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.
