Promoting Effective and Inclusive ICT Policy in Africa

Tag Archives: surveillance

  HomeCollaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA)  /  surveillance
27Apr

Strengthening Digital Rights Awareness and Practice in the Business Sector

Author CIPESA Posted on

By Nadhifah Muhammad |

It has been 12 months since the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) championed the Civil Society (CSO) Fund for digital rights in Uganda’s business sector. Across 12 districts, the supported initiatives have implemented action plans to advance advocacy and awareness on digital rights for businesses.

Radio and television programmes, social media campaigns, community forums, stakeholder dialogues, and caravans were part of the awareness campaigns conducted by partners. As a result, more than 17 million citizens, including district leaders, youths, and the general public, have been sensitised on business and digital rights. In parallel, CIPESA has supported Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) in tourism and travel, education, digital marketing, IT development, legal services, lifestyle and health to conduct digital security self assessment and to integrate digital rights within their business models.

Before the interventions were rolled out, CIPESA built the partners’ capacity in implementing awareness raising and advocacy campaigns. At a March 2026 bootcamp, CIPESA re-convened the CSOs and SMEs, alongside innovators, researchers, local government officials and human rights advocates, to reflect on progress and take stock of their interventions. The 30 participants at the bootcamp also explored how to sustain, deepen, and institutionalise this work beyond the Advancing Respect for Human Rights by Businesses (ARBHR) project funded by the European Union and implemented with the support of Enabel.

A participant appreciated CIPESA’s approach to equipping them with skills and knowledge on digital rights and business and human rights ahead of rolling out the initiatives, stating: “It played a fundamental role in helping us appreciate the issues for us trickle them down to the communities.”

During the bootcamp, partners shared lessons and experiences from their action plans across the project focus regions: Busoga (Iganga, Mayuge, Bugiri, and Bugweri), the Albertine region (Hoima, Kikuube, Masindi, Buliisa, and Kiryandongo) and the Kampala Metropolitan area (Kampala, Mukono, and Wakiso).

Key lessons learnt included framing failure to respect digital rights as business risks to increase private sector engagement, prioritising multi-stakeholder engagements to foster ownership of initiatives, using local languages and simplified text while interfacing with grassroots communities, partnering with media to amplify awareness campaigns and consistent engagement with beneficiaries to ensure they grasp the context of the project initiatives.

However, despite the project’s wide reach, surveys conducted by project partners show that the majority of SMEs continue to face numerous digital vulnerabilities. For instance, a study by Girls for Climate Action on digital inclusion among 924 women-led green businesses in the Busoga region revealed an 85.9% digital skills gap. In Kampala, a mapping by Boundless Minds of 119 youth-led SMEs found that 49% were unaware of the existence of the Data Protection and Privacy Act, Cap 97 .

Similarly, the Capacity Needs Analysis conducted by the Private Sector Foundation Uganda (PSFU) on 79 Business Member Associations showed that while 72% of the businesses collect customer data, only 38% are aware of the Data Protection and Privacy Act, and only 16% have internal cybersecurity policies. These findings reinforce the need for continued support to help Ugandan businesses to understand and uphold digital rights in their operations.

However, the question of resources to continue the business and digital rights work beyond the ARBHR seed funding remained a concern. With the changing funding landscape, advocates were urged to rethink strategies for sustainability and reduce dependence on grants. As one participant noted, “Budget limitations greatly affected effective execution of some awareness campaigns,” which hampered the reach and depth of engagements.

Dr. Joyce Tamale, of Capital Solutions Ltd who facilitated a session on financial resilience, addressed this challenge by demonstrating how organisations can strengthen institutional sustainability and build long-term financing models to sustain their work. Framing the issue through a “mindset cycle,” she argued that resilience begins with a shift in thinking that shapes attitudes, actions, and ultimately results. She paired this with practical strategies such as building operating reserves, diversifying funding streams, and adopting long-term financial planning. Emphasising social entrepreneurship, she encouraged organisations to monetise their assets without compromising their mission.

To put this into practice, organisations were encouraged to codify financial health within their institutions through operating reserve policies, building emergency funds, and the use of financial instruments such as bonds and unit trusts, while also strengthening their own financial literacy.

To consolidate these gains and sustainability of efforts under the project, partners were rallied to mainstream digital rights and the Business and Human Rights agenda in their institutional programming.

