How Algorithmic Power is Reshaping State Authority in Africa (2025 Analysis)

 

Introduction: A New Frontier of Sovereignty

States derive authority from their capacity to govern territory, regulate populations, and make binding decisions, informed by the Westphalian principles and the Montevideo Convention, the cornerstones and the template on which the current international system operates. In the 21st century, however, much of that authority is quietly but decisively being transferred into software, data infrastructures, and algorithmic systems. Across Africa, governments rely on digital platforms to deliver public services, manage elections, monitor security threats, analyze climate risks, and regulate civic spaces.

Yet, a profound strategic dilemma has emerged: the majority of these digital systems are externally designed, externally trained, and externally governed. This raises a fundamental question for African sovereignty: can a state remain fully authoritative when the core tools that shape governance are not developed or controlled internally?

International relations scholars describe this as a shift from territorial sovereignty to algorithmic sovereignty, where power is exercised through control of data, platforms, and computational infrastructures rather than physical borders (Kwet, 2020; UNCTAD, 2021). For Africa, this transition is occurring in a context of dependency, asymmetrical partnerships, and limited domestic technological capacity.

The Political Economy of Digital Dependence

Africa’s digital transformation is accelerating. The continent hosts the world’s fastest-growing mobile economy and increasingly digitized public sectors. However, the underlying technologies, cloud hosting, cybersecurity architectures, enterprise software, biometric ID systems, satellite-based climate tools, and AI-enabled surveillance, remain predominantly foreign-built. Most of these are owned by the big tech companies.

Three dynamics illustrate this dependence:

#1. External ownership of digital infrastructure

Telecommunications backbones, government cloud services, and data centers rely heavily on multinational vendors. Several African countries host critical government data on foreign-owned servers or cloud platforms managed by firms based in Europe, the United States, or China.
Implication: Control over data flows, and by extension, national decision-making, rests outside Africa’s legal jurisdiction.

#2. Algorithmic systems embedded with non-African priorities

Algorithms trained on Euro-American or Asian data often encode biases that misinterpret African socio-political realities. For instance:

(i) Predictive policing models trained in the U.S. or China reproduce patterns unsuitable for African community structures.

(ii) Climate-risk models deployed in the Lake Chad Basin rely on training datasets not calibrated to regional ecological dynamics (IPCC, 2022; UNEP, 2021).

(iii) Social media algorithms amplify polarization and disinformation, shaping electoral behavior without local regulatory oversight.

#3. Governance tools without governance capacity

More than 30 African governments have adopted AI-enhanced surveillance or “Safe City” systems sourced externally (Carnegie Endowment, 2023). Electoral commissions use imported biometric registries. Public administrations increasingly depend on proprietary algorithms for welfare targeting, taxation, and service delivery.
Implication: Governments adopt digital tools faster than they build the institutional capacity to regulate them.

Algorithmic Power: The New Geopolitics

Algorithmic systems shape political authority in four critical ways:

#1. Rule-setting power

Algorithms make decisions on who receives subsidies, which regions receive security prioritization, how climate risks are mapped, and which content is amplified during elections. If African governments do not control these decision rules, they cede policymaking power to external actors.

#2. Surveillance and security power

Imported facial recognition, cyber-monitoring tools, and AI-based intelligence systems give foreign vendors indirect access to sensitive national security data.
The African Union’s 2018 cybersecurity breach, where servers in the AU headquarters were reportedly transmitting data nightly to external networks, demonstrated how surveillance dependence can escalate into geopolitical vulnerability (Le Monde, 2018).

#3. Economic power

Digital monopolies shape markets, tax regimes, and consumer behavior. Africa currently receives less than 1% of global AI investment (UNESCO, 2023). Without indigenous innovation ecosystems, the continent remains a consumer rather than a producer in the digital economy.

