Angola Law No. 6/26 Fake News: INACOM Gains Broad Content Removal Powers

• Angola's Law No. 6/26, effective August 4, incorporates provisions from Brazil's pending "fake news" bill, PL 2630, to regulate online content.
• The law grants Angola's communications authority, INACOM, broad powers for immediate content removal and administrative fines without requiring prior judicial authorization or an evidentiary threshold.
• INACOM's executive oversight raises concerns about the separation of powers, as the regulator could act against reporting on the same executive that appoints its board.
• Maximum fines under the law are approximately 20 million kwanzas for individuals and 40 million kwanzas for organizations, though it explicitly protects opinion, criticism, satire, and parody.
• The Angolan Bar Association and the Ombudsman are constitutionally empowered to petition the Constitutional Court for a declaration of the law's unconstitutionality.

The executive effectively assumes roles as adjudicator, enforcer, and an interested party, undermining any credible basis for neutrality or impartiality in the law's application.

Angola's Law No. 6/26, a new framework addressing "fake news," officially came into force on August 4, establishing a new regulatory landscape for online content. This legislation notably incorporates provisions directly from Brazil's proposed "fake news" bill, PL 2630, which itself remains under consideration in its country of origin. The Angolan disinformation law includes several constructive provisions aimed at enhancing transparency and combating digital manipulation.

Among its beneficial measures, the law mandates that digital platforms report on content removals, advertising expenditures, and sponsorship details. It also specifically targets malicious online activities such as fake accounts, automated bots, deepfakes, and coordinated dissemination campaigns. These elements are designed to foster a more accountable digital environment, addressing concerns about the spread of misinformation and manipulation within Angola's online spaces.

Despite its stated objectives, the Angola Law No. 6/26 fake news framework grants significant authority to the regulator, INACOM, Angola's communications authority, while conspicuously lacking essential safeguards. Article 12 of the law empowers INACOM to order the immediate removal of content "considered false information." Further solidifying these INACOM content removal powers, Article 19 permits content to be formally declared false through either an administrative or a judicial decision.

The law's structure raises substantial concerns regarding due process. It establishes no clear evidentiary threshold for content removal, nor does it include an urgency test or a requirement for prior judicial authorization before content is taken down. Instead, any appeal against a removal decision can only be initiated after the content has already been removed. This sequence could have critical implications, particularly during sensitive periods like election campaigns, where a subsequent vindication months later might not reverse the initial damage or political outcome.

A fundamental issue with the Angola disinformation law lies in the institutional structure of its primary enforcer. Although INACOM is formally designated as an autonomous body, it operates under executive oversight, with its board members appointed by the president following a minister's recommendation. This arrangement allows for the classification of content, enforcement actions, and the imposition of sanctions to remain within the administrative chain, potentially compromising the regulator's impartiality.

This setup creates a scenario where an executive-supervised regulator could initiate the removal of reporting that pertains directly to the same executive authority. Such an arrangement appears to violate a core tenet of Angola's constitutional order: the separation of powers. The executive effectively assumes roles as adjudicator, enforcer, and an interested party, undermining any credible basis for neutrality or impartiality in the law's application. This inherent defect alone should provide sufficient grounds for an Angola constitutional challenge Law 6/26, with Article 230 of the Constitution explicitly enabling both the Angolan Bar Association and the Ombudsman to petition the Constitutional Court for a declaration of unconstitutionality.

The Angola fake news fines stipulated under Law No. 6/26 are substantial, reaching approximately 20 million kwanzas for individuals and 40 million kwanzas for organizations found in violation. While the law omits stand-alone prison terms that could extend up to 10 years, it does explicitly protect certain forms of expression. Article 29 safeguards opinion, criticism of public policy, satire, and parody, indicating an attempt to differentiate between harmful misinformation and legitimate forms of speech.

The legislation also draws a distinction between "fake news," which implies an intent to deceive, and "misleading content," which may be false, distorted, or unsupported, regardless of intent. The law suggests that deliberate lies causing harm warrant consequences, while good-faith errors, evolving news stories, and public-interest reporting should not. This nuance is crucial for Angola media regulation compliance, as it attempts to guide the application of penalties based on the nature and intent behind the content.

The practical application of Angola's Law No. 6/26 fake news provisions faces an immediate test, particularly concerning the investigation of networks that promote those in power. In June, prior to the law's enactment, France's VIGINUM identified 48 Facebook accounts exhibiting signs of inauthenticity, including the use of AI-generated images. Their report indicated that these accounts amplified material from the Angolan government and posts supporting the ruling MPLA, which has been in power since 1975.

Investigators also uncovered angola-plan.blackcore.online, a site that referenced training for the Angolan government, and noted a possible connection to BlackCore. While these indicators demand further investigation, VIGINUM was unable to identify the network's sponsors, and its findings did not definitively establish that the Angolan government commissioned the operation. The law defines an "artificial dissemination network" as a structure coordinated for political or financial gain, setting a clear precedent for its first major test: whether the regulator will prioritize investigating networks promoting the incumbent government or focus on its critics.

Lawyers and compliance officers in Angola must understand the broad powers granted to INACOM under Law No. 6/26, particularly regarding content removal and administrative fines, and advise clients on the significant compliance risks due to the law's lack of safeguards and potential for unconstitutional application. Legal professionals should also consider the explicit call for the Angolan Bar Association and Ombudsman to petition the Constitutional Court for a declaration of unconstitutionality.

Source: Original reporting via expert commentary.