22Apr

African Governments are Using “Smart City” Systems to Monitor Dissent and Consolidate State Control

Author CIPESA Posted on

By CIVICUS |

CIVICUS discusses the spread of AI-powered surveillance in Africa with Wairagala Wakabi, executive director of the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) and co-editor of Smart City Surveillance in Africa: Mapping Chinese AI Surveillance Across 11 Countries, the latest report by the African Digital Rights Network (ADRN) and the Institute of Development Studies (IDS).
At least 11 African governments have spent over US$2 billion on Chinese-built surveillance infrastructure that uses AI-powered cameras, biometric data collection and facial recognition to monitor public spaces. Marketed as ‘smart city’ solutions to reduce crime and manage urban growth, these systems have been rolled out with little regulation and no independent evidence of their effectiveness. This technology is instead being used to monitor activists, track protesters and silence dissent, with a chilling effect on freedoms of assembly and expression.

How widespread is AI-powered surveillance in Africa?

Under the guise of reducing crime and fighting terrorism, at least 11 governments have invested over US$2 billion in AI-powered ‘smart city’ surveillance infrastructure: Algeria, Egypt, Kenya, Mauritius, Mozambique, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

Governments are installing thousands of CCTV cameras linked to central command centres, paired with tools such as automatic number-plate recognition, biometric ID systems and facial recognition to track people and vehicles. The largest known investments are in Nigeria (over US$470 million), Mauritius (US$456 million) and Kenya (US$219 million), though the real total is likely much higher, since surveillance spending is often secret and the report covers only 11 of Africa’s 55 countries.

Despite being presented as tools for crime prevention, counter-terrorism, modernisation and urban management, these are not targeted security measures. They represent a broader shift toward continuous, population-level monitoring of public spaces, rolled out over the past five to ten years almost always without clear legal limits or public debate.

Are these systems achieving their stated purpose?

No, there is no compelling evidence that they have in any of the countries studied. Instead, the data points to a pattern of use that raises serious human rights concerns.

In Uganda and Zimbabwe, AI-powered surveillance including facial recognition is being used to suppress dissent rather than ensure public safety. Activists, critics of the government, opposition leaders and protesters are identified and monitored through this system, even after protests have ended. In Mozambique, smart CCTV systems have reportedly been installed in areas of strong political opposition, suggesting targeted rather than neutral surveillance.

In Senegal and Zambia, countries with relatively low terrorism threats, governments have still invested heavily, which calls into question the stated security rationale.

Across the countries studied, the scale of surveillance far exceeds any actual or perceived security threat, and the infrastructure is consistently being used to monitor dissent and consolidate state control rather than address genuine public safety needs.

Who’s supplying this technology?

While firms from Israel, South Korea and the USA supply surveillance technologies, Chinese companies are the primary suppliers and financiers. They typically offer end-to-end ‘smart city’ packages that include cameras, software platforms, data analytics systems, training and ongoing technical support. Many projects are backed by loans from Chinese state-linked banks, which makes them financially accessible in the short term but creates long-term dependencies on external vendors for maintenance, system management and upgrades.

This model undermines transparency. Procurement processes are opaque and civil society, the public and oversight institutions including parliaments rarely have information about how these systems operate, how data is stored or who has access to it. That lack of accountability is what makes abuse not just possible, but hard to detect or challenge.

What impact is this having on civic space?

This large-scale surveillance of public spaces is not legal, necessary or proportionate to the legitimate aim of providing security. Recording, analysing and retaining facial images of people in public without their consent interferes with their right to privacy and, over time, their willingness to move, assemble and speak freely.

The most immediate consequence is a chilling effect, particularly where civic space is already restricted. Knowing they can be identified and tracked, activists and journalists are less willing to attend protests for fear of later arrest or reprisals, and end up self-censoring. Civil society organisations also report heightened anxiety about the risks for their members and partners.

What should governments and civil society do?

None of the 11 countries studied have a legal framework capable of balancing the state’s security needs with its commitments to protect fundamental human rights. That must change. Governments must adopt clear regulations on surveillance, including restrictions on facial recognition and other AI tools, require independent human rights impact assessments before introducing new systems, make procurement and deployment processes transparent and establish strong oversight mechanisms, including judicial and parliamentary scrutiny, to prevent abuse.

Civil society should continue documenting abuses, raising public awareness and advocating for accountability, while also supporting affected people and communities through digital security support and legal assistance.

Technology-exporting states and donors must enforce stricter controls and safeguards on the export and financing of these tools, support rights-based approaches to digital governance and help fund independent monitoring and advocacy across Africa.

