infrastructure in Emerging Asia: Policy and Regulatory Roadblocks, SAGE

Publications, India, 2008. 6 In compliance with International standards; see ITU-D, Study Group 1-Question no 20/1, Access

to telecommunication services to people with disability, Geneva, 2010, p.18. 7Narasimham, N (ed)., e-Accessibility Policy Toolkit for Persons with Disabilities A Joint

ITU/G3ict Toolkit for Policy Makers Implementing the Convention on the Rights of Persons with

Disabilities, p. 3.

P. Boshe

102

eAccessibility is therefore conceived depending on different access and usage needs

based on diverse limitations facing vulnerable ICT users in a respective society.

Hence the conclusion of whether or not ICT product or services are accessible

depends on experiences of vulnerable population in accessing or use ICT products

and services.

It follows therefore that determining eAccessibility involves three aspects, first is

perception, which means the user is aware of the existence of the product or service

and is able to access its information. Second is understanding; this aspect requires

that the language used should be apprehensible in a way that the user can understand

the context and content of information used to allow him use the ICT product or

service fully. Meaning the language used must be known and easy to understand. The

third aspect is operating. This entails the user being able to reach the product or

service and be able to use it to interact with others and operate it without unnecessary

difficulties.8

Nevertheless, it is prudent to understand that an ICT product or service cannot be

regarded as inaccessible if access and usage is possible with minor adjustment or

configuration, or in conjunction with some assistive technology to overcome ones

limitation. This is based on impracticability of designing a product or offer services

that can be fully accessed or used by all in their original forms. Hence, if a product or

service is accessible and created or provided in a manner that a person with certain

limitations can easily adjust or use add-ons to suit his/her purpose and enable him/her

to interact, then such product or service is accessible. Inclusive accessibility to ICT

product and service does not require design or provision of services that are readily

usable to all, the products and services can also be compatible with assistive

technologies.

In this regards, the ITU designed e-Accessibility Policy Toolkit for Persons with

Disabilities9 providing for ways which may be used to maximize eAccessibility. The

toolkit suggests designs which allow wide range of users such as using large well-

spaced buttons instead of small crowded ones, giving clear instructions instead of

long-winded jargon and using good contrasts for text and graphics. Or designed to

allow users to adjust the products or services to suit their needs. The toolkit gives an

example of ATMs, websites, mobile phones and PC applications which can be

designed to allow choice of different text sizes and colour schemes to suit people

with different visual abilities.10

8 http://www.e-accessibilitytoolkit.org accessed 8 March 2013. 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid.

eAccessibility for persons with disability in Tanzania

103

Barriers to eAccessibility Barriers are obstacles. Yet, in the light of eAccessibility, barriers are obstacles that

make it difficult or even impossible for persons with disability to either access or

make use of ICT facility or service. In this aspect, there are considered to be two

main reasons leading to inaccessible ICTs including:-

Exclusive ICT products or services

The spirit of the Convention on the Right of Persons with Disability (CRPD) is to the

effect that the root cause of inaccessibility of ICT products and services is provision

of exclusive ICT products and services. Thereby urging state parties to ‘promote

design, development, production and distribution of accessible information and

communications technologies and systems which are accessible’. Article 9 of the

Convention further provides; ‘States Parties shall also take appropriate measures to

develop promulgate and monitor the implementation of minimum standards and

guidelines for the accessibility of facilities and services open or provided to the

public.’

The basis of the above provision is that, persons with disability require consideration

in terms of supportive technology such as the provision of text relays and other

translation bureau services if they are to have equitable access to ICTs.11

Without

this, access and usage may not be attainable regardless of whether ICT services are

readily available in a country or area. Eventually, persons with disability remain

excluded as ICT products or services are not universal designed or restricting the use

of add- on and other assistive technologies. As Oaxaca explains, that provision of

ICT products or services, should look beyond the conventional communication needs

and look at specific needs based on different groups in the society of persons with

and those without disability.12

Invisibility of people with disability in statistics

Persons with disabilities are often invisible in policies’ formulation process and

statistics. Even when they are visible, their visibility is limited to persons with

disability within medical meaning.13

The fact that has been researched as the main

11 Shipley, T., Universal service in telecommunications follow-up to the Oftel consultative

document of December 1995, 1996. 12 Oaxaca 1973, cited in Taeil K and Soogwan D., ‘Analysis of the Digital Divide between

