The Thursday Briefing: Who Thinks for Africa? Artificial Intelligence, Cognitive Sovereignty and the Battle for Africa's Future

By Dr Blessing Vava

Hardly a month passes without an African government unveiling an artificial intelligence strategy, commissioning a data centre or announcing a partnership with a global technology company. Zimbabwe is no exception. From the digitisation of government services to the growing use of AI in universities, banks, newsrooms and even Parliament, artificial intelligence has firmly entered our national vocabulary. Across the continent, Kenya is consolidating its position as a technology hub, Rwanda continues to champion digital innovation, Nigeria's technology ecosystem is attracting global investment, while South Africa remains home to some of Africa's leading AI research institutions according to recent assessments by the World Bank, UNESCO, and the Oxford Insights Government AI Readiness Index. On the surface, these developments suggest that Africa is finally claiming its place in the global digital economy.

Whereas beneath this optimism lies a more fundamental question that receives far less attention: whose intelligence are we actually adopting? More importantly, who determines how that intelligence understands African societies, interprets African realities and increasingly shapes African decision-making?

These are not abstract philosophical questions. Artificial intelligence is becoming the invisible infrastructure of the twenty-first century. As Mustafa Suleyman (2023) argues in The Coming Wave, AI is becoming a general-purpose technology comparable to electricity and the internet. It increasingly influences how governments deliver public services, how businesses allocate resources, how financial institutions assess risk, how news is produced and consumed, and how citizens interact with the digital world. If electricity powered the industrial age, artificial intelligence is powering the age of intelligent decision-making. As The Coming Wave argues, artificial intelligence is emerging as a general-purpose technology comparable to electricity and the internet—one that will reshape virtually every sector of society.

For that reason, the global contest has moved well beyond debates about internet connectivity or digital infrastructure. The strategic question is no longer simply who owns fibre-optic cables or data centres. It is who develops the algorithms, controls the data, trains the models and establishes the rules that govern artificial intelligence. In short, the struggle is shifting from ownership of infrastructure to ownership of intelligence.

In my previous Thursday Briefing, I argued that digital sovereignty cannot be reduced to the ownership of technological infrastructure. The concept has also gained prominence in European Union digital policy debates and UNESCO's work on digital governance.  A country may host its own data centres yet remain dependent on foreign software, foreign platforms and foreign algorithms. Ownership without agency is simply another form of dependence. Artificial intelligence extends that argument even further. If digital sovereignty concerns control over digital infrastructure, then the next frontier is what I describe as cognitive sovereignty—the capacity of societies to produce, shape and govern the intelligence that increasingly mediates political, economic and social life.

This idea builds directly on my doctoral concept of geosociotechnopolitics, which argues that technology, society and political power have become inseparable. In today's world, power is exercised not only through territory, military capability or economic strength, but increasingly through algorithms, platforms, data and artificial intelligence. AI is therefore more than another technological innovation; it is becoming a geopolitical and governance instrument that quietly redistributes power from public institutions to the technological systems shaping everyday life.

Zimbabwe already provides important examples of this transformation. Banks use machine learning to detect fraud, newsrooms rely on AI-assisted transcription and translation, universities are grappling with generative AI in teaching and research, while farmers increasingly access AI-powered weather and agricultural applications. These innovations undoubtedly improve efficiency, but they also reveal a deeper reality: much of the intelligence driving these systems is designed elsewhere, trained on datasets that seldom reflect African realities and governed by priorities that are rarely African. Similar trends have been documented by UNDP Zimbabwe and Zimbabwe's National ICT Policy. These trends are consistent with Zimbabwe's National ICT Policy and recent assessments by UNDP Zimbabwe, which identify artificial intelligence and digital transformation as increasingly important components of the country's development agenda.

This should concern us not because foreign technology is inherently problematic, but because history demonstrates that technological dependence often produces economic and political dependence. During colonialism, Africa exported raw materials while importing manufactured goods. Today, the continent increasingly generates vast quantities of digital data—from mobile money, healthcare, agriculture, satellite imagery and social media—yet much of the intelligence derived from that data is processed elsewhere before being sold back to African societies as commercial AI services. Scholars such as Nick Couldry and Ulises A. Mejias describe this phenomenon as data colonialism—a new form of extraction in which data, rather than land or minerals, becomes the principal resource from which value is generated.

Africa's strategic importance in the AI age extends beyond data. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and the African Development Bank (AfDB), Africa occupies a central position in global critical mineral supply chains that underpin the digital economy. The continent is the world's principal supplier of many of the minerals essential to artificial intelligence and advanced computing. The Democratic Republic of Congo dominates global cobalt production; South Africa and Gabon supply much of the world's manganese; South Africa and Zimbabwe hold some of the largest platinum group metal reserves; Mozambique and Madagascar are major graphite producers; Zimbabwe has emerged as one of Africa's leading lithium producers alongside Namibia, while Zambia remains indispensable to global copper supply chains. Several African countries also possess significant rare earth deposits. Together, these minerals underpin semiconductors, batteries, smartphones, electric vehicles, telecommunications equipment, data centres and the advanced computing infrastructure on which artificial intelligence depends. Yet, as in previous eras of resource extraction, Africa continues to export the raw materials while importing the high-value technologies they make possible.

The implications are profound. In the industrial age, those who controlled factories accumulated wealth. In the information age, those who controlled data accumulated influence. In the age of artificial intelligence, those who control cognition itself—the ability to generate knowledge, process information and automate decision-making—will increasingly shape the international order. Africa is therefore no longer simply competing to digitise. It is competing to ensure that its understanding of itself is not outsourced to algorithms developed elsewhere.

Universities, Constitutional Governance and Africa's Search for Cognitive Sovereignty

If Africa is serious about shaping its place in the age of artificial intelligence, then the conversation must extend far beyond ministries of ICT and technology start-ups. AI is not simply an engineering challenge; it is a governance challenge. It raises fundamental questions about who produces knowledge, whose values are embedded in digital systems and who ultimately exercises power in an increasingly algorithmic society.

One of Africa's enduring development mistakes has been to prioritise acquiring technology over producing knowledge. Governments have celebrated new digital platforms, fibre-optic networks and smart government programmes, yet invested far less in the universities, research institutions and innovation ecosystems that generate indigenous technological capability. The result has been a continent that consumes technology more rapidly than it creates it.

Artificial intelligence exposes the limits of this model. AI systems are not built overnight; they emerge from decades of investment in universities, scientific research, computing infrastructure and public policy. Silicon Valley grew out of research institutions such as Stanford and Berkeley as much as venture capital. As documented by Margaret O'Mara in The Code. China's advances in AI reflect decades of sustained investment in higher education, national laboratories and strategic industrial policy, a trajectory documented by AI Superpowers and reinforced by China's subsequent national AI strategy consistent with analyses by Kai-Fu Lee in AI Superpowers. Even Europe's growing influence stems less from producing dominant AI companies than from shaping global rules through scholarship, law and regulation.

The lesson is simple: digital transformation without knowledge production is unsustainable.

Zimbabwe illustrates both the challenge and the opportunity. Despite years of economic hardship, the country continues to produce highly skilled graduates in engineering, computer science, law, economics and the social sciences. Zimbabwean professionals continue to occupy influential positions across global technology, business and academia. Dr James Manyika serves as Senior Vice President for Research, Technology and Society at Google. Ralph Mupita leads the MTN Group as President and CEO. Strive Masiyiwa built one of Africa's most successful telecommunications companies, while Professor Arthur Mutambara serves as Director of the Institute for the Future of Knowledge at the University of Johannesburg. The problem is not a shortage of talent, but the inability to retain, finance and strategically deploy that talent in support of national development.

The same story can be told across Africa. South African universities remain continental leaders in AI research. Kenya's innovation ecosystem continues to develop globally recognised digital solutions. Nigeria's technology sector has produced companies with international reach, while Rwanda has deliberately positioned itself as a laboratory for digital governance. These examples demonstrate that Africa possesses the intellectual capacity to compete. What has often been lacking is sustained investment, policy coordination and long-term political commitment.

This is precisely why geosociotechnopolitics insists that technology cannot be separated from society or governance. A society that neglects research inevitably becomes dependent on knowledge produced elsewhere. Conversely, societies that invest in research acquire not only technological capability but also strategic autonomy.

The African Union has recognised this reality through its Continental Artificial Intelligence Strategy (2025), which seeks to ensure that AI advances African development while reflecting African priorities, values and governance principles. That is an important beginning, but strategies alone will not secure cognitive sovereignty. Governments must treat research and development as strategic investments rather than discretionary expenditure. Universities require modern computing infrastructure, competitive research funding and stronger partnerships with industry. Equally important, Africa must create conditions that encourage its brightest researchers to innovate at home rather than abroad. The challenge is not only economic; it is constitutional.

Throughout this series, I have argued that constitutions are not simply legal texts governing elections or state institutions. They are frameworks for organising power and protecting citizens from its abuse. As artificial intelligence becomes embedded in governance, constitutionalism must evolve alongside technological change.

Consider a future in which AI assists governments to allocate social welfare, identify tax fraud, assess procurement risks or support judicial administration. Such systems may improve efficiency, but they also raise profound constitutional questions. Who is accountable when an algorithm makes a flawed decision? How do citizens challenge automated decisions? How should principles such as equality, transparency and due process apply when decisions are influenced by machine learning systems that even their developers cannot fully explain? These concerns are no longer confined to academic debate. They are reflected in international governance frameworks such as the OECD AI Principles, UNESCO's Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence (2021) and the European Union's AI Act, all of which emphasise transparency, accountability, human oversight and the protection of fundamental rights in the development and deployment of AI systems.

 These trends are consistent with Zimbabwe's National ICT Policy and recent assessments by UNDP Zimbabwe, which identify artificial intelligence and digital transformation as increasingly important components of the country's development agenda. These concerns are increasingly reflected in international governance frameworks, including the OECD AI Principles, UNESCO's Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence (2021) and the European Union's AI Act, all of which emphasise transparency, accountability, human oversight and the protection of fundamental rights in the design and deployment of AI systems.

These are no longer theoretical concerns. Governments around the world are already experimenting with AI-assisted public administration. Africa has an opportunity to ensure that these technologies strengthen democratic governance rather than undermine it.

