AI policies in Africa: lessons from Ghana and Rwanda
Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasing productivity and pushing the boundaries of what's possible. It powers self-driving cars, social media feeds, fraud detection and medical diagnoses. Touted as a game changer, it is projected to add nearly US$15.7 trillion to the global economy by the end of the decade.
Africa is positioned to use this technology in several sectors. In Ghana, Kenya and South Africa, AI-led digital tools in use include drones for farm management, X-ray screening for tuberculosis diagnosis, and real-time tracking systems for packages and shipments. All these are helping to fill gaps in accessibility, efficiency and decision-making.
However, it also introduces risks. These include biased algorithms, resource and labour exploitation, and e-waste disposal. The lack of a robust regulatory framework in many parts of the continent increases these challenges, leaving vulnerable populations exposed to exploitation. Limited public awareness and infrastructure further complicate the continent's ability to harness AI responsibly.
What are African countries doing about it? To answer this, my research mapped out what Ghana and Rwanda had in place as AI policies and investigated how these policies were developed. I looked for shared principles and differences in approach to governance and implementation.
The research shows that AI policy development is not a neutral or technical process but a profoundly political one. Power dynamics, institutional interests and competing visions of technological futures shape AI regulation.
I conclude from my findings that AI's potential to bring great change in Africa is undeniable. But its benefits are not automatic. Rwanda and Ghana show that effective policy-making requires balancing innovation with equity, global standards with local needs, and state oversight with public trust.
The question is not whether Africa can harness AI, but how and on whose terms.
How they did it
Rwanda's National AI Policy emerged from consultations with local and global actors. These included the Ministry of ICT and Innovation, the Rwandan Space Agency, and NGOs like the Future Society, and the GIZ FAIR Forward. The resulting policy framework is in line with Rwanda's goals for digital transformation, economic diversification and social development. It includes international best practices such as ethical AI, data protection, and inclusive AI adoption.
Ghana's Ministry of Communication, Digital Technology and Innovations conducted multi-stakeholder workshops to develop a national strategy for digital transformation and innovation. Start-ups, academics, telecom companies and public-sector institutions came together and the result is Ghana's National Artificial Intelligence Strategy 2023–2033.
Both countries have set up or plan to set up Responsible AI offices. This aligns with global best practices for ethical AI. Rwanda focuses on local capacity building and data sovereignty. This reflects the country's post-genocide emphasis on national control and social cohesion. Similarly, Ghana's proposed office focuses on accountability, though its structure is still under legislative review.
Ghana and Rwanda have adopted globally recognised ethical principles like privacy protection, bias mitigation and human rights safeguards. Rwanda's policy reflects Unesco's AI ethics recommendations and Ghana emphasises 'trustworthy AI'.
Both policies frame AI as a way to reach the UN's Sustainable Development Goals. Rwanda's policy targets applications in healthcare, agriculture, poverty reduction and rural service delivery. Similarly, Ghana's strategy highlights the potential to advance economic growth, environmental sustainability and inclusive digital transformation.
Key policy differences
Rwanda's policy ties data control to national security. This is rooted in its traumatic history of identity-based violence. Ghana, by contrast, frames AI as a tool for attracting foreign investment rather than a safeguard against state fragility.
The policies also differ in how they manage foreign influence. Rwanda has a 'defensive' stance towards global tech powers; Ghana's is 'accommodative'. Rwanda works with partners that allow it to follow its own policy. Ghana, on the other hand, embraces partnerships, viewing them as the start of innovation.
While Rwanda's approach is targeted and problem-solving, Ghana's strategy is expansive, aiming for large-scale modernisation and private-sector growth. Through state-led efforts, Rwanda focuses on using AI to solve immediate challenges such as rural healthcare access and food security. In contrast, Ghana looks at using AI more widely – in finance, transport, education and governance – to become a regional tech hub.
Constraints and solutions
The effectiveness of these AI policies is held back by broader systemic challenges. The US and China dominate in setting global standards, so local priorities get sidelined. For example, while Rwanda and Ghana advocate for ethical AI, it's hard for them to hold multinational corporations accountable for breaches.
Energy shortages further complicate large-scale AI adoption. Training models require reliable electricity – a scarce resource in many parts of the continent.
To address these gaps, I propose the following:
Investments in digital infrastructure, education and local start-ups to reduce dependency on foreign tech giants.
African countries must shape international AI governance forums. They must ensure policies reflect continental realities, not just western or Chinese ones. This will include using collective bargaining power through the African Union to bring Africa's development needs to the fore. It could also help with digital sovereignty issues and equitable access to AI technologies.