Disabled and Non-Disabled People in South Korea’, The Asia Pacific Journal of Public

Administration, 2006, Vol 8, No. 2, pp. 231-261, p. 11. 13 Medical understanding of disability considers disability as a physical, mental, or psychological

condition that limits a person’s activities and is linked to various medical conditions and viewed as

a problem by the affected individual. An understanding which the international community has

P. Boshe

104

reasons for non inclusive policies hence exclusive ICT products and services.14

Consequently, even when the market is accommodative of person with disability, the

focus in supply of accessible ICT products or services and assistive technologies is

limited and fragmented.15

In Tanzania for instance, ICT penetration indicators within the National ICT Policy

of 2003 uses generalized statistics in determining ICT access and usage. The

statistics overlooked an important aspect, which is how well the users make use of

ICT or how well ICTs are accessible to minority groups in an area.16

As a result the

statistics will only give an idea of ICT penetration in area, but will not provide the

status of the accessibility among different groups in a community. The effect of this

approach is no true access or usage gap can be determined and no action to bridge the

existing access or usage gap will be taken by responsible actors.

Furthermore, even the prevalence of disability taken in Tanzania17

uses medical

understanding of disability instead of social understanding. Unlike medical

understanding, social understanding recognizes environmental and attitudinal barriers

faced by persons with disabilities. Acknowledging the fact that person with disability

can enjoy full and free participation only on removal of these barriers.18

The

traditional approach towards assessing ICT penetration and the use of limited

understanding of persons with disability, negatively affects persons with disability

who may be living within a well ICT penetrated community, nevertheless with no

access to ICTs due to improper infrastructure to address their limitation19

To truly and sufficiently address eAccessibility issues and formulate appropriate

legislation and policies to ensure eAccessibility, it is necessary to comprehend the

individual magnitude of the inaccessibility,20

and separate the cause of inaccessibility

between different social groups with reference to their limitations.21

Further, to have

policies and plans that bridge ICT access and usage gap truly and effective, the gap

between the digitally rich and digitally poor (or between the general public and

digitally vulnerable class) must be accurately estimated. This is because; the contents

come to as not sufficiently effective or empowering conceptual framework for promoting the full

inclusion of persons with disabilities in society. See Narasimham (n 7) p. 14. 14See Taeil and Soogwan(n12), p. 234 and Bridges.org, Spanning The Digital Divide.

Understanding And Tackling The Issues. Washington, DC: Bridges.org, 2001, p. 2. 15 Narasimham(n 8). 16 URT, The National ICT Policy, 2003, p. 6 17 See NBS, Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, and OCGS, Tanzania 2008 disability survey

report, 2012. 18 An understanding which has also been adopted by the Convention on the Persons with Disability. 19 Ambrosi, et al (n3). 20 See Taeil and Soogwan (n 12), p. 11. 21 Oaxaca:1973 in Taeil and Soogwan (n 12), p. 11.

eAccessibility for persons with disability in Tanzania

105

and levels of the policy can be appropriately prepared only when the contents and

levels of the ICT access and usage are estimated accurately.22

Unless governments or government departments determine a clear and proper

demography of disability and impairment, inaccessibility issues cannot properly be

addressed and dealt with. The use of general statistical data to cover persons with

disability cannot address access and usage issues facing persons with disability. It is

therefore necessary to develop a framework for assessing disability demographics

both in order to promote accessibility in the commercial and public sectors, and also

to determine the current impact of ICT barriers on persons with disability. As the

ITU pointed out, that, as long as those requiring accessible ICT remain uncounted or

invisible to policymakers and industry, country’s efforts and international

commitments towards ensuring ICT accessibility has no meaning.23

Legislative role in promoting eAccessibility

Implementing and adherence to eAccessibility requires legal backup rather than

personal initiatives. Reasons being providers may consider persons with disability as

‘uneconomical population’24

based on their additional needs in modifying or making

ICT facilities and services accessible and usable. This makes governmental

intervention necessary in devising mechanisms to ensure ICT facilities or services

are provided either free of charge, or at subsidized prices to persons with disability

hence the Universal Service Obligation.25

The latter obliges governments to ensure

that policies in place are properly strategized not only in consideration of countries

political, social and economic circumstances,26

but also the need of the intended

recipients of the services. This includes having in place proper framework; human as

well as financial resources to ensure policies are monitored and regulated to

sufficiently be implemented.