Zimbabwe's constitutional experience offers an important reminder. The 2013 Constitution emerged from an extensive consultative process intended to anchor governance in constitutionalism, accountability and citizen participation. Those same principles should guide the governance of artificial intelligence. Technology must remain subordinate to constitutional values—not the other way around.

This is why I argue for digital constitutionalism: the application of constitutional principles to emerging digital technologies. Building on the work of legal scholar Giovanni De Gregorio, digital constitutionalism seeks to ensure that constitutional values continue to govern the exercise of power in digital environments. It does not seek to obstruct innovation. Rather, it ensures that technological progress remains consistent with fundamental values such as human dignity, privacy, equality, freedom of expression and democratic accountability. Ultimately, cognitive sovereignty begins not with algorithms but with ideas. It is built in universities, research institutes, policy think tanks and innovation hubs long before it appears in software code. If Africa is to shape the future of artificial intelligence rather than merely consume it, it must first strengthen the institutions that produce knowledge itself.

From Digital Consumers to Architects of Africa's Future

The temptation when discussing artificial intelligence is to focus almost exclusively on technology. We debate algorithms, computing power, large language models and the latest breakthroughs emerging from Silicon Valley or Shenzhen. But history teaches us that societies are not transformed simply because they adopt new technologies. They are transformed because they build the institutions, develop the human capital and exercise the political imagination necessary to govern those technologies in ways that advance national development.

That is where Africa's conversation on artificial intelligence must now begin.

For too long, our digital ambitions have been measured by statistics that tell only part of the story. We celebrate the number of internet users, the kilometres of fibre-optic cable laid, the growth of mobile money and the arrival of another multinational technology company. These are important milestones, but they are not the ultimate measure of digital progress. Infrastructure is the foundation, not the destination.

The real question is whether Africa is becoming a producer of intelligence or merely a sophisticated consumer of intelligence produced elsewhere.

That distinction will define the continent's place in the twenty-first century.

Throughout Africa's post-colonial history, development has often been framed around natural resources, mining and agriculture. Zimbabwe has long been associated with gold, platinum, lithium, diamonds and its historic role as the region's breadbasket. Zambia by copper. Botswana by diamonds. The Democratic Republic of Congo by cobalt. Yet the strategic resource of the digital age is no longer found beneath the ground. It lies in the ability of societies to generate knowledge, produce innovation and govern technology. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and the African Development Bank, Africa occupies a central position in global critical mineral supply chains.

Artificial intelligence makes this reality unmistakable.

The countries shaping the future of AI are not necessarily those with the richest mineral deposits. They are those that have consistently invested in education, scientific research, computing infrastructure and innovation ecosystems. Their greatest asset is not simply technology; it is the institutional capacity to produce new knowledge continuously.

Africa possesses enormous potential. It has the world's youngest population and a growing generation of engineers, computer scientists, lawyers, economists and entrepreneurs. Innovation hubs are expanding across Lagos, Nairobi, Kigali, Cape Town, Cairo and Accra, while Zimbabwe continues to produce professionals whose expertise is recognised globally.

The challenge, therefore, is not capability. It is strategic coordination.

Too often, Africa exports its brightest minds just as it has historically exported its raw materials, with some examples of Zimbabweans mentioned earlier. The continent contributes talent to the world's leading universities and technology companies while struggling to create comparable research ecosystems at home. This intellectual migration mirrors older patterns of economic dependency, where value is created elsewhere from African resources—whether minerals or human capital.

Breaking that cycle requires a different political vision. Governments must begin treating universities as strategic national assets rather than simply teaching institutions. Research and development should be viewed as investments in sovereignty, not discretionary expenditure. If artificial intelligence is becoming the operating system of the global economy, then research capacity is as important to national security today as roads, railways and power stations were during earlier periods of industrialisation.

The private sector also has a critical role. Innovation rarely flourishes in isolation. It emerges where governments, universities, entrepreneurs and investors collaborate around a shared national purpose. Africa has already demonstrated this through mobile financial innovation. Kenya's M-Pesa transformed financial inclusion and inspired digital payment systems across the continent, including Zimbabwe's EcoCash. The next challenge is to replicate that success in artificial intelligence, ensuring that Africa becomes a creator of AI solutions rather than merely a market for them.

This also demands a broader understanding of sovereignty.

For generations, sovereignty was understood primarily in territorial terms. States protected borders, controlled natural resources and exercised authority within defined geographical boundaries. Digital technologies have fundamentally altered that understanding. Today, algorithms developed in California influence conversations in Harare. AI models trained in Beijing support business decisions in Lusaka. Data generated in Bulawayo may be processed on servers located thousands of kilometres away.

Geosociotechnopolitics argues that power is increasingly exercised through technological ecosystems that shape communication, commerce, governance and public opinion. Nations therefore compete not only over territory and resources but also over data, standards, algorithms and digital knowledge. Sovereignty in the digital age is therefore as much intellectual as it is territorial.

This is where cognitive sovereignty assumes its full significance. Cognitive sovereignty is not about technological isolation or digital nationalism. Africa cannot and should not withdraw from global scientific collaboration. Progress has always depended on the exchange of ideas. Rather, cognitive sovereignty means participating in those global networks from a position of confidence rather than dependence. It means ensuring that African societies retain the capacity to define their own priorities, generate their own knowledge and build technologies that reflect their own realities.

Artificial intelligence should increasingly understand African languages, legal traditions, health systems, agricultural practices and cultural contexts—not as afterthoughts, but as integral components of global knowledge production.

The emergence of technomultipolarity provides Africa with a rare historical opportunity. The rules governing artificial intelligence have not yet been settled. International standards remain contested, and competing powers continue to shape different models of digital governance. Africa therefore enters this debate at a moment when meaningful influence is still possible.

The challenge is to move beyond choosing between Washington, Beijing or Brussels. None of these choices, by themselves, constitutes a development strategy. Africa's long-term interests will be better served by building indigenous capability while engaging confidently with every centre of technological innovation.

Zimbabwe, like much of Africa, stands at this crossroads. The decisions taken today about education, research, digital governance and artificial intelligence will shape the country's development trajectory for decades. The question is no longer whether AI will transform Zimbabwean society. That transformation is already underway. The real question is whether Zimbabwe will simply consume it or actively shape it.

That responsibility extends beyond government. Universities must prepare graduates capable of leading AI research. Civil society must engage debates on digital rights, algorithmic accountability and data governance. Legislatures must ensure that emerging technologies remain subject to constitutional oversight.

Above all, African scholars must become more confident producers of ideas. We should not merely apply theories developed elsewhere to African realities. We must increasingly generate concepts capable of explaining our own experience while enriching global scholarship. That conviction lies at the heart of geosociotechnopolitics. It emerged from the recognition that existing frameworks no longer adequately explain the relationship between technology, society and political power in an increasingly digital world.

Ultimately, Africa's digital future will not be determined by the number of data centres it builds or the speed of its internet connections. It will be determined by whether the continent develops the confidence and capacity to become a producer of knowledge rather than merely a consumer of technology.

The struggle for Africa's future has always been about agency—the ability to define our own priorities, imagine our own future and shape the forces transforming our societies. Artificial intelligence has simply moved that struggle into a new arena.

The challenge before us is therefore not simply to build smarter machines.

It is to build smarter societies.

Because in the technomultipolar age, those who shape intelligence will increasingly shape history. The question Africa must answer is not whether it will participate in that future, but whether it will help write it.

Conclusion

Artificial intelligence is often presented as a technological revolution. In reality, it is a governance revolution, reshaping how power is exercised, knowledge is produced and societies make decisions.

For Africa, the challenge is no longer catching up with the digital world. It is ensuring that the continent helps define it. The transition to technomultipolarity provides a rare opportunity because the rules governing AI remain unsettled. African states, universities, innovators and policymakers still have space to shape that future.

That requires a different understanding of sovereignty. Digital sovereignty cannot end with fibre-optic cables, cloud infrastructure or data centres. Those are essential foundations, but the true measure of sovereignty is the ability to produce knowledge, govern emerging technologies and shape the intelligence that increasingly mediates political, economic and social life.

Zimbabwe illustrates both the promise and the challenge. It possesses the talent, entrepreneurial energy and constitutional foundations to become an active participant in Africa's digital future. What is needed is sustained investment in research, stronger collaboration between universities, industry and government, and the confidence to produce ideas rather than simply import them.

That is ultimately what geosociotechnopolitics seeks to explain. Technology is no longer separate from society or politics; it has become one of the principal arenas through which power is exercised. If Africa is to secure genuine cognitive sovereignty, it must become not merely a consumer of artificial intelligence, but a producer of the ideas, institutions and innovations that shape it.

Because in the technomultipolar age, those who shape intelligence will increasingly shape history. The question is not whether Africa will participate in that future, but whether it will help define it. End 

About the Author

Dr Blessing Vava is a communication scholar and governance practitioner whose research focuses on artificial intelligence governance, digital sovereignty, constitutionalism and Africa's evolving place in the global digital order. He holds a PhD in Communication Studies from the University of Johannesburg and developed the concept of geosociotechnopolitics to explain the intersection of technology, society and political power. He is the Executive Director of the Southern Africa Coalition for Democracy and Accountability (SACDA) and writes The Thursday Briefing, a bi-weekly commentary on governance, technology and public policy in Africa.

Author's Note

This article builds on ideas developed in my doctoral research on geosociotechnopolitics, which examines the relationship between technology, society and political power in an increasingly digital and multipolar world. It is part of an ongoing series exploring digital sovereignty, constitutional governance and artificial intelligence from an African perspective. The views expressed are my own and are intended to stimulate informed public debate on Africa's role in shaping the governance of emerging technologies. No generative artificial intelligence system was used to develop the article's original arguments, concepts, analysis, or conclusions. Any digital tools used during the research, editing, or publication process served solely as research and editorial aids.

 References

• African Union. (2025). Continental Artificial Intelligence Strategy. 

• Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. A. (2019). The Costs of Connection. 

• De Gregorio, G. (2022). Digital Constitutionalism in Europe. 

• International Energy Agency. (2024). Global Critical Minerals Outlook. 

• Kai-Fu Lee. (2018). AI Superpowers. 

• Mazzucato, M. (2013). The Entrepreneurial State. 

• O'Mara, M. (2019). The Code: Silicon Valley and the Remaking of America. 

• OECD. (2019). OECD Principles on Artificial Intelligence. 

• Suleyman, M. (2023). The Coming Wave. 

• UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. 

• United States Geological Survey. (2025). Mineral Commodity Summaries. 

• World Bank. (2025). Digital Economy for Africa publications. 

• Oxford Insights. (2024/2025). Government AI Readiness Index. 

Note: The concepts of geosociotechnopolitics and technomultipolarity are drawn from the author's doctoral research on technology, governance and Africa–China digital relations.

The Thursday Briefing: Beyond Infrastructure: Digital Sovereignty and the Politics of Ownership in Africa’s Technomultipolar Age

 

By Dr Blessing Vava

Who Owns the Digital State?

Africa’s digital transformation is often celebrated in the language of efficiency, innovation, and service delivery. Governments are digitising payments, identity systems, tax administration, health records, public registries, and social services. Cloud computing, biometric databases, cybersecurity frameworks, smart-government platforms, and artificial intelligence strategies are becoming integral to the architecture of the modern African state.

Much of this is undeniably progress. A farmer in Mutoko can receive payments through a mobile wallet. A small business owner in Nairobi can register a company online. A student in Kigali can access government services without travelling long distances to a public office. Digital systems can improve efficiency, expand access to services, reduce administrative costs, and strengthen state capacity.

However, beneath the rhetoric of modernisation lies a more fundamental political question: who controls the infrastructures through which the modern state now governs?

The question matters because digital systems are no longer peripheral administrative tools. They are becoming part of the machinery of power itself. They shape who is visible to the state, who can access public services, how citizens are identified, how money moves, how information circulates, and increasingly how authority is exercised. In this sense, digital infrastructures are becoming constitutional infrastructures. Like legislatures, courts, and executive institutions, they organise power, structure participation, and mediate rights.

Unlike constitutions or parliaments, however, many of the infrastructures through which digital power flows are not fully controlled by the state. They may be built by foreign vendors, financed by external lenders, hosted beyond national borders, governed by private platforms, or dependent on technical standards developed elsewhere. A country may remain sovereign in law while becoming dependent in code.

That is the challenge confronting Africa today. It is not simply a technical question of digitisation. It is a political, constitutional, and increasingly geosociotechnopolitical one: how does a state remain sovereign when the infrastructures through which it governs are not entirely its own?

Zimbabwe offers a useful entry point into this debate. Over the past decade, the country has expanded biometric registration systems, digitised tax administration, tightened regulation of mobile money, and repeatedly confronted controversies surrounding internet access and digital communications. None of these developments is purely technical. Each raises questions about visibility, control, legitimacy, accountability, and power.

But Zimbabwe is far from unique. Across the continent, governments are investing heavily in digital identity systems, payment ecosystems, data centres, AI strategies, and e-government platforms. Kenya’s Huduma Namba and Maisha Namba programmes, Nigeria’s National Identification Number system, Rwanda’s digital public-service architecture, and South Africa’s growing regulatory focus on data protection all reflect a broader continental transformation (World Bank, 2021; GSMA, 2023).

At the same time, Africa is navigating an increasingly crowded technological landscape. Chinese, American, European, Gulf, Indian, and African actors are all competing to shape the continent’s digital future. Africa is no longer entering a unipolar technological order. It is entering a technomultipolar one.

This new environment creates opportunities. Competition expands choices, lowers costs, and reduces dependence on any single provider. But it also creates new vulnerabilities. Can a country be digitally sovereign if its telecommunications backbone is built by one external actor, its cloud infrastructure is managed by another, its public discourse takes place on platforms governed elsewhere, and its AI systems are trained on data and assumptions generated abroad?

More fundamentally, is digital sovereignty primarily a question of ownership or of governance?

This brief argues that the answer lies neither in technological nationalism nor passive dependence, but in digital agency. Ownership matters. Infrastructure matters. However, what ultimately determines sovereignty is society's capacity to govern the technological systems that increasingly govern it.

The central claim is straightforward: the future of African sovereignty will depend less on who builds digital infrastructure than on who governs it.

Why Infrastructure Matters—And Why It Is Not Enough

Infrastructure has always been political. Roads shape trade routes. Railways influence economic geography. Electricity grids affect industrialisation and the relationship between citizens and the state. Digital infrastructures are no different. They do not simply connect people; they organise power.

What distinguishes digital infrastructure from earlier forms is that it carries information. Information can be copied, analysed, monetised, transferred, manipulated, and governed in ways that roads, pipelines, and railways cannot. Control over digital infrastructure, therefore, creates a unique form of influence over political, economic, and social life.

Consider cloud computing. It may appear to be a technical matter involving servers and storage. Yet, cloud infrastructure determines where public data resides, which jurisdictions can access it, who secures it, and who ultimately controls the digital environment upon which modern governance increasingly depends.

The same is true of digital identity systems. Often presented as tools of administrative efficiency, they quickly become gateways to citizenship and participation. They shape access to social protection, banking services, public benefits, business registration, healthcare, education, and in some contexts even electoral participation. Once embedded in governance, they become part of the architecture of state power.

Ownership, therefore, matters because infrastructure shapes capability. A state that lacks meaningful control over critical digital systems may retain formal sovereignty while losing practical room to govern independently. Decisions about data governance, cybersecurity, platform regulation, and technological development may increasingly be influenced by actors whose interests do not necessarily align with domestic priorities.

However, ownership alone is insufficient. Building infrastructure is not the same as governing it.

A government may construct a national data centre yet remain dependent on foreign software, foreign technical standards, external cybersecurity expertise, and long-term maintenance contracts. It may establish a sovereign cloud strategy while lacking the institutional capacity to secure, audit, regulate, and effectively utilise it. In the digital age, sovereignty is as much about capability as it is about possession.

This distinction is particularly important for Africa. Discussions of digital sovereignty often focus narrowly on foreign ownership. The reality is more complex. Dependence also arises when states and societies lack the capacity to shape how digital systems operate, how data is governed, how platforms are regulated, and how technology is integrated into public life.

Zimbabwe’s experience illustrates the point. The digitisation of citizen records, tax administration, and public databases has generated important questions about trust, access, exclusion, surveillance, and accountability. Who stores the data? Who audits it? Who can access it? What protections exist against misuse? These are not technical details. They are constitutional questions because they concern the distribution and exercise of power.

Similar tensions have emerged elsewhere. Kenya’s digital identity programmes have sparked debates over privacy and exclusion. Nigeria’s SIM registration and National Identification Number initiatives have highlighted the political implications of administrative visibility. South Africa’s implementation of the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA) reflects growing concern about data governance and privacy rights. Rwanda’s digital-government initiatives demonstrate both the opportunities and challenges of integrating technology into state administration (World Bank, 2021).

Across these cases, the central issue is not whether states should digitise. Digitisation is already underway. The real question is whether it is taking place within frameworks of accountability, public trust, democratic oversight, and institutional resilience.

This is where geosociotechnopolitics becomes useful. The concept begins from a simple observation: technology is never merely technical. Once embedded in everyday life, it shapes social relations, economic opportunities, political authority, and even international power.

A telecommunications network matters because millions depend on it. A digital payment system matters because economic life flows through it. A cloud platform matters because governments, businesses, and citizens rely upon it. The question, therefore, is not simply who owns infrastructure. It is those who have the power to govern the ecosystems that emerge around it.

From Zhing Zhong to Digital Ecosystems

To understand why digital sovereignty has become such a pressing issue, it is useful to revisit the evolution of China–Africa ICT relations over the past two decades.

When Chinese information and communication technologies first entered many African markets, they were often dismissed as zhing zhong—cheap, inferior substitutes for supposedly superior Western technologies. Chinese phones, electronic devices, and telecommunications equipment were frequently associated with low quality and short life spans. Few anticipated that Chinese firms would become among the most influential actors in Africa’s digital transformation.

 Whereas that is precisely what happened.

Companies such as Huawei and ZTE became major suppliers of telecommunications infrastructure across the continent, helping expand connectivity into areas long neglected by traditional providers (Alden & Jiang, 2019; Gagliardone, 2019). At the consumer level, Transsion’s brands—Tecno, Infinix, and Itel—did more than sell affordable smartphones. They succeeded because they adapted to African realities: local languages, local price points, local usage patterns, and technical features tailored to African conditions (Sun, Jayaram & Kassiri, 2017).

The result was not simply market penetration. It was technological embeddedness.

This process formed the empirical foundation of my doctoral research. What initially appeared to be a story of technology transfer revealed a much deeper transformation. Chinese ICTs were not merely entering African markets as products. They were becoming woven into the social, economic, political, and institutional fabric of everyday life.

That insight exposed a limitation in existing scholarship. Traditional geopolitical analyses focused on states and strategic competition. Development studies concentrated on dependency and modernisation. Technology studies examined innovation and diffusion. Each offered valuable insights, but none fully explained the interaction between geography, society, technology, and politics unfolding across Africa’s digital landscape.

It was from this gap that I developed the concept of geosociotechnopolitics: the proposition that geography, society, technology, and politics are no longer separable domains but mutually constitutive ones. 

A telecommunications network is not merely a technical infrastructure. It reshapes economic opportunities, social relationships, governance capacities, and geopolitical alignments. A smartphone is not simply a consumer device. It becomes a gateway to banking, education, employment, public debate, identity, and political participation.

Seen in this light, the significance of China–Africa ICT relations extends far beyond trade or investment. What emerged was the construction of digital ecosystems: interconnected environments comprising infrastructure, devices, software, platforms, data flows, regulatory arrangements, business models, and everyday social practices.

This distinction is important. A telecommunications tower can be replaced. A handset manufacturer can lose market share. Ecosystems are different. Once established, they generate patterns of interdependence that are difficult to unwind.

Users become dependent on platforms. Businesses depend on digital payment systems. Governments rely on communications networks and cloud services. Financial systems depend on data flows. Public administration increasingly depends on digital architectures that become embedded in everyday governance.

This is why debates about digital sovereignty cannot be reduced to simplistic arguments about whether Chinese, American, European, or other technologies should be embraced or rejected. Such debates miss the central issue.

The critical question is not where a technology originates. It is how the ecosystem surrounding that technology is governed once it becomes part of social and political life.

The experience of China–Africa ICT relations illustrates this clearly. Chinese technologies undoubtedly created new forms of external influence. At the same time, they also expanded connectivity, reduced costs, widened access, and created opportunities for local adaptation and innovation. The reality was neither pure dependency nor pure autonomy. It was a more complex process of negotiation, adaptation, and incorporation.