Finally, AI policies must embed African ethical principles. These should include communal rights and post-colonial sensitivities. DM
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
an hour ago
- Daily Maverick
Restructuring global health – WHO faces major challenges as foreign aid reductions take toll
While the immediate effects of the US cuts in health aid are being felt primarily by the Global South, the associated risks extend worldwide. Last week, global leaders gathered for the World Health Assembly in Geneva to address the reality that the global health landscape is being reshaped by dramatic shifts in funding, priorities, and leadership. Chief among these is the United States' decision to slash foreign aid and withdraw from the World Health Organization (WHO). Despite spending only 0.24% of its gross national income on foreign aid, the United States has been the largest donor to global health programmes, providing one-third of the international assistance in global health. This is not just a US issue – other countries have also signalled reductions in foreign health aid, and Argentina also recently announced it will withdraw from the WHO. These dramatic shifts have forced the WHO to plan a reduction in staff by nearly 50%, triggering massive restructuring. Non-government organisations (NGOs) are laying off large numbers of staff worldwide. While other donors and philanthropies are stepping in, they cannot fill the void alone. Meanwhile, the shock to the system is already resulting in lives lost. According to the WHO, countries such as Haiti, Kenya, Lesotho, South Sudan, Burkina Faso and Nigeria may run out of HIV antiretroviral medications within months. The Africa CDC's director-general, Dr Jean Kaseya, warned in March that 'two to four million additional Africans are likely to die annually' as a result of the aid cuts. T The continent now faces a $12-billion shortfall in healthcare financing. Substantial impacts will be felt across the globe, from Afghanistan to Lao PDR, in many low- and middle-income countries. While the immediate effects of these cuts are being felt primarily by the Global South, the associated risks extend globally. When countries become overwhelmed by preventable infections, they will lose the ability to detect and contain pathogens with epidemic potential that could cross borders in days. The current situation carries serious implications for global security as well as health. A new era needs to begin with a roadmap for sustainable domestic funding by individual nations, a strategic view of the role of WHO, and a coordinated plan among major donors. Governments must take the lead in reshaping their health budgets to reflect urgent needs while navigating competing priorities. Donors, NGOs, and multilaterals can support this shift if they embrace flexible, trust-based funding models tailored to local strategies. African health financing The desire to create long-term sustainability is apparent in the Africa CDC's strategic plan to transform health financing, which focuses on domestic resource mobilisation, diversifying funding sources, optimising health fund management and using evidence-based data for efficient resource allocation. The plan calls for member countries to meet the Abuja Declaration target of spending at least 15% of national budgets on health and explores innovative ideas such as solidarity levies and mobilising Africa's $95-billion in annual diaspora remittances. Nigeria's Basic Health Care Provision Fund, which dedicates 1% of revenue (about $150-million annually) to primary care, is a promising example. Any effort to reform global health infrastructure must prioritise resilient, widely accessible primary healthcare. Since the Alma-Ata declaration of 1978, we've known that primary care is the foundation of 'Health for All'. Doing so will not only reduce the impact of chronic and endemic infectious diseases, but also serve to enable systems that quickly identify when infectious disease outbreaks of concern appear. As the WHO recalibrates, it must assess realistically the current situation and focus on its most important core functions for the future: setting global standards, responding to emergencies and coordinating transnational responses. Routine programme implementation should be handled by individual countries, NGOs, and the private sector. The WHO can no longer afford to take on the management of basic health functions within countries. Instead, it needs to focus on maintaining surge capacity to meet needs during health emergencies and facilitate cooperation in transboundary issues. The WHO needs to prioritise doing fewer things better. Now is also the time for new global coalitions, agreements and leadership among non-government actors. The Gates Foundation has reaffirmed its commitment to address emerging challenges. Philanthropies must align their efforts to successfully cooperate, identify priorities and gaps, reduce duplication and maximise impact. Meanwhile, the private sector has a vital role to play in connecting national health priorities to new markets, innovations and partnerships. Global health needs a multisector coalition of the willing right now that is felicitous, innovative, able to learn from past mistakes and adapt to meet the world's current needs and prevent future crises. The time for action is now – the consequences of inaction are too great, and the lives lost are both predictable and preventable. DM Mitchell Wolfe is Senior Associate at the Center for Strategic Studies, Washington, DC; Nahid Bhadelia is Associate Professor at the Boston University School of Medicine; and Wilmot James is Professor and Strategic Advisor to the Pandemic Center at Brown University's School of Public Health and a former Member of Parliament (South Africa).