In this respect, the ITU27

considers legislation, public policy and organizational

policies as the preferred approach in setting accessibility standards and enforce

compliance by ICT providers. The accessibility standard provides for specific

product types, quantifying accessibility in measurable ways, by listing required

22 Taeil and Soogwan (n 12), p. 242. 23 Narasimham (n 7), p. 13. 24 Cremer, H et al., The Economics of Universal Service: Theory. The Economic Development

Institute of the World Bank, 1998; and Fulcher, J., Disabling Policies: a comparative approach to

education, Falmer Press: Philadelphia, 1989, p.28 25 ITU, Resolution 56 (Doha, 2006): Creation of a new Question in Study Group 1 regarding

access to telecommunication services for persons with disabilities, Cairo, Egypt, 2006, p.9. 26 Pau, L.F, Pau, ‘Enabling Mobile Communications for the Needy: An International Comparison

of Solutions and Impacts (With Focus on Europe),’ November 1, 2008, pp.5-6,

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1442828 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1442828. 27 Narasimham(n7).

P. Boshe

106

attributes, objective tests and pass/fail criteria.28

At international level for instance,

there are guidelines for web content specifying a measurable compliance criterion.

These guidelines bears agreed three levels of compliance (A, AA, AAA)29

. The said

standard enables a person to state objectively whether a given web page is accessible

to a recognized level, hence confirm whether a website complies with the set

accessible standard levels established.

The fact that legislative measures are the main foundation towards eAccessibility is

emphasized in the CRPD and under article 3, which forms part of the eight principles

of the CRPD. Accordingly, article 9 of CRDP obliges states to take measures to

ensure that persons with disability can participate in the information and

communication technologies and systems on an equal basis with others in terms of

access and usage.30

The said article states to ‘….identify and eliminate obstacles and

barriers to accessibility and to take appropriate measures to promote other

appropriate forms of assistance and support to persons with disabilities to ensure

their access to information.’

Article 21 of the CRPD gives a further push to the above obligation by calling for

freedom of expression and opinion. From the article freedom of expression and

opinion includes access to information, which includes communication and contents

in the context of ICTs, mass media and the Internet. This article imposes further

obligation to states to ensure persons with disability can exercise the right to freedom

of expression and opinion, including the freedom to seek, receive and impart

information and ideas on an equal basis with others and through all forms of

communication of their choice.

In fulfilling the above obligation, states are expected under Article 21 to ensure

provision of information intended for the general public to persons with disabilities

in accessible formats and technologies appropriate to different kinds of disabilities in

a timely manner and without additional cost by facilitating use and production to the

general public and by entities of accessible means, modes and formats of

communication of their choice by persons with disabilities in official interactions

including encouraging the mass media and providers of information through the

Internet, to make their services accessible to persons with disabilities.

28 Ibid. 29 Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0,

http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/ accessed 6 March 2013 30 Article 9 of the CRPD states: ‘to enable persons with disabilities to live independently and

participate fully in all aspects of life, States Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure to

persons with disabilities access, on an equal basis with others, to the physical environment, to

transportation, to information and communications, including information and communications

technologies and systems’.

eAccessibility for persons with disability in Tanzania

107

This obligation also extends to private entities charged with supply and provision of

ICTs to take accessibility into account when providing products and services (Article

9 and 21 CRPD). This means, the obligation imposed by CRPD to ensure

eAccessibility is both general and sector specific.31

It follows that for a member state

to comply with CRPD obligations, they are required to adopt laws, policies,

programmes and practices that lead to realization of eAccessibility.32

It means proper

legal framework and legislations obliging production, procurement and supply of

accessible ICT products and services is necessary. This includes putting in place an

independent regulator empowered to regulate the procurement or production, supply

and provision of accessible ICT products and services.