Today, that complexity is deepening. Africa is moving beyond basic connectivity into a new phase shaped by cloud computing, digital finance, artificial intelligence, platform economies, and smart governance.

The challenge is no longer simply connectivity.

It is control.

It is no longer simply infrastructure.

It is sovereignty.

The Four Fronts of Digital Sovereignty

Digital sovereignty is often invoked as a political slogan. In practice, it is better understood as a struggle unfolding across four interconnected fronts: infrastructure, data, platforms, and algorithms.

Infrastructure Sovereignty

The first front is infrastructure sovereignty: control over the physical and technical foundations of the digital economy.

This includes telecommunications networks, fibre-optic cables, internet exchange points, data centres, cloud infrastructure, and satellite systems. Just as ports, railways, and energy networks underpinned earlier eras of economic development, digital infrastructure now underpins both economic activity and state authority.

Yet digital infrastructure is rarely self-contained. A data centre located within national borders may still depend on foreign hardware, software, technical standards, and maintenance chains. Infrastructure sovereignty, therefore, requires more than ownership of physical assets. It demands technical expertise, institutional competence, cybersecurity capacity, and regulatory capability.

The challenge is becoming clearer across Africa. Governments are investing in national data centres and cloud strategies, yet many remain dependent on external technology providers for critical functions. Building infrastructure is relatively straightforward. Building the capacity to govern it is far more difficult.

Data Sovereignty

The second front is data sovereignty.

Every digital interaction generates data: mobile phone usage, tax records, health records, biometric registrations, financial transactions, educational records, social media activity, and platform usage.

Data is no longer simply a by-product of digital life. It is one of the strategic resources of the twenty-first century.

The central question is not merely whether governments collect data, but who governs it. Who owns the data generated by citizens? Where is it stored? Under whose jurisdiction does it fall? Who extracts value from it? Who can access it?

These questions are particularly important in states digitising public administration while simultaneously grappling with weak institutions, limited public trust, and fragile accountability mechanisms.

Across Africa, governments are increasingly recognising this challenge. South Africa’s POPIA framework, Kenya’s Data Protection Act, and Nigeria’s evolving data-governance regime all reflect attempts to establish greater control over the collection, storage, and use of personal data (Republic of South Africa, 2013; Republic of Kenya, 2019; Nigeria Data Protection Commission, 2023).

Platform Sovereignty

The third front is platform sovereignty.

An increasing share of public life now takes place on private digital platforms. Communication, commerce, entertainment, political mobilisation, financial transactions, and public debate are mediated through platforms such as Facebook, WhatsApp, TikTok, YouTube, X, Google, and a growing range of digital marketplaces.

These platforms function as governance spaces, yet they are largely regulated by corporate rules rather than public law.

Their terms of service are not constitutional, but they often shape public discourse more immediately than legislation. Their moderators are not judges, yet they can influence what speech circulates, what information is amplified, and which voices are marginalised.

Zimbabwe provides a revealing example. During periods of monetary instability, state interventions into EcoCash demonstrated how a private financial platform could become central to macroeconomic governance and political contestation (Mhlanga, 2021). At its peak, EcoCash was not simply a fintech company. It had become part of the country's economic bloodstream.

Once a platform reaches that level of significance, questions of regulation, access, surveillance, liquidity, and state intervention become sovereignty questions.

The same dynamic appears whenever governments restrict internet access or suspend online communications during periods of political tension. In such moments, digital networks cease to be neutral utilities. They become contested political terrain.

Algorithmic Sovereignty

The fourth front is algorithmic sovereignty.

Algorithms and AI systems increasingly shape decisions once made by human institutions. They influence what information citizens see, who receives credit, how risks are assessed, which individuals are flagged for scrutiny, what content is removed, and how public services are allocated.

As artificial intelligence becomes more deeply embedded in governance, its influence will extend further into employment, healthcare, welfare administration, education, policing, and public service delivery.

However, algorithms are never neutral.

They reflect assumptions about what should be measured, which outcomes matter, what risks should be prioritised, and whose values should prevail. Every AI system embodies choices, whether acknowledged or not.

The sovereignty question, therefore, becomes unavoidable: who designs these systems, whose data trains them, whose standards govern them, and who audits their operation?

Several African countries are already confronting these issues. Rwanda and Kenya have launched national AI strategies. South Africa is developing AI governance frameworks African Union, 2024; Smart Africa, 2023). The African Union has begun considering continent-wide approaches to artificial intelligence governance.

These initiatives remain in their early stages, but they reflect growing recognition that the governance of algorithms may become one of the defining sovereignty questions of the twenty-first century.

Taken together, these four fronts demonstrate why digital sovereignty cannot be reduced to ownership alone.

A country may own infrastructure while exercising limited control over data. It may regulate data while exercising little influence over platforms. It may legislate platform governance while lacking the expertise required to audit algorithms.

Digital sovereignty is therefore multidimensional. It depends less on possession than on the capacity to govern increasingly complex and interconnected technological systems.

The Battle for Standards

If infrastructure is the visible face of digital power, standards are its hidden constitution.

Standards determine how technologies communicate, interoperate, and are governed. They shape technical specifications, cybersecurity protocols, data formats, interoperability requirements, and increasingly the rules governing artificial intelligence. Most citizens rarely notice them, yet standards quietly structure the architecture of digital life.

When a mobile-money payment moves between networks, when a passport is scanned at an airport, or when an AI system evaluates an application, standards are doing invisible work in the background. Their importance lies precisely in the fact that most people never see them.

The internet functions because common standards allow networks and devices to communicate. Mobile phones operate because telecommunications systems follow agreed technical rules. Cross-border financial transactions depend on standardised protocols. Increasingly, AI systems will be shaped by standards governing transparency, accountability, safety, and bias.

In this sense, standards are political even when they appear purely technical. They determine who participates, under what conditions, and according to whose rules. They embed values within technological systems.

For Africa, this raises a fundamental question: who writes the standards that will govern the continent’s digital future?

Historically, African countries have often been consumers rather than producers of global standards. Technical architectures developed in Europe, North America, and increasingly China have been adopted across African markets because they are affordable, available, and interoperable. There are obvious practical benefits to this. Nonetheless, it also creates a subtler form of dependence. Those who shape standards frequently shape markets, regulatory possibilities, and the boundaries of technological choice.

This is becoming particularly important in the global contest over artificial intelligence. Beneath the race for technological leadership lies a deeper struggle over governance. Who defines responsible AI? Who determines transparency requirements? Who decides how bias should be measured, accountability enforced, or sensitive data protected?

These are not merely technical questions. They are political and constitutional questions because they concern how power will be exercised through code.

The challenge is especially acute for Africa. The continent is one of the fastest-growing digital markets in the world, with a young population, expanding connectivity, and growing strategic importance. However, its voice remains underrepresented in many of the institutions shaping global technological standards.

The risk is not simply exclusion. It is that African societies may increasingly find themselves governed by rules designed for different histories, different institutional realities, and different political priorities.

Current debates around artificial intelligence illustrate the problem. AI systems trained primarily on data generated in North America, Europe, or China may reproduce assumptions that do not adequately reflect African social realities (UNESCO, 2021). The issue is not only technical performance. It is whether the values embedded within these systems align with the contexts in which they are deployed.

The same challenge is visible in debates around satellite internet services such as Starlink. The central issue is not whether greater connectivity is desirable. It is. The question is under what regulatory, fiscal, security, and sovereignty conditions such infrastructures become integrated into national communications ecosystems.

Connectivity may arrive from orbit. Sovereignty must still be negotiated on the ground.

Encouragingly, African institutions are beginning to engage more actively in standards-setting debates. The African Union’s digital transformation agenda, continental cybersecurity initiatives, and emerging discussions around AI governance all suggest growing recognition that technological sovereignty requires participation not only in markets but also in rule-making.

The struggle for digital sovereignty will therefore be fought not only through infrastructure investments or technology adoption. It will also be fought through standards, regulations, governance frameworks, and the institutions that shape them.

The future of digital power may depend less on who owns technology than on who defines the rules by which it operates.

A New Pan-Africanism of Code

The struggle for African sovereignty has always evolved alongside changes in the global political economy.

The first generation of Pan-Africanism confronted colonial domination. The second confronted economic dependence and unequal integration into the global economy. The twenty-first century faces a different challenge: digital power.

The technologies that increasingly shape communication, commerce, governance, security, finance, education, and public administration do not respect national borders. A platform operating in Harare simultaneously operates in Lagos, Nairobi, Johannesburg, Accra, Cairo, and beyond. Data generated in one country may be processed in another and stored on servers located outside the continent altogether.

Artificial intelligence intensifies this dynamic. AI systems used in African public services may be developed in California, trained on global datasets, hosted in Europe, and deployed simultaneously across multiple African countries.

The problem is straightforward. Political authority remains largely national. Digital power increasingly operates across borders. A social-media post made in Harare may be stored on servers in another continent, moderated by a company headquartered elsewhere, and viewed simultaneously in Lagos, Johannesburg, Nairobi, and London. The geography of digital power rarely corresponds neatly to the geography of political authority.

This mismatch creates governance challenges that no single African state can effectively address alone.

That is why the African Union matters.

Digital transformation and digital sovereignty are not the same thing. A country can digitise public services while remaining structurally dependent on external technological ecosystems. A government can adopt AI systems while having little influence over the standards governing them. A state can expand internet access while exercising minimal leverage over the platforms through which citizens communicate.

Digital sovereignty ultimately requires governance capacity. Increasingly, governance capacity requires scale.

Individually, many African states face significant asymmetries when negotiating with large technology companies or major geopolitical actors. Collectively, Africa possesses considerable market size, demographic weight, strategic relevance, and political influence.

The lesson is not new. The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) became globally influential not because Europe dominated the technology sector, but because access to the European market required compliance with European rules. Market scale translated into regulatory power (Bradford, 2020).

Africa possesses similar potential if it can act collectively.

The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) already demonstrates the possibilities of continent-wide economic coordination. A similar ambition is needed in the digital sphere. Continental frameworks on data governance, cybersecurity, AI regulation, digital trade, and cross-border infrastructure could significantly strengthen Africa’s bargaining position and reduce regulatory fragmentation (African Union, 2021).

