Case Explained: Transnational digital sexual abuse: can Africa’s laws keep pace? – Legal Perspective

Transnational digital sexual abuse: can Africa’s laws keep pace?

The recent targeting of African women exposes how tech-facilitated gender-based violence is outpacing law and accountability.

In February, a purportedly Russian national allegedly secretly recorded and circulated sexual encounters with women in Ghana and Kenya without their consent. The case involved women across multiple jurisdictions, with some footage monetised on a subscription-based Telegram channel.

The acts constitute tech-facilitated gender-based violence (TFGBV) – the use of digital tools to harass, threaten, exploit or violate individuals on the basis of gender. It includes the non-consensual recording and distribution of intimate images, cyberstalking, doxxing, sextortion and coordinated online harassment.

TFGBV compounds the global crisis of violence against women and girls as digital technologies enable content to spread instantly and indefinitely in ways that amplify harm to victims. It raises issues around consent, privacy and the adequacy of existing legal protections. Cases across Africa – and globally – suggest that technology-facilitated abuse is becoming more common.

A 2024 study among Nairobi tertiary students found that nearly 90% had witnessed TFGBV, and 39% had experienced it. In Ghana, civil society monitoring has documented patterns of online gendered harassment, including image-based abuse and digital intimidation targeting women in public life. Prosecution data is sparse, and although cases of non-consensual intimate image sharing are emerging under the Cybersecurity Act, enforcement remains limited.

TFGBV in Africa affects minors and adults and is perpetrated by strangers, acquaintances and former partners. Motives range from monetisation and retaliation to coercion and opportunistic abuse. It moves through social media, paid platforms and viral messaging apps, accelerating and perpetuating harm far beyond the original act. Perpetrators vary from individuals to loosely networked opportunists – sometimes even state-linked personnel.

Perpetrators vary from individuals to networked opportunists – sometimes even state-linked personnel

The tools enabling TFGBV are also evolving. AI-enabled smart glasses capable of discreet recording raise new privacy concerns. Such devices can capture intimate footage and transmit recordings for review by human analysts or AI systems capable of identifying faces and environments, potentially linking individuals to sensitive content.

When a British woman discovered a man had secretly recorded and posted the footage online, police said filming in public wasn’t a crime. This exposes the tensions between privacy and current laws.

For victims, TFGBV inflicts layered harms with both immediate and enduring implications. Beyond the initial violation, the digital circulation of intimate content strips individuals of control over where the material travels, how long it exists and who consumes it. Harm expands through repetition, social sharing and algorithmic amplification. Victims can face harassment, reputational damage, social exclusion and economic consequences.

For states, the implications are systemic. Failure to respond decisively erodes public trust, weakening confidence in the rule of law. Inconsistent enforcement undercuts commitments to gender equality and protection from violence. And when TFGBV persists unchecked, it narrows women’s participation in public and political life.

The transnational reach and economic incentives of TFGBV offences suggest digitally networked criminality that is under-classified in organised crime discourse. So treating it as a peripheral country-based online harm risks under-resourcing an emerging frontier of transnational exploitation.

Beyond the initial violation, harm expands through repetition, social sharing and algorithmic amplification

Ghana and Kenya say the Russian-linked case is a criminal matter, not a moral controversy. Ghana’s authorities have invoked the Cybersecurity Act, which criminalises the non-consensual sharing of intimate images and related threats. The statute allows for multi-agency coordination and transnational cooperation to secure digital and financial evidence.

Kenya has activated investigative and prosecutorial mechanisms under its Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act, which criminalises the wrongful distribution of obscene or intimate images via digital networks. It has framed the conduct as a violation of privacy and dignity and urged affected women to use official reporting channels.

The message from both countries is unambiguous: non-consensual recording and distribution of intimate content is a serious crime under national laws. But Russia has no extradition treaties with Ghana or Kenya, so although the right laws exist, cross-border enforcement can be difficult.

A recent Equality Now report documenting TFGBV in Kenya highlights that even when legal frameworks exist, implementation is patchy. Survivors report delays, dismissiveness and scant support from police and courts, underscoring the systemic and sociocultural barriers to reporting, legal response and redress.

Similar obstacles exist in Ghana, where gaps in digital evidence preservation and delays in international cooperation intersect with slow investigations, constrained prosecutorial capacity and fragile survivor support systems. All this is compounded by social stigma that discourages the pursuit of justice.

Survivors report delays and dismissiveness from police and courts, underscoring the barriers to reporting

Three structural pressures keep TFGBV ahead of enforcement. First is the disjuncture between instant digital harm and drawn-out cross-border evidence requests and legal cooperation. Second, INTERPOL says most African states report gaps in cyber investigative and prosecutorial capability. Third, public debate often modulates towards judging victims rather than sustaining institutional focus on perpetrators and systems.

Together, these pressures create a widening gap between law on paper and law in practice that digitally enabled abusers exploit. Globally, the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, to which Ghana has acceded, provides mechanisms for preserving cross-border evidence and enabling mutual legal assistance. The African Union’s Malabo Convention similarly aims to harmonise cybercrime and data protection frameworks across the continent.

In theory, these instruments allow digital evidence sharing and coordinated investigations. But uneven ratification, slow procedures and domestic capacity constraints limit their speed and reach.

Governments must move beyond treating digital sexual exploitation as a narrow criminal justice issue. The dynamics exposed by the Russia-linked case highlight the need for coordinated regulatory approaches linking law enforcement, data protection authorities, financial regulators and digital platform oversight.

Platforms need clearer obligations around response times, evidence preservation and verified takedown procedures, while payment processors and telecommunications regulators can help disrupt the monetisation pipelines. Transnational cooperation mechanisms must enable faster evidence sharing and the coordination of investigations.

Responses must prioritise victims’ needs. Fast, confidential reporting pathways can help identify, track and quickly remove content. Strengthening public understanding of digital consent is critical, as is ensuring that individuals understand their rights and the consequences of violating them.

For permission to re-publish ISS Today articles, please email us. In Nigeria, Premium Times has exclusive rights to republish ISS Today articles.