To determine whether the legal framework within a specific state, a member state to

CRPD is in compliance to CRPD in relation to eAccessibility, self assessment of

country legal framework is important. This can be done using the G3ict Accessibility

Self- Assessment Framework.33

The self assessment toolkit looks at country’s

political commitments to CRPD in relation to laws, policies programs and plans of

action that are relevant to the ICT provisions under analysis. The assessment also

looks at the formal status of the country’s government legal and policy regime in

relation to those ICT commitments.34

Some of the main aspects for assessment includes whether country’s laws provide for

a definition of accessibility parallel to that of the CRPD; and if a country has

formulated accessibility standards for ICTs, promotes and ensure provision of

accessible and inclusive ICT facilities and services. This extends to looking at

policies that promote researches and innovation of ICTs that are accommodative of

persons with disabilities. And if it considers such researches or innovations in it’s

budgeting. The role of the government in promoting and financing programmes for

delivering information on the use of ICT to persons with disabilities especially

children and their families is also an object of assessment.

The assessment looks further beyond substantive efforts and goes on to efforts in

implementation of substantive provision. In doing so, the assessment looks at

whether the country has put in place monitoring mechanism. The mechanism devised

to monitor compliance of public and private facilities and services and report the

same for action when required. A country is also to be assessed on its efforts to build

capacity towards eAccessibility. In this aspect, a country under assessment has to

demonstrate that it has capacity to implement ICT provisions under analysis,

including availability of digital/technological, financial and human resources

available. Other factors such as business, social, and cultural aspects that may limit

31 Narasimham(n7), p. 19. 32 Ibid, p. 20. 33 Ibid. 34 Ibid, p. 6.

P. Boshe

108

or expand implementation capacity are also assessed.35

This extends to development

and implementation of institutional measures to ensure legal and policy changes are

implemented in actual practice, and require an inventory of availability, accessibility

and quality of information and services that is readily available and accessible to

persons with disabilities.36

In affirming its compliance to eAccessibility, a country has to go back to its

commitment to the CRPD and mirror them with their respective policies against

actual implementation. This will not only affirm the extent of compliance, but also

allows a country in question to identify and focus on areas of non compliance and

any obstacle involved and make plans for compliance.37

Assessment of eAccessibility compliance

On the 30 March 2007 Tanzania signed the CRPD and eventually ratified it on the 10

November 2009. In 2010 Tanzania enacted the Person with Disability Act 2010.

Section 3 of this Act defines accessibility as enabling or allowing a person with

disability to have access directly or indirectly to benefits of public social services in

all spheres of society and it includes access to information, communication and

physical environment such as tactile and sign language, interpretation for deaf and

deaf blind persons, audio tapes, braille, large print, low vision facilities,

computerized information and programmes and making physical environment in

buildings, public transport, roads and streets accessible for persons with disabilities’

and Inclusion to mean, ‘means the process whereby people or society value and

respect diversity as part of life, hence minimize barriers in order to accommodate

persons with disabilities to participate in, and contribute to that society.

The Act has further established some basic principles that guide the right of persons

with disabilities to provision of services and goods. In the present context the

relevant principles include: accessibility, full and effective participation and

inclusion of persons with disabilities in all aspects in the society, non discrimination,

equality of opportunity, equality between men and women with disabilities and

recognition of their rights and needs.38

35Ibid, p. 13. 36Ibid. 37 As explained by Narasimham (n7) Self-assessment results and reports can be used to mobilize

concerned actors within States to work together to promote the CRPD agenda, especially if various

governmental agencies, disabled persons organizations (DPOs) and nongovernmental organizations

(NGOs) contribute to the assessment and reporting process. When working toward improved

compliance with treaty provisions, concerned organizations should be involved in investigating and

monitoring domestic situations. Self-assessment may facilitate advocacy and needed improvement

on many levels by encouraging cooperation among concerned actors within States. 38 Person with Disability Act, s. 4 (b)-(f).

eAccessibility for persons with disability in Tanzania

109

The Act further empowers minister responsible to take necessary steps to promote

researches in relation to disabilities, development, availability and use of universally

designed goods, services, equipment and facilities. This aims at meeting specific

needs of persons with disabilities which should require the minimum possible

adaptation and the least cost to meet the specific needs of persons with a disability.