Without urgent action, these systems will continue to expand, and the rights of people across Africa will continue to shrink.

CIVICUS interviews a wide range of civil society activists, experts and leaders to gather diverse perspectives on civil society action and current issues for publication on its CIVICUS Lens platform. The views expressed in interviews are the interviewees’ and do not necessarily reflect those of CIVICUS. Publication does not imply endorsement of interviewees or the organisations they represent.

This article was first published on the Website of CIVICUS LENS on April 07, 2026

20Apr

African Commission Resolution 655 and What it Offers for the Future of Electoral Democracy

Author CIPESA Posted on

By Edrine Wanyama |

The Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) welcomes the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) adoption of the Resolution on Elections in Africa in 2026 – ACHPR/Res. 655, which calls on all Member States to uphold human rights, the rule of law, and democratic governance.

The resolution comes at a time when several African countries are experiencing democratic regression, marked by harassment of opposition politicians and civil society actors, and mistrust in  electoral processes.  

With 12 countries – Algeria, Benin, Cape Verde, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Republic of the Congo, Sao Tome & Principe, and Zambia – scheduled to hold elections in 2026, the resolution provides a timely reminder to governments to ensure that elections are free, fair, and transparent, with the playing field levelled for all contestants.

Resolution 655 builds on existing regional instruments that seek to promote democratic governance on the continent. The main instrument is the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance , which has been  ratified by 39 out of 55 AU member states. Notably, some countries that are preparing to hold elections, including the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Republic of the Congo, are yet to ratify the Charter on Democracy, raising concerns about alignment with its standards.

The resolution also complements the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa, whose article 9 calls for the inclusive participation of women in political and electoral processes.

Elections in the Digital Age
A notable strength of Resolution 655 is its recognition of the evolving digital landscape and its impact on electoral integrity. In line with Resolution ACHPR.Res. 580(LXXVIII)2024 on Internet Shutdowns and Elections in Africa, this new resolution re-echoes the need to respect internet freedoms, including freedom of expression and access to information, which are core to the conduct of free and democratic elections. Moreover, the resolution notes with concern, the human rights violations that were perpetuated in Tanzania and Cameroon, and the disruptions in Guinea-Bissau, during their elections in 2025.

The resolution also highlights emerging risks associated with the use of Artificial Intelligence, misinformation and disinformation, all of which can compromise  electoral integrity.

CIPESA stands in solidarity with the Commission’s call to end repression against voters, civil society, journalists, and opposition actors. We call upon all member states, particularly those holding elections in 2026, to implement the recommendations and ensure inclusive,  rights-respecting electoral processes.

02Apr

India AI Impact Summit: A Missed Opportunity for Africa’s Voice in Global AI Governance

Author CIPESA Posted on

By Lillian Nalwoga |

The India AI Impact Summit, held on February 16-21, 2026, was themed “Sarvajan Hitaya, Sarvajan Sukhaya” (Welfare for all, Happiness for all). It was expected to be a platform for South-to-South cooperation. However, despite Africa’s growing AI ambitions and strategic participation in preparatory working groups, the summit exposed a stark representation gap, raising concerns about Africa’s ability to influence the future of global AI governance.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) presents a transformative opportunity for Africa, with projections indicating it could contribute up to USD 1 trillion to the continent’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 2035. This significant potential underscores Africa’s growing ambition to harness AI for inclusive growth while positioning itself as a key player in global AI governance.

Many African countries are engaging with AI proactively, seeking to harness its benefits across various sectors. Countries such as Rwanda, Nigeria, Kenya, and Egypt have demonstrated strategic foresight in their AI initiatives. Rwanda, for instance, co-chaired the human-capital working group at the Summit, in line with its national AI strategy to become a global hub for AI research and innovation. Nigeria, as Africa’s largest economy, is focused on utilising AI for inclusive growth, while Kenya and Egypt are contributing to broader debates on AI ethics and digital infrastructure.

The African Union’s Continental AI Strategy, adopted in July 2024, further solidifies this commitment. The strategy emphasises an Africa-centric, development-focused approach to AI, promoting ethical, responsible, and equitable practices. Key pillars of this strategy include data sovereignty, ethical frameworks, and inclusive governance.

Across the continent, initiatives are emerging, such as South Africa’s establishment of AI institutes and Ghana’s investments in AI for agriculture and healthcare projects. These efforts highlight a continent actively pursuing AI integration to address its unique challenges and opportunities.

