By Hilary Mare and Prof Admire Mare
The proliferation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and its mass adoption in all spheres of life including journalism has prompted questions on whether African countries should exercise their data sovereignty.
While the push for national policies that prioritise data sovereignty—which refers to the fact that data is subject to the laws and governance structures of the nation where they are collected—cannot be dismissed at face value, it is important understand some of the key pillars of a robust and technology-neutral AI regulation.
Calls to regulate digital platforms and its latest cousin AI has grown louder in scholarly and policy circles. Whereas the European Union has led in the domain with its risk-based approach to AI, in recent years Africa has adopted the Continental AI Strategy which calls for unified national approaches among AU Member States to navigate the complexities of AI-driven change, aiming to strengthen regional and global cooperation and position Africa as a leader in inclusive and responsible AI development.
Very few African countries have adopted AI national strategies. These include Benin, Egypt, Ghana, Mauritius, Rwanda, Senegal, and Tunisia. In these countries, no formal regulation has been implemented.
Without doubt, AI is one of the most revolutionary technologies of our time. While it is often framed as a technology with the potential to supplant human labour; it can also be seen as a complementary to human productivity. Thus, instead of seeing AI as a job replacement tool, we can view it as an ally with the potential to reshape and reboot industries, creator of employment and a beneficiation enhancement tool.
Just like any other progressive continent, Africa must not lag behind in seizing the economic development prospects presented by the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR). Cloud and digital technologies, including quantum computing, machine learning, and AI tools and systems , possess significant potential to enhance the production and transportation of abundant raw resources in Africa and to revitalise agro-based and services industries on the continent.
But of course, the regulation question remains the elephant in the room. The question is what comes first? Regulating data or AI? Or both? This is an egg and hen situation. These are complex questions with diverse responses.
Partly because of catchphrases like “data is the new oil”, it has become crucial to deal with the major ingredient in the AI ecosystem. Since data plays a fundamental role in AI development and deployment, it is advisable that African states like Namibia focus on data regulation before rushing to enact AI legislation.
The current climate seems to be more favourable to the view that African states should put more emphasis on strengthening data management standards rather than enacting new laws pertaining to AI. There is realisation that adequate data governance provides a viable pathway toward regulating AI, facilitating its responsible utilisation and development.
The first and most important step towards better regulation of AI is the effective implementation and enforcement of data protection regulations. Biometrics, profiling, and automated processing are all parts of personal data that must adhere to the rules laid down by data protection legislation, which also specifies the scope of such activities and the rights of persons. Necessary and proportionate data protection laws are urgently required to safeguard the acquisition, processing and archiving of personal data by private and public agencies.
A crucial framework for regulating elements of AI, especially the automated processing of personal data, is the Malabo Convention, which is the African Union (AU) Convention on Cyber Security and Personal Data Protection. This soft law provides some of the most relevant touch points on what AU member states can do to protect personal data and prevent cybercrime.
Yet despite the ratification of the Malabo Convention, close to twenty African countries have not yet passed data protection laws. These countries include Namibia, which has experienced false starts in its effort to come up with data protection legislation. Since 2013, different drafts of the proposed law have been floated in the public domain without any meaningful progress. The proposed data protection law in Namibia must deal with data quality, privacy, responsible data sharing, compliance, transparency, and labour protections for data workers.
Following the examples set by the Information Regulator in South Africa and the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner (ODPC) in Kenya, Namibia should make the establishment of a robust data regulator with enforcement authority a top priority. The Data protection regulator should be less susceptible to economic and political pressure and intimidation.
Although many experts call for formal AI regulation, our argument is that the governance AI should strike a balance between promotion innovation and addressing structural harms embedded in the design and development of AI tools and systems. The wait-and-see technique, which may be more lucrative, involves integrating AI technology into regulated environments, such as AI regulatory sandboxes, where these technologies are assessed in relation to existing regulations.
While this is not an easy process, Namibia must collaborate and exchange knowledge and experience regarding data governance within the African ecosystem. Insights can be gleaned from Mauritius, and Rwanda, which have been engaged in comprehending AI within their respective national settings. The European Union (EU) provides insights through its AI Act.
African countries such as Namibia can benefit from initiatives such as the EU’s Global Gateway strategy and a UNESCO-EU partnership on AI. Namibia should not fall for the temptation to cut and paste from the West without careful domestication and localisation to address felt needs, interests and challenges. We recommend that in providing financial support, international partners must respect the sovereignty of African states and avoid imposing or influencing their approaches to AI regulation.
African countries including Namibia should develop AI strategies, laws and policies that meet their unique needs while promoting human rights in line with the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Namibia should develop culturally aligned and feasible data and digital governance solutions that puts its interests and national development aspirations at the centre of its policy formulation.
Building on the findings of the Presidential Task Force on the Fourth Industrial Revolution, the government of Namibia can also follow the South African route. For instance, the Department of Communication and Digital Technologies (DCDT) in South Africa has established the AI Institute of South Africa (AISA) to examine and address the legislative and regulatory dimensions of AI from an African persepective.
In the same vein, Namibia should work towards reinforcing data regulation along with building the human capital necessary to sustain AI ecosystems.This entails setting up centres of excellence on AI at the Namibia University of Science and Technology and University of Namibia. The government must also harness the capabilities of Ministry of Information and Communication Technology to support the development of data and AI legislation. While it is easy to be spectators from the global gallery as the United States of America and China fight for domination in the AI race, Namibia and many other African countries cannot afford to remain disinterested bystanders. The government should not be the only actor shaping data and AI policy in Namibia.
There is need for a multisectoral approach—whereby advocacy groups, academia, policymakers, start-ups and tech companies have an equal say in shaping the policy direction of the country.
In this regard, the government of Namibia through the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology should provide opportunities for local stakeholders to shape data and AI regulation by serving on advisory bodies and expert groups.
These advisory bodies should be adequately resourced and staffed with highly qualified personnel. Meaningful participation of local stakeholders has the potential to enhance data stewardship and oversight of AI systems but also increase policy ownership.
Hilary Mare is a PHD Candidate with the Department of Communication and Media at the University of Johannesburg.
Prof Admire Mare is an Associate Professor and Head of Department: Communication and Media at the University of Johannesburg. He is a thought leader on digital platforms and AI regulation.