The minister is also to take steps to promote universal design and the development of

standards and guidelines to new technologies, including information and

communication technologies, technical aids, devices, assistive technologies suitable

for persons with disabilities.39

Minister’s responsibility extends to promoting training

of professionals and staff who are working with persons with disabilities on their

rights, so as to provide better assistance and services guaranteed by those rights

(Section 5 (1) (a-g)).

Further obligation is imposed upon the National Advisory Council for Persons with

disabilities who have been entrusted to advice the government on provision of

assistive devices, appliances and other equipment to persons with disabilities;

provision of tax exemptions to importers of appliances and other equipment for use

of persons with disabilities (Section 12 (1) (2) (g-h)).

Apart from the above obligations, the Act also obliges responsible Minister to work

with the Council to prepare standards and guidelines on accessibility by persons with

disabilities. Together they are also to set up a monitoring and enforcement

mechanism, to ensure compliance with the prescribed standards and guidelines on

accessibility requirements for persons with disabilities throughout the country

(Section 49 (1) (4)). Basically the Persons with Disability Act have incorporated

major requirements of articles 9, 21, 24, 27 and 32 of the CRPD in relation to

eAccessibility. The provision which focus on eAccessibility with ultimate goal of

accommodating persons with disability to their respective societies.

Further to Persons with Disability Act, the government of Tanzania enacted

communication sector specific legislations in 200640

and 2010.41

The Acts entail

what is seen as an attempt to implement accessibility principles reiterated in the

CRPD and the Persons with Disability Act of 2010. Prior to the enactments however,

Tanzania had adopted the ICT Policy in 2003 containing statements geared at

Universal Access on ICTs. The Policy under objective 3.1.4 and 3.2.2 require the

government to develop and promote access and utilization of ICTs by all users in the

national networks, and investigate challenges brought by development in ICTs

39 In this regards, the Act under section 5 makes specific reference to provision of accessible

information to persons with disabilities on technical aids, devices and assistive technologies,

including new technologies as well as other forms of assistance, support services and facilities 40 The Universal Communication Service and Access Act, no. 6 of 2006. 41 The Electronic and Postal Communications Act, No. 3 of 2010.

P. Boshe

110

through consultation with the public and stakeholders.42

Although the policy

statements have not made explicit reference to persons with disability or vulnerable

group, implying from the policy context all these are aimed at ensuring universal

access and services; a policy whose main focus is reasonable access to ICT facilities

and services to all and in consideration of special needs for persons with disability.43

In implementing the ICT policy in relation to universal access Tanzania enacted Act

No. 11 of 2006 which came into operation in 2007. The objective of this enactment is

to establish fund for enabling accessibility and participation by communication

operators in the provision of communication services, with a view to promoting

under-served areas; to provide for availability of communication providers to meet

the communication needs of consumers and to provide for related matters.

The Act defines universal services in the Tanzanian context as ‘minimum set of

communication services of specified quality which is available to all users

independent of their geographical location and in light of national conditions at an

affordable price’(Section 3). This definition does not specifically include persons

with disability in the category of social group requiring special consideration in

deployment of ICT facilities and services, at most it emphasizes on social group

within unreachable geographical locations.

Fortunately section 13 (1) (b) (v) of the Act extends the universal services obligation

to persons with disability stating:-

The minimum set of services in the context of universal services obligation shall include

but not limited to the obligation to the universal service provider to:-

(a) ensure the availability of connection by every person to public communication

networks through communication services,

(b) the provision of the following services:-

(v) providing customer with disability with the same or equivalent services as all other

customers so as to have access to the same level of universal service.

