(Contd. from Sunday)
Beyond physical weapons, Africa faces growing threats in the digital and electromagnetic domains.
The jamming of GPS systems affecting flights in Eastern DRC demonstrates how electronic warfare capabilities can disrupt critical infrastructure. Similarly, AU experience with cyberattacks (although not publicized) disrupting digital systems highlights institutional vulnerabilities to digital attacks. These incidents preview how AI-enhanced cyber warfare could target financial systems, power grids, and communication networks with minimal attribution risk.
The asymmetric nature of AI-enabled warfare particularly disadvantages African states. As Audrey Kurth Cronin notes, “it is both technologically feasible and consistent with classic patterns of diffusion” that non-state actors will eventually deploy swarms of offensive drones using freely available AI and facial recognition systems. Terrorist groups in Africa are already wielding high-tech drones for propaganda and attacks against government forces, with deepening ties between African groups and external outfits like al-Shabaab facilitating technology sharing and knowledge transfer.
AI-driven psychological manipulation represents a more subtle but equally dangerous threat. Sophisticated large language models can generate personalized persuasive content at scale, potentially manipulating public opinion, undermining social cohesion, or influencing elections. Africa’s limited capacity to develop countervailing technologies creates vulnerability to foreign influence campaigns powered by AI-generated content.
Also Read:Troops apprehend 199 terrorists, other criminals in sweeping operation
Artificial Intelligence to the rescue?
UN cash-strapped as U.S. owes $1.5bn dues, others $900m
The mental health sector faces particular challenges. With AI therapy chatbots becoming increasingly prevalent globally, Africa risks both exclusion from beneficial applications and exposure to harmful ones. Without robust regulatory frameworks like the READI Framework or American Psychological Association guidelines emerging in Western contexts, African populations might be exposed to unvalidated AI mental health tools that could cause harm. The absence of local evaluation capacity means that potentially effective tools might be rejected while harmful ones are adopted, or vice versa.
Perhaps most insidiously, AI systems trained primarily on Western data might propagate cultural values and behavioral norms inconsistent with African contexts. This is already happening at a breakneck pace. This subtle form of cultural imperialism could undermine indigenous knowledge systems and social structures while promoting consumer patterns beneficial to foreign corporations rather than local communities. The algorithmic bias inherent in systems trained on non-African data might systematically disadvantage African users, perpetuating stereotypes or excluding legitimate needs .
The concept of “AI colonialism” advanced by MIT Technology Review researchers represents perhaps the most comprehensive threat. Much historical European colonialism extracted physical resources through violent capture of land and exploitation of people, while AI colonialism uses more insidious means to enrich the wealthy and powerful at the expense of the poor. Through this lens, Africa’s data becomes the new resource to be extracted, its digital infrastructure the new territory to be controlled, and its populations the new market to be exploited.
This dynamic creates a form of economic enslavement where value accrues to foreign tech companies rather than local communities. As Karen Hao describes in “Empire of AI,” tech companies scrape every available document of human intelligence and creativity, turning them into digital quanta for machine learning while violating basic principles of intellectual ownership. When these processes occur without appropriate compensation or recognition, they effectively constitute a digital resource extraction system that benefits technology empires at the expense of local communities.
The potential for institutional dependency represents another concerning dimension. As African governments and businesses come to rely on foreign AI systems for critical functions, they may sacrifice operational autonomy in exchange for efficiency. This dependency could create a new form of technological neocolonialism where decisions increasingly serve algorithmic efficiencies rather than human needs or local priorities.
Sam Altman’s concern that society might “collectively transition a significant part of decision making to this very powerful system” takes on particular resonance in African contexts . Without local technical capacity to understand, audit, or modify these systems, African institutions might become increasingly constrained by algorithmic decisions made elsewhere for purposes not necessarily aligned with local priorities.
Despite these concerning trends, promising initiatives are emerging to help Africa navigate the AI revolution more effectively. The African Union Peace and Security Council has emphasized the importance of establishing a Common African Position on AI, recognizing that Africa is predominantly a consumer rather than producer of AI technology. This position aims to ensure African perspectives shape global AI governance frameworks rather than simply accepting standards developed elsewhere. Here is a robust standing example that President Tinubu can push amongst likeminded leaders.
The Framework for the Continental AI Strategy, endorsed during the 44th Extraordinary Session of the Executive Council, addresses peace and security concerns while emphasizing both opportunities and risks. Similarly, the newly established AU Advisory Group on Artificial Intelligence brings together experts from Africa’s five regions to provide guidance on policy implementation across member states. These institutional developments create hope for a more coordinated African approach to AI governance.
Addressing fundamental infrastructure gaps remains essential for meaningful AI participation. This requires not only physical infrastructure like data centers and broadband networks, but also human capital development through AI education and research initiatives. Projects like Rwanda’s anti-epidemic robots during COVID-19 demonstrate that African adoption of AI technologies is possible when supported by appropriate investment and political commitment.
South Africa’s ‘Shot Spotter’ technology, which detects gunfire to prevent urban violence, illustrates how AI applications might be tailored to local security challenges . Similarly, Mali’s partnership with the Water, Peace, and Security (WPS) is also timely and apt. The partnership uses AI to predict and mitigate conflicts arising from water scarcity, demonstrating contextually appropriate applications . These examples suggest that localized AI solutions rather than imported systems might prove most effective for African contexts.
South-South collaboration represents another promising pathway. Rather than relying exclusively on Western or Chinese technology partners, African nations might develop partnerships with other Global South countries facing similar challenges and constraints. India’s emerging AI industry, for instance, might offer more appropriate technologies than those developed in Silicon Valley, while Brazilian initiatives in digital governance might provide transferable models for African contexts.
The development of ethical frameworks specifically tailored to African contexts represents another priority. These should build on indigenous value systems rather than simply importing Western ethical paradigms. Initiatives like the AU Malabo Convention on cybersecurity create important foundations for such frameworks, though much work remains to be done in developing practical implementation guidelines .
The Urgency of Strategic Engagement.
The AI revolution presents Africa with what might be its most significant developmental challenge since independence. The risks of exclusion extend beyond economic marginalization to encompass threats to sovereignty, security, and social cohesion through increasingly sophisticated forms of digital colonization. From autonomous weapons to psychological manipulation, predictive analytics to financial control, AI capabilities could be weaponized against African interests in both obvious and subtle ways.
Yet complete non-participation is not a viable option. As the mobile revolution demonstrated, technology adoption can create significant opportunities when appropriately tailored to local contexts. The challenge lies in navigating a path between uncritical acceptance and reflexive rejection of AI technologies—developing the capacity to selectively adopt beneficial applications while resisting harmful ones.
This navigation requires strategic vision, coordinated policy, and substantial investment in both infrastructure and human capital. It demands that African nations develop their own AI strategies rather than importing foreign models, and that they assert their interests in global AI governance forums rather than accepting standards developed elsewhere. Most importantly, it requires recognition that AI is not merely a technological phenomenon but a political and economic one that will fundamentally reshape power relations in the decades ahead.
The window for shaping Africa’s AI future is narrow but still open. With concerted effort and strategic vision, African nations might yet harness AI technologies for inclusive development rather than exclusion, for liberation rather than enslavement, and for empowerment rather than colonization. The alternative—a future of digital dependency and technological marginalization—would represent a historic failure with consequences lasting generations. This is why President Tinubu must be up and doing. Perhaps it’s for this moment that God helped you become the leader of the most populous nation and economy in Africa, least our children’s children goes into another slavery again.
Olusegun O.Olurin is the CEO of FADAKA Technologies Limited.