Eyewitness News
3 hours ago
- Eyewitness News
Zimbabwe to cull elephants and distribute meat to people
HARARE - Zimbabwe will cull dozens of elephants and distribute the meat for consumption to ease the ballooning population of the animals, its wildlife authority said Tuesday. The southern African country is home to the second-biggest elephant population in the world after Botswana. The cull at a vast private game reserve in the southeast would initially target 50 elephants, the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Authority (ZimParks) said in a statement. It did not say how many of the animals would be killed in total or over what period. An aerial survey in 2024 showed the reserve, the Save Valley Conservancy, had 2,550 elephants, more than triple its carrying capacity of 800, ZimParks said. At least 200 have been translocated to other parks over the past five years. "Elephant meat from the management exercise will be distributed to local communities while ivory will be state property that will be handed over to the ZimParks for safekeeping," it said. Zimbabwe is unable to sell its stockpile of tusks due to a global ban on ivory trading. Tuesday's announcement came a day after four people were arrested in the capital, Harare with more than 230 kilogrammes (500 pounds) of ivory for which they were allegedly seeking a buyer. In 2024, Zimbabwe culled 200 elephants as it faced an unprecedented drought that led to food shortages. It was the first major cull since 1988. The move to hunt the elephants for food has drawn sharp criticism, particularly as the animals are a major tourism draw.
IOL News
6 hours ago
- IOL News
Starlink orders ICASAsePush to halt operations in South Africa as regulator Icasa cracks whip
Icasa chairperson Mothibi Ramusi wrote to SpaceX, seeking clarity on whether the international internet service provider was operating in South Africa without a licence. Image: Supplied Elon Musk's international internet service provider Starlink has informed ICASAsePush, a privately-owned company reported as the leading provider of Starlink internet services in South Africa, to cease its local operations following the intervention of South African authorities. The Starlink directive through its parent company SpaceX to ICASAsePush came after South Africa's Independent Communications Authority of SA (Icasa) wrote to Musk's company, seeking clarity after widespread allegations surfaced purporting that Starlink services are available in South Africa. IOL has recently reported that Starlink has not applied for a licence to operate in South Africa, despite claiming that broad-based black economic empowerment (BEE) laws are preventing his company from setting up. In South Africa, Starlink is listed at 'service date is unknown' while it is starting in 2025 in Lesotho, Namibia, Tanzania, Congo and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Its services are available in eSwatini, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi and Burundi, among other African countries. Speaking to IOL, Icasa chairperson Mothibi Ramusi said he has written to SpaceX, seeking clear answers on whether the international service provider was operating in South Africa without a licence. Get your news on the go, click here to join the IOL News WhatsApp channel. 'I must indicate and confirm that, as an authority, we wrote to the company SpaceX because we wanted to get affirmation ... because sometimes you have fake news and as an authority, with the limitations we have in terms of monitoring equipment and tools, I took it upon myself, supported by council and our exco, and SpaceX has responded, and I must say the response worried me as well, as the chair. 'While they recognise in a country without proper permits is not permissible, they indicated to us they have now instructed them, ICASAsePush, to cease operations and even distribute any equipment that is aligned to their business especially in this country. 'From a security point, that is an issue which should be a concern to us as an authority. Because we collaborate with other state institutions, I have immediately, on behalf of the authority, engaged with Sansa (South African National Space Agency) our national space agency and among other things they do, they providing tracking, tracing and control for those that launch satellites all over the world so we have a very good state of the art facility in this country. Ramusi said he has engaged with security cluster agencies in South Africa as well as Icasa being on the ground, engaging with different communities seeking to identify any illegal activities. 'Part of our collaboration is to bring in other institutions because this requires collaboration. If security is at risk, as an authority, being part of the international telecommunications union, all member states have made a commitment that, as and when you provide services in any country you must observe the local rules. In this instance, as an authority, we just want to instill discipline that as much as we encourage to come to South Africa, if you know that you have equipment that requires spectrum, come to the authority, and that;s what I would like to encourage. Ramusi said SpaceX has confirmed that Starlink services in South Africa have been provided through ICASAsePush. 'They have indicated a company called ICASAsePush. I have got the evidence. They (SpaceX) have written to them instructing them to cease whatever operations that they have. 'My worry is, obviously as an authority is, what kind of a workaround is making it possible for somebody, even when we have instructed SpaceX to cease their operations. With internet, you need to inform those that are providing the service your downlink and your uplink signals should be shut down. That is the instruction we have done as an authority, so I would be more worried if anyone comes today and says that they do have evidence that somewhere in this country, somebody has been able to connect. On its website, IOL found that ICASAsePush prides itself as a trusted facilitator helping South Africans access 'Sparkling' — 'quickly, simply, and without the usual hassle'. ICASAsePush's website also states: 'Diligent copyright lawyers have advised that we can't call a spade a spade - so we now proudly refer to it as Sparkling. Sparkling is a satellite-based internet service. It delivers fast, uncapped internet to homes and businesses - especially in rural or remote areas where traditional options fall short'. 'We source, import, test, and deliver Sparkling hardware directly to your door, handling everything from customs to courier. Whether you choose to buy outright or rent-to-own, we also facilitate your Sparkling account setup if needed — all while keeping you in full control.'