The provision simply requires the universal service provider to ensure eAccessibility

in deployment of ICT facilities or services. This provision is in line with the ICT

policy whose vision is to achieve universal service by 2025, in line with the Tanzania

2025 poverty reduction vision.44

This provision from Act no. 6 of 2006 also reflects

the spirit of the National Disability Policy whose overall focus is equalization of

opportunities for persons with disabilities, focusing on “development” of persons

with disabilities and “quality services” equitably provided. It also reflects the basic

42 URT, the National ICT Policy, pp. 10-11. 43PUSTRAL-UGM (n2), p. 35 and Schorr, S,. Universal Access and Rural Connectivity, Regional

Workshop for Southern and Eastern Africa, held in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania from 8-12 July 2002,

TRASA, ITU and CTO, pp. 3-4. 44 URT, The National ICT Policy, p. 11.

eAccessibility for persons with disability in Tanzania

111

principles guiding rights of persons with disability under section 4 of the Persons

with Disability Act 2010.45

Apart from the above provision, the Act has not imposed any other obligation

towards eAccessibility. Relative to the Persons with Disability Act, the Universal

Communication Service and Access Act (UCSAA) is short of supporting provisions

such as those requiring Minister or Universal Access and Services Fund manager to

promote either researches relating to ICT access by persons with disability, or

innovation and deployment of accessible ICT facilities and services. The UCSAA

has neither provision for universal design/design for all nor for development of

standards and guidelines for accessible products and services.

The Electronic and Postal Communications Act 2010 has to the least provided an

obligation to content providers in relation to persons who are deaf or hard of hearing;

who are blind or partially sighted; and with a dual sensory impairment. Under section

111 the Act requires ICT content providers to ‘promote the understanding and

enjoyment of content provided by such content service licensees by persons who are

deaf or hard of hearing; who are blind or partially sighted; and with a dual sensory

impairment.’ The Act proposes that to accommodate this category of people with

disability in provision of content services, such service is to be accompanied by

subtitles; content by audio-description for the blind; or translation of content into

sign language.46

The provision is in line with Part X of the Persons with Disability

Act which requires television providers to provide a sign language inset or subtitles

in all newscasts, educational programmes and other programmes covering national

events. Although the later Act has extended further by obliging telephone providers

to install and maintain telephone devices or units for persons with hearing disabilities

and tactile marks on telephone sets to enable persons with visual disabilities to

communicate through telephone system ( Sections 55 (1) (2) and 56 ).

Based on the definition of eAccessibility provided in the beginning of this article, the

discussed legal framework may be partially accessible but does not qualify as

eInclusive. The framework excludes other kinds of disabilities.47

Moreover, it has not

45 Principles of accessibility, full and effective participation and inclusion of persons with

disabilities in all aspects in the society, non discrimination, equality of opportunity, equality

between men and women with disabilities and recognition of their rights and needs. 46 Electronic and Postal Communications Act, s.111 (2) (a)-(c) and the Broadcasting Services

(Content) Regulation 2005, Regulation 24. 47 Disabilities vary in nature and extent; there are people who are hard of hearing and deaf, blind

and low vision, physical and mental disabilities. In general, a person with disability can have

physical, mental, intellectual or sensorial impairment and such impairment can be permanent and

each type of disability may require special consideration when designing an ICT public policy and

laws. See ITU-D, Study Group 1-Question 20/1: Access to telecommunication services for people

with disabilities, 2006-2010, p.2.

P. Boshe

112

embraced all access and usage issues associated with persons with disability in

Tanzania.

Furthermore, apart from the Persons with Disability Act, the communication sector

specific legislations and their policies have not acknowledged the need of having

accessibility standards and guidelines. It is therefore not a surprise that, to date,

Tanzania, has not devised any standards or guidelines with accessibility standards.

Accessibility standards and guidelines would provide for specific product types,

quantifying accessibility in measurable ways where one can look at required

attributes and determine level of compliance of such facility or services. This is

despite the fact that Tanzania ratified the CRPD which, under article 9 obliges

member states to ‘take appropriate measures to develop promulgate and monitor the

implementation of minimum standards and guidelines for accessibility of facilities

and services open or provided to the public’.

