AI Surveillance Expansion in Africa Raises Regulatory Concerns

The rapid deployment of AI-driven mass surveillance systems across Africa has intensified in recent years, with 11 governments investing at least $2 billion in Chinese-developed technologies capable of facial recognition and movement tracking. These systems, marketed as tools for urban modernization and crime reduction, have been adopted through partnerships between African nations and Chinese technology firms. Nigeria, the largest financial contributor, allocated $470 million to install 10,000 smart cameras, while Egypt, Algeria, and Uganda deployed 6,000–5,000 cameras each. These initiatives, often funded via loans from Chinese banks, are part of broader “smart city” projects that initially aimed to enhance urban management but have increasingly been repurposed for security purposes. According to the Institute of Development Studies, the absence of regulatory oversight has enabled governments to justify these systems under national security mandates, raising concerns about their disproportionate impact on marginalized communities.

International human rights organizations have raised alarms about the invasive capabilities of these technologies, which they argue threaten fundamental freedoms. The African Digital Rights Network, co-authors of a critical report on the issue, asserts that such systems “do not effectively reduce crime but instead empower governments to monitor activists, suppress dissent, and target journalists.” For example, Uganda’s “Safe City” initiative in Kampala deployed over 1,800 CCTV cameras with facial recognition capabilities, prompting fears of political surveillance. The report underscores that these systems often operate without legal constraints, allowing authorities to bypass democratic accountability mechanisms. Experts like Bulelani Jili of Georgetown University note that the unchecked deployment has shifted surveillance from public safety to a tool of control.

“do not effectively reduce crime but instead empower governments to monitor activists, suppress dissent, and target journalists.”

African countries face significant legal and regulatory gaps in governing AI surveillance technologies, with many systems operating under national security justifications that lack transparency and oversight. The Institute of Development Studies report highlights that while 44 African nations have adopted data protection laws and 38 have established enforcement authorities, these frameworks often fail to address the specific risks posed by mass surveillance. The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) has emphasized that state surveillance must adhere to principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality, yet these standards are frequently not met in practice. One Georgetown University researcher warned that simply claiming systems are regulated could allow governments to present them as lawful while leaving civil liberties concerns unaddressed.

The proliferation of biometric technologies has further complicated regulatory challenges. Kenya’s suspension of Worldcoin’s biometric digital ID operations in 2023 highlighted privacy concerns, while biometric fraud in Kenya has enabled criminals to conduct unauthorized mobile financial transactions using others’ fingerprints. South Africa faces similar issues with the accuracy and potential misuse of centralized identity data. These cases illustrate how the lack of legal safeguards can lead to both privacy violations and systemic vulnerabilities. As the African Union continues to develop AI governance policies, the challenge remains to ensure that legal frameworks are not only enacted but also effectively enforced to prevent the abuse of surveillance technologies.

The African Union (AU) has played a pivotal role in shaping AI governance policies across the continent, aiming to balance technological advancement with the protection of civil liberties. The AU’s “African Union Convention on Cyber Security and Personal Data Protection”, adopted in 2023, establishes a framework for data protection and digital rights, encouraging member states to align national laws with regional standards. Additionally, the AU’s “Digital Transformation Strategy 2,025” emphasizes the need for ethical AI development, transparency in data usage, and public participation in policy-making. These initiatives reflect the AU’s commitment to ensuring that AI technologies, including surveillance systems, are deployed in ways that respect human rights and democratic principles. However, experts caution that the effectiveness of these policies depends on the willingness of individual member states to implement and enforce them, as many African countries still lack the institutional capacity to manage AI governance comprehensively.

The expansion of AI surveillance has disproportionately affected historically marginalized groups, including political activists, journalists, and minority communities. Experts warn that these technologies, when integrated into policing and intelligence practices, often target individuals already vulnerable to state overreach. Bulelani Jili of Georgetown University notes that facial recognition systems in Uganda have been used to monitor activists, while crackdowns on Gen Z-led protests in Kenya demonstrate how surveillance can suppress dissent. Similarly, in Algeria, “smart city” projects that initially aimed to improve urban management have evolved into tools for security forces, with Yosr Jouini of the Institute of Development Studies highlighting that the security-focused narrative often dismisses concerns about civil liberties. This pattern of surveillance is not limited to specific countries; the report cites examples from Nigeria, Egypt, and Uganda, where activists and journalists have faced increased scrutiny and self-censorship due to the presence of AI-driven monitoring systems.

“The unchecked deployment has shifted surveillance from public safety to a tool of control.”

The chilling effect of these technologies on public expression is particularly evident in the context of street protests, which have historically played a key role in political change. In Algeria, the 2019 and 2021 protests led to significant political shifts, but the expansion of surveillance systems has created a climate of fear that may deter future participation. Wairagala Wakabi of the Kampala-based policy body Cipes argues that the large-scale and invasive AI-enabled surveillance of public spaces is not “legal, necessary, or proportionate” to the aim of providing security. He warns that history shows such technologies are often used as tools to invade citizens’ privacy and stifle freedom of movement and expression, further entrenching systemic inequalities.

African nations face significant institutional and technical challenges in enforcing AI surveillance regulations, which has allowed the technology to expand without adequate oversight. While nearly every African country has established a digital ministry as of 2023, governments struggle to build the human capital necessary to sustain AI governance ecosystems. This capacity gap is compounded by the fact that traditional regulatory silos are being dismantled, with competition authorities and consumer protection bodies increasingly asserting jurisdiction over data governance. As a result, enforcement approaches remain fragmented, leaving many surveillance systems operating in legal gray areas. For example, the report notes that while data protection laws exist in 44 African countries, their implementation is often inconsistent, with many governments lacking the resources to monitor compliance effectively.

The reliance on Chinese technology firms also exacerbates these challenges, as the legal frameworks governing data storage and usage are often shaped by foreign interests rather than local priorities. The Institute of Development Studies report highlights that the majority of AI surveillance spending in Africa is funded through loans from Chinese banks, raising concerns about the influence of external actors on domestic policy. This dynamic has created a situation where African governments may prioritize economic development over civil liberties, further entrenching the risks associated with unregulated surveillance. The lack of transparency in how these technologies are deployed and managed has also made it difficult for citizens to challenge their use, leaving them without effective mechanisms to protect their rights.