Despite the summit’s promise of inclusivity and South-to-South cooperation, African voices were largely absent from high-level sessions and critical decision-making forums. Only two African heads of state, from Mauritius and Seychelles, and ministers from Rwanda, Kenya, Egypt and Togo, attended  the global summit. This limited presence stood in stark contrast to the dominant participation of tech giants and diplomatic delegations from the Global North, undermining the summit’s stated goal of elevating Global South perspectives.

Despite strong enthusiasm from leading African AI startups, who showcased their innovative solutions,  the lukewarm African endorsement of the summit’s Impact Document exposed a clear disconnect. Only 11 African countries out of the 92 countries that attended endorsed the declaration that calls for “international cooperation and multistakeholder engagement.” This limited endorsement suggests either inadequate consultation with African stakeholders or a mismatch between the summit agenda and Africa’s priorities.

Notably, African civil society voices, academic experts, and private-sector leaders – those most intimately familiar with the continent’s challenges and opportunities – were largely sidelined at an event meant to champion South-South cooperation. Their absence highlights a significant gap between the summit’s stated commitment to inclusivity and the reality of who was heard.

The under-representation of African voices at global digital governance forums like the India AI Impact Summit has significant implications. As AI becomes increasingly central to economic competitiveness and social development, Africa’s marginalisation could impede its ability to fully harness AI’s potential while protecting its citizens’ interests.

African initiatives, such as Nigeria’s push for data sovereignty and Egypt’s integration of AI into sustainable development, deserve a prominent seat at the global table. Without more equitable representation, Africa’s vision for an ethical and inclusive AI future risks being overshadowed by agendas primarily driven by the Global North.

Africa still faces significant AI governance challenges, including incomplete digital policy frameworks, limited financial resources for consistent participation in global policy meetings, and weak coordination among governments, companies, and civil society. However, these constraints should not prevent it from equal representation in global digital governance forums.

These participation challenges are not unique to Africa: members of the Global South Alliance have similarly called for more meaningful and diverse engagement in global digital governance, in their letter to the India AI Summit Organising Committee. Initiatives such as the Multistakeholder Approach to Participation to AI Governance have also stressed the need to ensure that global AI conversations are informed by the “voices and experiences of those who are most impacted by the development and diffusion of AI.”

Africa has enormous AI potential, a clear strategic vision, and growing initiatives to harness AI for sustainable development. The representation gap evident at the India AI Summit highlights the urgent need to ensure that voices from the Global South, including Africa, are not only heard but are influential in shaping global AI governance.

Strengthening the capacity of national regulators and policymakers to craft progressive AI policies and engage effectively in global AI negotiations is essential. Leveraging continental frameworks such as the African Union AI Strategy can help shape common negotiating positions. At the same time, empowering civil society to provide evidence-based, rights-respecting input to national and global AI frameworks will help ensure more citizen-centered policymaking and more equitable participation in national, regional, and international policy processes. As the world prepares for the upcoming UN Global Dialogue on AI Governance in July and the Global AI Summit 2027 in Geneva, the first annual report of the 40-member UN Independent International Scientific Panel on AI that is due in July 2026 will be a crucial test of whether African priorities can be adequately reflected in global AI governance processes.

23Mar

CIPESA Public Dialogue Series: Interrogating Digital Public Infrastructure in East Africa

Author CIPESA Posted on

By CIPESA Writer |

Digital transformation is reshaping governance, service delivery, and civic life across Africa. At the centre of this transformation is the growing adoption of Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) — foundational interoperable digital systems such as digital identity programmes, payment systems, and data exchange frameworks that enable governments to deliver services at scale.

Across Eastern Africa, governments are increasingly investing in DPI as a core pillar of their digital transformation strategies. These systems promise to improve administrative efficiency, expand access to services, and support more inclusive digital economies.

However, DPI is not merely a technical infrastructure. It is also an institutional and political infrastructure. The way these systems are designed, governed, and implemented can shape power relations, accountability structures, privacy protections, and citizen participation in the digital state.

Despite the growing importance of DPI, public debate around these systems remains limited. A study by the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) into media coverage of DPI in Eastern Africa shows that reporting is largely government-centric and event-driven, focusing primarily on announcements and service delivery benefits while giving limited attention to governance arrangements, procurement processes, rights protections, and questions of inclusion.