The communication regulator, the Tanzania Communication Regulatory Authority

(TCRA) who is empowered to manage and control the type of services to be offered

by establishing and publishing technical standards relating to all regulated services in

Tanzania (Section 82 (1) TCRA Act), has yet to come up with the eAccessibility

standards and guideline since its establishment, seven years back. This is despite the

fact that TCRA is mandated to consult stakeholders and consider standardization of

activities and any relevant standards prescribed by international organizations to

which the United Republic belongs, such as the International Telecommunications

Union and other sub-regional groupings (Section 82 (1) (3) TCRA Act).

In this regard, TCRA has had an opportunity to learn from the i2010 initiatives, a

campaign on European Information Society for growth and Employment, which

promotes an open and competitive digital economy emphasizing on ICT as a driver

of inclusion and better quality of life.48

There is also the Riga Declaration of 2006,

campaigning on closing of digital divide through e-Inclusion , emphasizing on

implementing e-Accessibility provision within EU legislation referring to electronic

communications and terminal equipment (using all available instruments), fostering

common applications of EU and global standards for accessible ICT hardware,

software and services (supported by user involvement and appropriate labelling), and

promoting inclusive e-Government by ensuring accessibility to all public websites.49

Another one is the G3ict; an initiative launched by the United Nations Global

Alliance for ICT and Development (UN GAID), and the Secretariat for the

48This initiative led to the adoption of the Communication on e-Accessibility in 2005 which

encourages participation in the Information Society, aiming at ensuring manufacturers of ICT and

public bodies realize the needs of disabled and older people in order to overcome the technical

barriers they experience. 49 EU, Riga Ministerial Declaration of 11 June 2006, Riga, Latvia.

eAccessibility for persons with disability in Tanzania

113

Convention on the Rights of People with Disability aiming at facilitating and

promoting the implementation of the dispositions of the Convention on the Rights of

Persons with Disabilities on the accessibility of Information Communication

Technologies (ICTs) and assistive technologies; and rely heavily on international

network of ICT accessibility experts to develop and promote good practices,

technical resources and benchmarks for ICT accessibility advocates around the

world.50

It is out of the G3ict that international organizations including the ITU51

supported

and made possible the production of a booklet on ICT accessibility self-assessment

framework, to help countries and individual stakeholders to assess all components

and facets of their state’s public and private operation in an effort to ascertain

compliance with ICT mandates of the CRPD.52

None of the initiatives seems to have attracted TCRA’s attention towards

establishing technical standards and guidelines relating to regulated ICT products and

services in Tanzania. Persons with disability in Tanzania are therefore left to survive

in the ever-growing information society out of their own know how.

Conclusion

The article has analysed the role of government and the communication sector in

effecting eAccessibility to persons with disability. Clearly ensuring eAccessibility is

not only important in view of compliance with the CRPD to member states, it is even

more important in allowing persons with disability to be mainstreamed in their

societies especially in this age when ICTs are a central aspect of life.

Unfortunately, the overview assessment made in relation to Tanzania’s commitments

in relation to eAccessibility, efforts made by the government and the national

regulator is unappealing. What is fascinating is the fact that, despite ratifying the

CRPD, no communication sector specific law or policies have incorporated the

requirement of article 9 and 21 of the CRPD regarding eAccessibility. Section 111 of

Act No. 3 of 2010 which we saw is still very limited. Even the national regulator has

50 http://g3ict.org/about for more information about G3ict. 51 Others includes the UN GAID, UNITAR, IBM Corporation, Microsoft Corporation, the Wireless

Internet Institute, Internet Speech, TecAccess, Air France, CIFAL Atlanta, Samsung, National

University of Ireland, Galway, the Mozilla Foundation, Politecnico di Milano, the Vice Presidency

and Ministry of Social development of Republic of Ecuador, the Shafallar centre (Qatar), Royal

National Institute of Blind people, the World Blind Union, TechShare, the Cities of Petropolis

(Brazil) and Chicago (U.S.A.), THE Global Partnership for Disability and Development, the

Gateway Development Corporation. 52 G3ict, ICT Accessibility Self Assessment Framework: Evaluation of Country Compliance with

the Disposition of the Convention on the Right of People with Disability on Accessibility to

Information and Communication Technologies, 2009, p. 3.

P. Boshe

114

yet to develop eAccessibility standards and guideline leave alone regulate its

provision.