This does not require the creation of a single continental digital authority. Nor does it require replacing national sovereignty with supranational control. Rather, it requires recognising that certain dimensions of digital governance can no longer be managed effectively by individual states acting alone.

For this reason, the African Union should think beyond digital development and toward what might be called continental digital constitutionalism: a shared framework for governing data, platforms, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, standards, and digital infrastructure at a scale that matches the scale of digital power itself.

Such a framework would complement rather than replace national constitutions. Its purpose would be to address forms of technological governance that increasingly transcend national borders.

Pan-Africanism must therefore enter the digital age.

In the twentieth century, African cooperation was essential to advancing political liberation and economic self-determination. In the twenty-first century, it may become equally essential to preserve digital sovereignty.

African sovereignty increasingly requires African cooperation—not only in diplomacy, security, and trade, but also in data, algorithms, standards, and code.

Conclusion: The Constitution of Africa’s Digital Future

When I began researching China–Africa ICT relations, the obvious questions concerned technology transfer, dependency, and market expansion. Over time, however, it became clear that the deeper story was not simply about China, nor even about technology. It was about power: how technological systems reshape the relationship between states and citizens, redefine sovereignty, and create new forms of governance that traditional political vocabularies struggle to explain.

That is the challenge geosociotechnopolitics seeks to capture. Geography, society, technology, and politics no longer operate as separate spheres. They increasingly form a single field of power. Technological infrastructures shape social relations. Social relations influence political institutions. Political institutions govern technological adoption. Geography conditions them all. The result is a world in which power increasingly flows through platforms, databases, standards, algorithms, and code.

For Africa, the implications are profound. The twentieth century constitutionalised political power. The twenty-first century must constitutionalise digital power.

A digital identity system can shape access to citizenship as effectively as legislation. A platform can influence public discourse as powerfully as a media law. An algorithm can affect life chances as decisively as an administrative regulation. A cloud infrastructure agreement can have consequences for sovereignty comparable to those of some international treaties.

Africa’s digital future, therefore, cannot be secured simply by laying fibre-optic cables, building data centres, purchasing servers, or celebrating innovation. These are necessary steps, but they are not sufficient. What matters ultimately is whether digital systems remain accountable to democratic values and public oversight.

This requires institutions capable of governing data, platforms, artificial intelligence, digital identity systems, and algorithms with the same seriousness that earlier generations devoted to constitutions, legislatures, and courts.

Above all, it requires agency.

That agency will not come from rejecting foreign technologies, nor from embracing them uncritically. It will come from building the institutional, intellectual, economic, and constitutional capacity to decide how technologies are adopted, regulated, and embedded within public life.

The infrastructures are already being built. The data is already being collected. The algorithms are already making decisions. The standards are already being written.

The question is whether African institutions, laws, and democratic traditions will evolve quickly enough to govern the digital realities through which power is increasingly exercised.

The future of African sovereignty will not be decided only by who builds the next telecommunications network, launches the next satellite, or develops the next AI system. It will be decided by whether African societies develop the constitutional imagination—and the political courage—to govern digital power on democratic terms.

Africa's future constitution will still be written in legal texts.

Increasingly, however, it will also be written in standards, databases, algorithms, and code.

The task is to ensure that both remain accountable to the people in whose name they are written. ENDS

About the Author

Dr Blessing Vava is a Zimbabwean scholar and researcher of tech and power. His PhD research on Chinese ICTs in Zimbabwe produced the concept of geosociotechnopolitics — the idea that geography, society, technology and politics now shape development together. He writes on the political economy of technology, digital sovereignty, constitutionalism, and Africa’s right to design its own digital future. Email: blessingvava@gmail.com

 Author's Note

This article is the second instalment in an ongoing series examining Africa's digital transformation through the lens of geosociotechnopolitics. Building on the author's doctoral research on the diffusion of Chinese ICTs in Zimbabwe, it extends the discussion to digital constitutionalism, digital sovereignty, artificial intelligence, and Africa's place in an emerging technomultipolar world.

The views expressed are those of the author alone. No generative artificial intelligence system was used to develop the article's original arguments, concepts, analysis, or conclusions. Any digital tools used during the research, editing, or publication process served solely as research and editorial aids.

  The concept was first developed in my doctoral research on China–Africa ICT relations and is elaborated in forthcoming publications.

References

African Union. (2021). Agreement Establishing the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA). Addis Ababa: African Union.

African Union. (2024). Continental Artificial Intelligence Strategy. Addis Ababa: African Union.

Alden, C. & Jiang, L. (2019). Brave New World: Debt, Industrialisation and Security in China–Africa Relations. London: International Affairs.

Bradford, A. (2020). The Brussels Effect: How the European Union Rules the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gagliardone, I. (2019). China, Africa, and the Future of the Internet. London: Zed Books.

GSMA. (2023). Digital Transformation in Sub-Saharan Africa. London: GSMA.

Mhlanga, D. (2021). Financial Inclusion in Zimbabwe through Mobile Money Platforms: Opportunities and Challenges. Journal of African Business, 22(4), pp. 532–548.

Nigeria Data Protection Commission. (2023). Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023. Abuja: NDPC.

Republic of Kenya. (2019). Data Protection Act, No. 24 of 2019. Nairobi: Government Printer.

Republic of South Africa. (2013). Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA). Pretoria: Government Printer.

Smart Africa. (2023). Africa Artificial Intelligence Blueprint. Kigali: Smart Africa Secretariat.

Sun, I.Y., Jayaram, K. & Kassiri, O. (2017). Dance of the Lions and Dragons: How Africa and China Are Engaging and Transforming Their Futures. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.

UNCTAD. (2024). Digital Economy Report 2024. Geneva: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.

UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. Paris: UNESCO.

Vava, B. (forthcoming). Geosociotechnopolitics and Technomultipolarity: Rethinking China–Africa ICT Relations in the Digital Age.

World Bank. (2021). Digital Economy for Africa Initiative: Country and Regional Progress Report. Washington DC: World Bank.

The BIG THURSDAY BRIEFING: The Constitution of Code: A Geosociotechnopolitical Perspective on Digital Constitutionalism in Africa

 

By Dr Blessing Vava

Why sovereignty, artificial intelligence, and digital governance must become constitutional questions.

Introduction: The Hidden Constitution of the Digital Age

In the previous edition of The Big Thursday Briefing, we argued that China–Africa ICT relations can no longer be understood through familiar binaries such as dependency versus partnership or "zhing zhong" versus technological superiority. Drawing on my doctoral research, I suggested that the deeper story is geosociotechnopolitical: the emergence of new forms of power embedded in digital infrastructures that increasingly shape how societies function, economies operate, and states exercise authority.

That argument carries an important implication. If technology is becoming part of governance itself rather than merely a tool of governance, then constitutions can no longer concern themselves only with presidents, parliaments, courts, and elections. They must also engage with the technological systems through which power is exercised.

This article takes that argument one step further. The question is no longer simply who builds Africa's digital infrastructure. The more consequential question is who governs the power embedded within it.

Across Africa, governments are rapidly adopting digital identity systems, biometric databases, artificial intelligence applications, cloud infrastructure, surveillance technologies, digital payment platforms, and algorithm-driven public services. These developments are usually discussed in technical language—procurement, implementation, cybersecurity, innovation, and efficiency. Yet beneath this language lies a deeper political reality. Digital technologies increasingly determine who the state recognises, who gains access to public services, how information circulates, how citizens are monitored, and how decisions affecting millions of people are made.

In short, they are reshaping the relationship between citizens and power.

Most African constitutions were designed for an analogue era. They were drafted before artificial intelligence, biometric identification, predictive algorithms, platform-mediated public life, and cross-border data flows became central features of governance. While constitutions regulate legislatures, executives, and courts with considerable precision, they remain largely silent on the infrastructures through which digital power increasingly operates.

This silence has created a profound constitutional challenge. As technology becomes embedded in the machinery of the state, decisions with far-reaching implications for sovereignty, citizenship, privacy, accountability, and democracy are frequently treated as technical or administrative matters rather than constitutional ones.

The central claim of this article is straightforward but consequential: digital systems are no longer merely technological infrastructure. They are becoming part of the constitutional architecture through which power is organised, exercised, and contested. Like constitutions, parliaments, and courts, they allocate power, structure participation, shape rights, and influence sovereignty.

The argument unfolds in four stages. First, it examines how digital technologies are transforming the exercise of power. Second, it explores why constitutional frameworks designed for an analogue age struggle to govern digital societies. Third, it considers what constitutionalising the digital might look like in practice, drawing lessons from Zimbabwe and broader African experiences. Finally, it argues that the African Union should lead the development of a continental framework for digital constitutionalism and digital sovereignty.

If the twentieth century was defined by the constitutionalisation of political power, the twenty-first century will increasingly be defined by the constitutionalisation of digital power.

When Code Becomes Power

Political theorists have long understood that power is exercised through institutions. Parliaments enact laws, courts interpret them, governments implement them, and elections provide mechanisms through which authority is granted or withdrawn.

Digital technologies do not replace these institutions. Rather, they increasingly operate alongside them—and, in some cases, through them.

Consider a national digital identity system. At first glance, it appears to be an administrative tool designed to improve efficiency. In practice, however, it determines who can access government services, open bank accounts, vote, receive social protection, or participate fully in economic life. The system becomes a gatekeeper to citizenship in ways that extend far beyond administration.

A similar dynamic is visible in the growing use of artificial intelligence within public administration. AI systems may influence eligibility for welfare programmes, guide law-enforcement priorities, or shape decisions concerning employment, education, and healthcare. The algorithms behind these systems are often invisible to citizens, yet they can profoundly affect outcomes for millions of people.

Social media platforms provide a third example. They have become central arenas for political communication, public opinion formation, electoral mobilisation, and social activism. Decisions taken by private technology companies increasingly shape what information citizens encounter, what narratives gain prominence, and which voices remain marginalised.

Taken together, these developments point to a broader transformation. Power is no longer exercised exclusively through constitutions, statutes, and public institutions. It increasingly operates through code, data, algorithms, and digital infrastructures.

Lawrence Lessig famously observed that "code is law" (Lessig 1999). His argument was not that software replaces legislation, but that technological architectures regulate behaviour in ways comparable to legal rules. A platform algorithm can influence conduct as effectively as a legal prohibition. A digital identity system can determine inclusion or exclusion as decisively as administrative legislation.

