 The cancellation of RightsCon 2026 in Lusaka, just days before it was set to begin on May 4th, is more than a logistical disruption. It is a jolt to one of the last truly global spaces where conversations about digital rights, internet governance, and human dignity online still happen in the open.
RightsCon is not just another conference. For over a decade, it has served as a rare convening point, bringing together civil society, governments, technologists, academics, journalists, and advocates from across regions and political systems. At a time when the internet is increasingly fragmented and contested, that kind of space is not just valuable; it is essential. Which is why this moment feels so consequential. The Zambian government’s last-minute decision to halt the event, reportedly tied to a requirement for full “alignment with national values”, raises difficult questions about the state of global commitments to internet freedom. The phrasing itself is striking in its simplicity. There was little attempt to obscure the rationale or wrap it in diplomatic language. Instead, the message appeared direct: certain conversations were not welcome. That matters. It reflects a broader global shift in which governments feel less pressure to justify restrictions on civic space, including digital rights discussions. Where once such decisions might have been accompanied by careful framing or procedural explanations, there is now, in some cases, a growing confidence in simply drawing the line. Around the cancellation, multiple reports and rumors have circulated. Some pointed to concerns over sessions addressing LGBTQ+ rights and reproductive freedoms, topics that remain politically sensitive in many contexts in Zambia. Others referenced geopolitical dynamics, including speculation about Chinese influence tied to the participation of Taiwanese representatives. Local reporting even suggested the programme included Taiwanese delegates who might speak critically of China, raising sensitivities given Beijing’s longstanding position on the issue. While difficult to verify, such claims are not entirely outlandish, particularly in light of recent events in which several African countries denied overflight permissions for a Taiwanese presidential trip to Eswatini, a move widely attributed to pressure from Beijing. In recent years, China has deepened its engagement across Africa, including articulating principles of sovereignty and non-interference that emphasize state control over domestic affairs. Whether or not any single factor drove this outcome, the convergence of these issues illustrates how digital rights are increasingly entangled with broader political and geopolitical tensions. For African civil society in particular, the impact is profound. Hosting RightsCon in Lusaka was not only symbolic; it was also practical. It would have enabled broader participation from organizations and activists across the continent, many of whom face barriers to attending events in Europe or North America. It was an opportunity to center perspectives from the Global Majority in shaping the future of digital governance. Losing that opportunity, especially at the last minute, is a real setback for inclusivity and representation in these global conversations. And yet, even in this moment, there is also something important to recognise about the digital rights community: its resilience. This is a field that has navigated rapid technological change, shifting political environments, and evolving funding landscapes for years. It has continued to make the case, often successfully, that rights online are inseparable from rights offline. And it has built networks that span borders, disciplines, and sectors. At the same time, this cancellation underscores how much the broader context has changed. Over the past 18 months, significant reductions in foreign assistance, particularly from the United States, have reshaped the operating environment for many civil society organizations. For years, that support functioned as a stabilizing force, enabling long-term planning and global coordination. As it has receded, organizations have had to adapt, often in real time, to new constraints and uncertainties. That adaptation is still ongoing. Moments like this bring into sharper focus the need to continue diversifying funding sources, strengthening regional networks, and building models of collaboration that are less vulnerable to sudden disruptions. Not because the community has failed to recognize these shifts, but because the pace and scale of change have been significant and continue to evolve. So what now? First, there is a clear need to rally around Access Now and the RightsCon community. The work of organizing a convening of this scale is immense, and the abrupt cancellation only amplifies that challenge. Support -- financial, logistical, and public -- will be critical to ensure continuity and to help the community regroup. Second, democratic governments have an important role to play. If they are committed to defending internet freedom and supporting civil society, this is a moment to demonstrate that commitment in tangible ways. That includes offering political backing, facilitating alternative spaces for dialogue, and reaffirming that open discussion of human rights is not something to be constrained by shifting political winds. Third, there is an opportunity to think creatively about how these conversations continue. If physical convenings can be disrupted, hybrid and decentralized models may become even more important. Regional gatherings, virtual forums, and distributed events could help ensure that momentum is not lost and that participation remains as inclusive as possible, even in challenging circumstances.That means acknowledging the shifting funding landscape and diversifying support beyond traditional government sources. It means building stronger coalitions with movements working on adjacent issues, including climate, labor and health, where digital rights are increasingly intertwined. And it means being clearer, louder, and more unapologetic about why this work matters. Finally, it is worth remembering why RightsCon exists in the first place. The internet is not a neutral space. It is shaped by policies, power dynamics, and values. Without forums where those forces can be openly examined and contested, the risk is not just that certain conversations disappear but that the future of the internet is decided without them. The cancellation of RightsCon 2026 is a setback. There is no way around that. But it is also a reminder of what is at stake and of the importance of continuing to build, defend, and sustain the spaces where these conversations can happen. What comes next will matter. Not just for this community, but for the broader trajectory of digital rights and internet freedom worldwide. Comments are closed.
|