Strengthening informed public discourse around DPI is therefore critical. Greater participation by civil society, journalists, policymakers, technologists, and citizens can help ensure that emerging digital systems are transparent, accountable, inclusive, and aligned with the public interest.

To contribute to this goal, CIPESA is convening a series of public dialogues on DPI in Eastern Africa. Through four in-depth discussions, the CIPESA public dialogue series will explore key dimensions of DPI implementation such as governance and accountability, data protection and trust, inclusion and equity, and cross-regional learning, while bringing together diverse stakeholders to deepen public understanding and encourage more critical engagement with the region’s digital transformation.

The details of the CIPESA Public Dialogue dare listed below. Be sure to mark your calendar for each dialogue!

Follow @cipesaug on social media and join the conversation using #DPIAfrica and #DPIJournalism.

Dialogue 1: Interrogating DPI: Governance, Power, and Accountability

Background: As governments across Eastern Africa accelerate the rollout of Digital Public Infrastructure systems, questions of governance, oversight, and accountability are becoming increasingly important.

While DPI initiatives are often presented as tools for efficiency and innovation, they also shape power relations within the digital state. Decisions about who designs these systems, who controls the data they generate, and how procurement and partnerships are structured can significantly influence how public digital systems operate and whom they ultimately serve.

Yet public scrutiny of these governance questions remains limited. Media coverage frequently focuses on the technical benefits of DPI, such as improved service delivery, while giving less attention to governance arrangements, procurement transparency, and mechanisms for accountability when systems fail.

This dialogue will examine the political economy of DPI, focusing on questions of governance, oversight, transparency, and accountability as the region expands its digital infrastructure.

Date: March 24, 2026 | 15:00 PM Nairobi | Reserve your seat

Dialogue 2: Interrogating DPI: Data, Privacy, and Trust

Background: Digital Public Infrastructure systems depend heavily on the collection, processing, and exchange of large volumes of personal data. While these systems can improve efficiency and coordination across government services, they also raise significant questions about privacy, surveillance, and data protection.

Public discourse around DPI in Eastern Africa has largely focused on service delivery benefits, with relatively limited attention to the risks associated with data governance and citizen trust.

CIPESA’s media analysis similarly shows that journalists tend to under-report issues of data protection, surveillance, and the enforcement of privacy laws, despite growing public concerns about the misuse of personal data and weak institutional safeguards.

This dialogue will examine whether DPI systems in Eastern Africa are being designed and implemented in ways that protect rights and build public trust.

Date: March 31, 2026 | 15:00 PM Nairobi | Reserve your seat

Dialogue 3: Interrogating DPI: Inclusion, Equity, and Gender

Background: Digital Public Infrastructure is often framed as inclusive by design. However, evidence from across Eastern Africa suggests that issues of equity, access, and representation remain underexplored in both policy debates and media coverage.

Media analysis conducted by CIPESA reveals limited reporting on how DPI systems affect citizens differently based on gender, geography, income, and digital access. It also highlights a significant gender imbalance in media sources, with roughly 80 percent of quoted sources being male.

Yet digital systems can inadvertently reinforce existing inequalities if barriers related to connectivity, digital literacy, affordability, identification documents, or social norms are not addressed.

This dialogue will explore whether DPI initiatives are truly delivering on their promise of inclusion, and who may be left behind by digital transformation.

Date: April 7, 2026 | 15:00 PM Nairobi | Reserve your seat

Dialogue 4: Interrogating DPI: Cross-Regional Learning Session

Africa is undergoing a profound digital transformation. The African Union Digital Transformation Strategy (2020–2030) encourages member states to develop Digital Public Infrastructure and Digital Public Goods as foundations for inclusive service delivery, digital trade, and economic growth.

However, public participation in shaping these developments remains limited, partly due to insufficient public discourse and limited specialised reporting on DPI and DPGs.

To address this gap, Co-Develop partnered with regional organisations, including the Media Foundation for West Africa (MFWA) and CIPESA, to establish journalism fellowships focused on DPI reporting in West and Eastern Africa.

MFWA launched the first fellowship in West Africa in 2023, generating valuable lessons and case studies. CIPESA has since adapted the fellowship model for Eastern Africa, creating opportunities for cross-regional learning among journalists and ecosystem actors.

This session will bring fellows and stakeholders from both regions together to share lessons, experiences, and strategies for strengthening public discourse on DPI and DPGs.

Date: April 17, 2026 | 15:00 PM Nairobi | Reserve your seat

1 2 3 4 … 18