For African societies, this raises profound questions. Who controls the code? Who owns the data? Who designs the algorithms? Which values become embedded within technological systems? And how can democratic oversight be maintained when power increasingly operates through infrastructures that most citizens neither see nor fully understand?

These are not merely technical questions. They are constitutional questions.

The Analogue Constitution in a Digital World

Most African constitutions emerged during the democratic transitions of the 1990s and early 2000s. Their architects confronted visible and institutional threats: executive dominance, one-party rule, electoral manipulation, weak legislatures, and inadequate judicial oversight. Their objective was to constrain political power, strengthen democratic accountability, and entrench fundamental rights.

Those achievements remain among the most significant constitutional gains of the post-Cold War era.

Yet the technological environment within which those constitutions now operate has changed dramatically.

Few constitutional drafters could have anticipated a world in which billions of digital interactions generate vast quantities of personal data every day; where governments maintain biometric databases capable of identifying citizens in real time; where artificial intelligence influences decisions about welfare, education, healthcare, employment, and policing; or where global technology platforms mediate political communication on a scale that rivals traditional media institutions.

Consequently, most constitutions were designed to regulate human institutions rather than technological architectures. As digital constitutionalism scholars have observed, constitutional frameworks around the world are increasingly struggling to govern forms of power exercised through digital systems rather than traditional state institutions (Celeste 2022).

They define the powers of presidents, parliaments, courts, and local authorities with considerable precision, yet remain largely silent on the infrastructures that increasingly shape governance itself.

This silence has produced what may be called a constitutional gap.

Many constitutional rights remain applicable in principle, but they often provide only indirect guidance for governing digital societies. Privacy provisions may protect citizens against unlawful searches while offering limited clarity regarding the ownership, storage, and governance of biometric data. Freedom of expression guarantees the right to speak and publish but rarely addresses the influence of algorithmic systems that determine visibility within public discourse. Equality clauses prohibit discrimination by public authorities yet often say little about algorithmic bias, automated decision-making, or forms of exclusion generated by digital systems.

The challenge is therefore not simply that technology creates new threats to existing rights. More fundamentally, technology is transforming the architecture through which power itself operates.

Surveillance illustrates the shift clearly. Constitutional concerns once centred on physical monitoring, intercepted communications, and unlawful searches. Today, biometric identification systems, predictive analytics, and artificial intelligence enable forms of continuous monitoring that previous generations could scarcely imagine.

The same transformation is evident in public discourse. The constitutional question is no longer only whether governments can restrict speech. Increasingly, digital platforms shape public debate before any law is applied at all. Recommendation algorithms influence which information gains prominence, which narratives become dominant, and which voices remain unheard.

This evolution has profound constitutional implications because constitutions have always been concerned with governing power. If power increasingly operates through digital systems, constitutional thinking must evolve accordingly.

Across Africa, governments are investing heavily in digital identity systems, AI strategies, cloud infrastructure, digital payment ecosystems, and data governance frameworks. Yet constitutional development has not kept pace with technological change. Twenty-first-century digital systems are being built within constitutional frameworks largely designed for a twentieth-century political environment.

The consequence is that decisions affecting sovereignty, citizenship, privacy, accountability, and democratic participation are frequently treated as technical, administrative, or procurement matters rather than constitutional questions.

That imbalance matters because digital systems are no longer merely instruments of governance. They are increasingly becoming part of governance itself.

The challenge facing African constitutionalism is therefore not simply to defend existing rights against new technologies. It is to ensure that constitutional principles of accountability, participation, transparency, and democratic oversight remain effective in a world where power increasingly flows through digital systems.

Africa's Emerging Constitutional Gap

Across Africa, digital transformation is advancing at remarkable speed. Governments are investing in biometric identity systems, smart-government platforms, artificial intelligence strategies, cloud infrastructure, cybersecurity frameworks, and digital payment ecosystems, reflecting priorities articulated in the African Union's Digital Transformation Strategy for Africa (2020–2030) (African Union 2020). 

Yet they also expose a growing constitutional dilemma.

Historically, constitutions were designed to govern visible centres of authority. Presidents exercised executive power. Legislatures enacted laws. Courts interpreted them and protected rights. Constitutional safeguards emerged to ensure that these institutions remained accountable to citizens and operated within clearly defined limits.

Today, however, some of the most consequential exercises of power occur through technological systems that often sit outside traditional constitutional scrutiny. Decisions about identity, access to services, information flows, data collection, and citizen monitoring are increasingly mediated through digital infrastructures.

The problem is not that these systems replace political institutions. Rather, they shape how those institutions function.

This shift matters because many of the most consequential technological decisions continue to be treated as technical or administrative matters rather than constitutional ones. Governments may devote extensive public debate to constitutional amendments while approving national biometric databases through ordinary administrative processes. Parliaments may scrutinise electoral reforms in detail while paying comparatively little attention to cloud-computing agreements that determine where national data is stored and who can access it. Artificial intelligence systems may be introduced into public administration with minimal public consultation despite their potential impact on rights, accountability, and democratic participation.

Increasingly, questions traditionally associated with constitutional governance are being answered through technological design (Yeung 2018). Who is recognised by the state? Who gains access to services? Who controls information? Who owns national data? Who has the capacity to monitor citizens? These are no longer purely legal or political questions. They are increasingly embedded within databases, algorithms, and digital infrastructures.

The challenge is particularly significant for Africa because the continent is simultaneously experiencing rapid digital expansion and ongoing democratic consolidation. Unlike older industrial powers that developed constitutional systems long before the emergence of digital technologies, many African states are strengthening democratic institutions while navigating a technological transformation in real time.

This creates both risks and opportunities.

The risk is that technological infrastructures become deeply embedded before adequate democratic safeguards are established. Decisions made today regarding digital identity systems, artificial intelligence governance, cloud infrastructure, cybersecurity, and cross-border data flows may shape governance for decades.

The opportunity is that Africa is not merely inheriting a completed digital order. The continent still has the capacity to shape the constitutional foundations of its digital future. Rather than reproducing models developed elsewhere, African countries can develop approaches that reflect their own constitutional traditions, developmental priorities, and democratic aspirations.

The constitutional challenge facing Africa is therefore not whether digital technologies affect governance. They already do. The real question is whether constitutional governance can evolve quickly enough to govern digital power.

That question lies at the heart of the emerging politics of the digital age.

From Harare to Nairobi: Digital Power in Everyday Life

Discussions about algorithms, data governance, and digital sovereignty can sometimes appear abstract. Yet across Africa, digital power is already shaping how citizens interact with governments, access services, participate in economic life, and exercise their rights.

Kenya's Huduma Namba programme generated significant constitutional debates concerning privacy, citizenship, and exclusion (Nubian Rights Forum v Attorney General, 2020). Introduced as a national digital identity initiative, it was presented primarily as an administrative reform intended to improve efficiency and service delivery. The public debate that followed, however, quickly moved beyond technology. Civil society organisations, legal practitioners, and citizens raised concerns about privacy, exclusion, data protection, and citizenship. What began as an ICT project became a constitutional debate about rights, accountability, and state power.

Similar dynamics are visible elsewhere across the continent.

In South Africa, digital systems increasingly influence the administration of social grants and public services. In Nigeria, digital payment platforms have transformed economic transactions and expanded financial inclusion while simultaneously raising questions about data security, regulatory oversight, and market concentration. In Ethiopia, ambitious digital identity initiatives promise administrative efficiency but also provoke important debates about surveillance, inclusion, and governance.

Zimbabwe offers an equally revealing example. The rise of EcoCash fundamentally transformed the country's economic landscape. What began as a mobile money platform evolved into critical national infrastructure used by millions of citizens. During periods of economic instability, digital financial systems became indispensable mechanisms for commerce, savings, and everyday transactions. Digital financial ecosystems such as EcoCash demonstrate how technological platforms can evolve into critical national infrastructure that shapes economic participation and state-society relations (Mhlanga 2020).

Yet EcoCash was never merely a technological innovation. It reshaped relationships between citizens, businesses, financial institutions, and the state. Decisions regarding regulation, access, and control carried implications that extended far beyond technology itself. Economic participation increasingly depended upon digital systems that had become embedded within everyday life.

The same pattern is evident in the sphere of communication. Across Africa, platforms such as Facebook, X, TikTok, WhatsApp, and YouTube have become central arenas for political debate, activism, election campaigning, and information sharing. Citizens increasingly encounter politics through algorithmically curated feeds rather than traditional newspapers or broadcasters. Protest movements organise through digital networks. Governments communicate through social media channels. News travels through platforms whose governing rules are often written far beyond the jurisdictions in which they operate.

The result is a profound transformation. Power is no longer exercised exclusively through constitutions, statutes, and public institutions. It increasingly operates through code, data, algorithms, and digital infrastructures (Kitchin 2017; Zuboff 2019). Decisions taken by platform companies regarding content moderation, algorithmic recommendations, or account suspensions can shape political participation as significantly as decisions taken by public institutions. The infrastructure of communication has itself become a site of political power.

The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated many of these trends. Governments adopted digital tools to manage public-health responses, distribute information, and deliver services. Educational systems shifted online. Businesses expanded digital operations. Citizens increasingly relied upon digital platforms for work, communication, and commerce. At the same time, the pandemic exposed inequalities in access, connectivity, and digital capability that continue to shape participation in public life.

These developments reveal a central insight of geosociotechnopolitics: technology does not simply operate within society; it actively reshapes social, political, and economic relationships. Digital infrastructures influence who participates in economic life, how citizens engage with government, how information circulates, and how power is exercised.

The challenge is therefore no longer whether digital technologies affect governance and citizenship. They already do. The challenge is whether constitutional frameworks can evolve quickly enough to govern these new forms of power democratically.

Zimbabwe and the Constitutional Question

Zimbabwe provides a particularly useful lens through which to understand the constitutional challenges emerging across Africa's digital transformation.

The country's experience sits at the intersection of several developments explored throughout this series: digitalisation, constitutional reform, debates over sovereignty, and the growing influence of global technological ecosystems. In many respects, Zimbabwe functions as a microcosm of broader Africa–China technological relations and the wider transition toward an emerging technomultipolar order.

My doctoral research began with a relatively straightforward question: how had Chinese information and communication technologies become so deeply embedded in Zimbabwean society? What initially appeared to be a story about technology diffusion soon revealed a much broader transformation. Telecommunications networks, smartphones, surveillance systems, digital platforms, and cloud infrastructures were not simply entering Zimbabwe as products. They were becoming embedded within economic activity, social life, governance systems, and international relations.

This transformation exposed a significant theoretical gap. Traditional frameworks such as geopolitics, development studies, and dependency theory could explain aspects of the phenomenon, but none adequately captured the interaction between technology, society, politics, and geography unfolding simultaneously. It was this gap that led to the development of geosociotechnopolitics.

Zimbabwe's experience also illustrates a challenge increasingly visible across Africa: technological adoption often advances more rapidly than democratic oversight. Governments can deploy biometric systems, artificial intelligence tools, surveillance technologies, and digital identity platforms far more quickly than constitutional frameworks can adapt to regulate them. As a result, decisions with profound implications for citizenship, privacy, accountability, and sovereignty are frequently treated as technical matters rather than constitutional questions.

The debate surrounding Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 offers an instructive contrast. Public discussion focused intensely on democratic safeguards, public participation, constitutional procedure, and the protection of sovereignty. At the centre of these debates stood Section 328 of the Constitution, which establishes heightened procedures for amendments affecting foundational provisions such as citizenship, executive term limits, and fundamental rights (Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 20) Act, 2013).

The principle underlying Section 328 is straightforward but profound: some decisions are too consequential to be left to ordinary legislative processes. When changes affect the architecture of the state or the rights of citizens, deeper scrutiny, broader consultation, and stronger democratic legitimacy are required.

The digital age compels us to apply that same principle to a new domain.

If altering presidential term limits requires enhanced constitutional safeguards because it reshapes political power, why should the creation of a national biometric database that redefines the practical conditions of citizenship not receive comparable scrutiny? If amendments affecting rights require heightened democratic procedures, why should decisions regarding artificial intelligence systems that increasingly influence access to welfare, employment, credit, or justice be treated as routine procurement exercises? If agreements affecting territorial sovereignty trigger constitutional safeguards, why should arrangements that place citizen data under foreign jurisdictions proceed with minimal public debate?

These are no longer hypothetical concerns.

Digital identity systems increasingly determine access to public services and economic participation. Artificial intelligence systems are beginning to influence administrative decision-making at scale. Cloud-computing agreements shape where national data resides and which legal regimes govern it. Cross-border data arrangements increasingly influence the practical meaning of sovereignty in the digital age (Floridi 2018).

Yet many of these decisions continue to be framed primarily as technical matters.

This creates a democratic imbalance. Citizens may spend months debating constitutional amendments while digital infrastructures capable of shaping governance for decades are approved with comparatively little scrutiny. The formal constitution receives intense public attention while a parallel architecture of digital governance emerges largely beyond constitutional debate.

Constitutionalising the digital, therefore, means recognising that technological governance is no longer separate from constitutional governance. When code determines inclusion, when algorithms allocate resources, and when data infrastructures shape sovereignty, those decisions carry constitutional significance regardless of whether they are described as technology policy.

Zimbabwe's constitutional experience demonstrates that citizens already understand the importance of democratic safeguards when power is being reorganised. The challenge now is extending that constitutional logic into the digital realm.

Digital Sovereignty Beyond Infrastructure

The concept of digital sovereignty has moved rapidly from academic debate to the centre of policy discussions across Africa. As digital technologies become embedded within governance, commerce, and everyday life, questions about technological control have become inseparable from questions about political and economic autonomy.

Too often, however, digital sovereignty is reduced to infrastructure alone.

Policy discussions frequently focus on who owns the data centres, builds the fibre-optic networks, manufactures the devices, or trains the engineers. These issues are undeniably important. Africa's dependence on foreign cloud providers, imported hardware, and externally controlled digital platforms creates real strategic vulnerabilities.

Yet sovereignty involves more than ownership.

Owning a data centre does not automatically confer control over the rules that govern data. Building a network does not determine how information flows through it. Infrastructure matters, but governance matters more.

Digital sovereignty extends beyond ownership of infrastructure to encompass governance, control, and regulatory capacity (Pohle and Thiel 2020).

At its core, digital sovereignty concerns the capacity of societies to exercise meaningful control over how digital technologies shape their political, economic, and social futures.

That capacity includes the ability to govern data collection, storage, and use. It includes oversight of artificial intelligence systems that increasingly influence public decision-making. It encompasses cybersecurity frameworks, digital payment infrastructures, platform regulation, and the legal architectures through which digital systems operate.

Each of these domains involves choices about power, accountability, and the relationship between citizens and the state.

Importantly, sovereignty in the digital age cannot be understood solely through territorial concepts inherited from classical geopolitics. Traditional Westphalian models assumed that power was exercised within clearly defined borders. States governed people, resources, and institutions located within their territory. Traditional Westphalian understandings of sovereignty are increasingly challenged by transnational data flows, global internet governance structures, and platform-mediated forms of power (DeNardis 2014).

Digital technologies complicate those assumptions.

Data moves instantly across borders. Cloud services distribute information across multiple jurisdictions. Artificial intelligence systems are trained globally and deployed locally. Platform companies shape public discourse in countries where they possess no territorial presence. A citizen's health record may be stored in one country, processed in another, and accessed from a third.

In such an environment, effective sovereignty increasingly depends on governance capacity rather than on territorial control alone.

It depends on the ability to establish rules, enforce standards, audit systems, negotiate with powerful private actors, and ensure that technology serves public values.

This is precisely why constitutional thinking becomes indispensable.

Constitutions exist to govern power. They define who holds authority, how that authority may be exercised, what limits constrain it, and how citizens can hold those in power accountable. For centuries, these questions were directed primarily at legislatures, executives, and courts. Today, they must also be directed toward algorithms, databases, platforms, and digital infrastructures.

As power becomes increasingly digital, constitutional frameworks must evolve accordingly.

Without such evolution, formal constitutions risk describing a political order that no longer corresponds to how decisions are actually made.

Africa faces two dangers in this regard.

The first is pursuing digital sovereignty without constitutional safeguards. A state may assert control over infrastructure while lacking protections for privacy, transparency, accountability, or democratic participation. The result is control without constitutional restraint.

The second danger is pursuing constitutional protections without building technological capability. Rights are difficult to enforce when governments lack the capacity to audit algorithms, regulate platforms, secure critical infrastructure, or govern data effectively.

Digital sovereignty therefore requires both constitutionalism and capability.

Constitutionalism provides legitimacy, accountability, and rights protection. Technological capability provides the practical capacity to exercise agency in a digital world.

Neither is sufficient on its own.

Only by pursuing both together can African societies ensure that digital transformation strengthens rather than diminishes democratic control over their future.

From Digital Dependence to Digital Agency

Discussions of digital sovereignty often begin with dependence. Who owns the infrastructure? Who builds the networks? Who controls the platforms? These questions are important, but they can obscure a more fundamental issue. The central challenge facing Africa is not merely reducing dependence on external technologies. It is developing the capacity to exercise agency within an increasingly technomultipolar world.

This distinction lies at the heart of geosociotechnopolitics. Technology should never be understood simply as hardware or infrastructure. Technologies become politically significant when they are socially embedded and integrated into everyday economic, political, and cultural life. A telecommunications tower is not merely a tower. A smartphone is not merely a device. A digital platform is not merely software. Together, they create new forms of social organisation, new patterns of communication, and new distributions of power.

The history of China–Africa ICT relations illustrates this transformation clearly. Two decades ago, Chinese technologies were often dismissed in parts of Africa as zhing zhong—cheap, inferior, and temporary alternatives to Western products. Over time, however, Chinese firms became deeply embedded within Africa's digital landscape. Telecommunications infrastructure supplied by Huawei and ZTE expanded connectivity across the continent. Transsion brands such as Tecno, Infinix, and Itel achieved remarkable success by adapting products to African markets, languages, and consumer realities (Alden and Jiang 2019; Vava 2024).

What began as a story about imported technology evolved into the construction of digital ecosystems.

This evolution demonstrates why dependence and agency should not be treated as simple opposites. The adoption of external technologies does not automatically produce dependency. Equally, ownership alone does not guarantee sovereignty. What matters is whether societies develop the institutional, economic, and technological capabilities necessary to shape how technologies are governed and used.

Africa's transition toward a technomultipolar order reflects broader shifts in the global distribution of technological power (Bremmer and Kupchan 2022).

That challenge is becoming even more significant as Africa enters an increasingly technomultipolar order. Unlike the unipolar moment that followed the Cold War, African governments today engage with multiple technological ecosystems simultaneously. American firms dominate important areas of software, cloud computing, semiconductors, and artificial intelligence research. Chinese firms possess significant advantages in telecommunications infrastructure, affordable consumer technologies, manufacturing, and digital finance. Europe, India, the Gulf States, and an emerging generation of African technology firms are also becoming increasingly important actors.

This diversity creates opportunities as well as risks.

Multipolarity expands strategic choice. Governments can diversify partnerships, negotiate across multiple ecosystems, and pursue technological relationships that reflect national priorities. Yet multipolarity does not automatically produce sovereignty. Without strong institutions, domestic capabilities, and coherent regulatory frameworks, countries may simply become arenas in which competing technological ecosystems coexist.

Agency emerges not from choosing between Washington and Beijing, Silicon Valley and Shenzhen, or one platform ecosystem and another. Agency emerges when African actors possess the capacity to make meaningful technological choices in the first place.

For that reason, digital sovereignty must ultimately be linked to production rather than consumption. The long-term objective cannot simply be access to technology. It must be the development of African innovation ecosystems capable of generating technologies, standards, and solutions of their own.

This requires investment in research institutions, digital entrepreneurship, software industries, artificial intelligence research, regional data infrastructure, and digital manufacturing capabilities. It means ensuring that African universities contribute not only to the adoption of AI systems developed elsewhere but also to the creation of systems trained on African languages, histories, and social realities.

Encouragingly, elements of this transition are already visible. Across the continent, digital-payment innovations, start-up ecosystems, AI research centres, and technology enterprises are beginning to emerge. The African Union's Digital Transformation Strategy reflects a growing recognition that digital capability is becoming a strategic foundation of development (African Union 2020).

The challenge remains substantial. Africa continues to account for only a small proportion of global data-centre capacity, advanced AI research, semiconductor production, and platform ownership. Yet the question is no longer whether Africa will participate in the digital economy. It already does.

The more important question is whether participation can be transformed into agency.

That transition—from technological adoption to technological capability—will determine whether Africa's digital transformation becomes another chapter in a history of dependency or the foundation of a new era of technological self-determination.

Towards Digital Constitutionalism

What might constitutionalising the digital look like in practice? The growing field of digital constitutionalism argues that constitutional values such as accountability, transparency, participation, and rights protection must be extended into digital environments (Celeste 2022).

It begins by recognising that certain forms of digital infrastructure carry constitutional significance and therefore require governance mechanisms that extend beyond ordinary administrative procedures.

When Kenya's Huduma Namba programme became the subject of legal challenge, the controversy revealed a broader principle: systems that shape citizenship, privacy, access to services, and public accountability cannot be treated as routine ICT projects. The same logic applies to biometric databases, AI systems used in public administration, strategic cross-border data agreements, and critical digital infrastructures such as national payment systems or government cloud platforms.

These technologies do more than improve efficiency. They influence who the state recognises, who receives services, how rights are exercised, and where sovereign authority is effectively located.

For that reason, major digital-governance decisions should be subjected to democratic safeguards comparable to those applied to other exercises of constitutional power. Parliamentary scrutiny, mandatory impact assessments, independent oversight, and judicial review should become standard features of digital governance.

Second, transparency must become a constitutional principle rather than a policy preference.

Citizens cannot meaningfully defend rights when they cannot see how decisions affecting them are made. As governments increasingly rely on automated systems, individuals should have access to clear explanations regarding how decisions were reached, what data was used, and what mechanisms exist for review or appeal.

Without transparency, constitutional guarantees of due process risk becoming ineffective in digital environments.

Third, constitutional rights themselves must be interpreted for technological realities. Privacy protections must extend beyond physical searches to include biometric information, metadata, and algorithmically generated profiles. Freedom of expression must address the growing influence of digital platforms over public discourse. Equality guarantees must confront the risks of algorithmic bias and automated exclusion.

The objective is not to create an entirely new catalogue of rights but to ensure that existing constitutional principles remain meaningful under contemporary conditions.

Finally, democratic participation must be strengthened rather than weakened by technological change.

Digital governance is often presented as a technical domain best left to experts. Yet every technological system embodies choices about values, priorities, and power. Decisions regarding digital identity systems, AI governance, surveillance technologies, or cross-border data arrangements therefore require meaningful public participation.

Citizens do not need to design algorithms. They do, however, have a right to determine the constitutional boundaries within which algorithms operate.

Constitutionalising the digital does not mean replacing engineers with referendums. It means ensuring that technological governance remains accountable to democratic principles and that digital systems remain subject to constitutional norms rather than operating beyond them (Celeste 2022).

Africa's opportunity is that much of its digital future is still being built. The constitutional foundations established today will shape how technological power operates for decades to come.

Why the African Union Matters

If digital constitutionalism is to become more than a national policy aspiration, it requires institutions capable of governing technologies that operate across borders. Constitutionalising the digital begins at the national level, but it cannot end there.

Data moves between jurisdictions. Artificial intelligence systems are developed globally and deployed locally. Platform companies shape public discourse simultaneously in Harare, Lagos, Nairobi, Johannesburg, and Cairo. Cybersecurity threats emerge transnationally, while cloud infrastructures distribute information across multiple legal regimes.

As a result, many of the most important questions of digital governance can no longer be addressed by national legislation alone.

This creates a challenge of scale.

No individual African country possesses an equivalent to Silicon Valley's innovation ecosystem, Shenzhen's manufacturing capacity, or the combined market power of major technological powers. Even Africa's largest economies face significant asymmetries when negotiating with corporations whose revenues exceed the GDP of many states.

Viewed through a geosociotechnopolitical lens, the problem is structural. Digital systems derive value from interconnected infrastructures, standards, platforms, regulations, institutions, and data flows. Fragmentation weakens bargaining power, discourages investment, and limits interoperability. Fifty-four separate digital-governance regimes risk reproducing in the digital sphere the same forms of vulnerability that have historically characterised other sectors of political economy.

Coordination creates leverage.

The experience of the European Union demonstrates that regulatory influence does not depend solely on technological dominance. Through what Bradford (2020) describes as the "Brussels Effect," regulatory power can emerge from market size, institutional coherence, and collective bargaining capacity. Africa possesses comparable potential.

The African Union has already laid important foundations through initiatives such as the Digital Transformation Strategy for Africa (2020-2030) and the digital provisions emerging under the African Continental Free Trade Area (African Union 2020). These efforts recognise that Africa's future competitiveness increasingly depends upon digital capability.

The next step is to extend this agenda into the constitutional domain.

The African Union should champion a continental framework built around five interconnected pillars.

First, common principles for digital rights and digital citizenship ensure that constitutional protections retain their meaning in digital environments.

Second, harmonised approaches to data governance and privacy protection that enable secure intra-African data flows while protecting citizens from exploitation.

Third, coordinated frameworks for artificial intelligence governance, including transparency requirements, accountability mechanisms, bias audits, and human oversight for public-sector systems.

Fourth, investment in continental digital infrastructure—including regional cloud capacity, internet exchange points, and interoperable payment systems—that strengthens resilience and reduces strategic vulnerability.

Fifth, collective bargaining mechanisms that enhance Africa's ability to negotiate with global technology firms and platform providers from a position of greater strength.

The objective is not digital isolation. Africa will remain deeply integrated into global technological ecosystems, and it should. The objective is agency: engagement on terms that protect rights, preserve sovereignty, and advance African priorities.

Just as political sovereignty in the twentieth century required continental cooperation, digital sovereignty in the twenty-first century will require comparable forms of collective action.

Conclusion: The Constitution of the Future

The central constitutional question of the twentieth century was who governs. The central constitutional question of the twenty-first century is increasingly how governance itself is organised through technology.

Digital infrastructures now shape access to services, participation in economic life, public communication, and the exercise of political authority. Algorithms influence decisions once made exclusively by human officials. Data has become a strategic resource. Platforms mediate public discourse on a scale unimaginable a generation ago. Artificial intelligence is beginning to transform how states govern and how citizens experience governance.

These developments do not diminish the importance of constitutions. They make constitutional thinking more necessary than ever.

Without constitutional safeguards, code risks becoming law without legislatures, data becomes power without accountability, and digital governance expands without democratic consent. The challenge facing Africa is therefore larger than digital transformation itself. It is about ensuring that technological power remains subject to democratic control.

This is why geosociotechnopolitics matters.

Technology never exists in isolation. It is always embedded within societies, shaped by political institutions, constrained by geography, and contested through struggles over power. Code is never neutral. Every digital system embodies assumptions about authority, inclusion, accountability, and control.

The future of African sovereignty will not be determined solely by who builds the next data centre, lays the next fibre-optic cable, or develops the next artificial intelligence model. It will be determined by whether African societies create the constitutional frameworks capable of governing those technologies democratically.

The infrastructure is already being built. The algorithms are already learning. The data is already accumulating.

The question is whether Africa will merely digitise existing structures of dependency or construct a constitutional foundation for genuine digital sovereignty and agency.

The constitution of Africa's digital future will not be written only in legal texts.

Increasingly, it will also be written in code. 

ENDS

About the Author

Dr Blessing Vava is a Zimbabwean scholar and researcher of tech and power. His PhD research on Chinese ICTs in Zimbabwe produced the concept of geosociotechnopolitics — the idea that geography, society, technology and politics now shape development together. He writes on the political economy of technology, digital sovereignty, constitutionalism, and Africa’s right to design its own digital future. Email: blessingvava@gmail.com 

Author's Note

This article is the second instalment in an ongoing series examining Africa's digital transformation through the lens of geosociotechnopolitics. Building on the author's doctoral research on the diffusion of Chinese ICTs in Zimbabwe, it extends the discussion to digital constitutionalism, digital sovereignty, artificial intelligence, and Africa's place in an emerging technomultipolar world.

The views expressed are those of the author alone. No generative artificial intelligence system was used to develop the article's original arguments, concepts, analysis, or conclusions. Any digital tools used during the research, editing, or publication process served solely as research and editorial aids.

References

Academic Sources

African Union. 2020. Digital Transformation Strategy for Africa (2020–2030). Addis Ababa: African Union Commission.

Alden, Chris, and Lu Jiang. 2019. Brave New World: Debt, Industrialization and Security in China–Africa Relations. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Bradford, Anu. 2020. The Brussels Effect: How the European Union Rules the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bremmer, Ian, and Cliff Kupchan. 2022. The Technopolar Moment. New York: Eurasia Group.

Brownsword, Roger. 2019. Law, Technology and Society: Re-imagining the Regulatory Environment. London: Routledge.

Celeste, Edoardo. 2022. Digital Constitutionalism: The Role of Internet Bills of Rights. London: Routledge.

DeNardis, Laura. 2014. The Global War for Internet Governance. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Floridi, Luciano. 2018. Soft Ethics and the Governance of the Digital. Philosophy & Technology 31(1): 1–8.

Floridi, Luciano et al. 2018. AI4People—An Ethical Framework for a Good AI Society. Minds and Machines 28(4): 689–707.

Kitchin, Rob. 2017. Thinking Critically About and Researching Algorithms. Information, Communication & Society 20(1): 14–29.

Lessig, Lawrence. 1999. Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace. New York: Basic Books.

Mhlanga, David. 2020. Industry 4.0 in Finance: The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Digital Financial Inclusion in Zimbabwe. International Journal of Financial Studies 8(3).

Pohle, Julia, and Thorsten Thiel. 2020. Digital Sovereignty. Internet Policy Review 9(4).

Suzor, Nicolas. 2019. Lawless: The Secret Rules That Govern Our Digital Lives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Vava, B. (2024). All-weather friend? Chinese ICTs in Zimbabwe as general-purpose technologies (GPTs) [Doctoral thesis, University of Johannesburg].

Yeung, Karen. 2018. Algorithmic Regulation: A Critical Interrogation. Regulation & Governance 12(4): 505–523.

Zuboff, Shoshana. 2019. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. New York: PublicAffairs.

 

Legal and Policy Sources

Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 20) Act, 2013.

Nubian Rights Forum & Others v Attorney General & Others [2020] eKLR (Kenya High Court decision on Huduma Namba).

African Union Convention on Cyber Security and Personal Data Protection (Malabo Convention), 2014.

African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) Digital Trade Protocol.