#4. Climate and environmental power

Climate-security governance increasingly relies on remote sensing, geospatial mapping, and predictive analytics. Satellites operated by NASA, ESA, and private aerospace companies supply data for environmental monitoring across Africa.
If access is controlled externally, African states may lack autonomous capacity for:

(i) early-warning systems,

(ii) resource conflict prediction,

(iii) climate-displacement planning,

(iv) or cross-border climate diplomacy.

State Authority at Risk: Lessons from Emerging Cases

#1. Digital IDs and electoral governance

Countries such as Nigeria, Kenya, and Ghana rely on biometric ID systems designed by foreign firms. In Nigeria, INEC’s BVAS and IReV platforms, while innovative, depend on proprietary architectures that limit public auditability.
This creates risks of:

(i) opaque vendor influence,

(ii) potential data exposure,

(iii) and reduced public trust during electoral disputes.

#2. Algorithmic Welfare Targeting

Kenya’s Hunger Safety Net Programme and South Africa’s SASSA digital payment system rely on targeting algorithms built by external contractors. These models have occasionally produced exclusion errors linked to biased or incomplete data (World Bank, 2020).

#3. Climate insecurity in the Lake Chad Basin

Early-warning systems used for monitoring hydroclimatic changes rely heavily on European and American satellite data. Studies find that region-specific vulnerabilities, such as gendered roles in resource access, informal livelihoods, and community-led adaptation are often under-represented in imported models (IPCC, 2022; Adelman & Tamuno, 2020).

Why Africa Must Shape Its Digital Future

To safeguard sovereignty in the algorithmic age, African states must pursue multi-level reforms:

#1. Build indigenous digital capacity by

(i) Investing in domestic AI research centres and African-language training datasets.

(ii) Strengthen computing infrastructure, local cloud services, and national data centres.

(iii) Expand university programmes in data science, cybersecurity, and computational public policy.

#2. Enhance digital governance frameworks by

(i) Adopting comprehensive data protection and AI-ethics legislation aligned with the AU’s Digital Transformation Strategy (2020–2030).

(ii) Require algorithmic transparency and public-sector auditing.

(iii) Mandating local participation in software procurement and customization.

#3. Strengthen regional digital cooperation by doing the following: 

(i) Establishing an ECOWAS/AU algorithmic oversight body modelled after the EU’s AI Act.

(ii) Developing African geospatial data platforms for climate-security governance.

(iii) Harmonizing cybersecurity protocols across borders.

#4. Prioritise localisation in climate security by

(i) Training AI models using local ecological and socio-cultural datasets.

(ii) Embed local knowledge, especially gendered adaptation roles, into predictive climate frameworks.

(iii) Strengthening the capacity of Lake Chad Basin states to independently manage early-warning systems.

#5. Pursue strategic technological diplomacy

Africa must negotiate with global tech powers (US, EU, China, and India) from a position of agency rather than dependence. Diplomatic instruments should include:

(i) tech-transfer agreements,

(ii) joint R&D partnerships,

(iii) and sovereignty-preserving digital contracts.

Conclusion: Algorithmic Sovereignty is the New Statehood

The future of African governance will be determined not only in parliaments, cabinet rooms, and AU summits, but also in datasets, algorithms, codebases, and cloud contracts. If Africa fails to shape, audit, and govern these systems, it risks a new form of dependency, algorithmic dependency, where technological tools silently override public authority. But it is high time for Africa to assert agency, build local capacity, and embed continental priorities into digital governance; only then can it transform algorithmic power into a driver of sovereignty, climate resilience, democratic stability, and sustainable development.

The choice is urgent. And it is political.

********************** By Dr. Shadrach Adams Brandford

Selected References

1. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (2023). AI Surveillance in Africa: Mapping the Deployment Landscape.

2. UNCTAD (2021). Digital Economy Report: Cross-border Data Flows and Development.

3. UNESCO (2023). Global AI Readiness Index.

4. IPCC (2022). Sixth Assessment Report: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability.

5. UNEP (2021). Making Peace with Nature: A Scientific Blueprint to Tackle the Climate, Biodiversity and Pollution Crises.

6. World Bank (2020). Social Protection and Digital Delivery Systems in Africa.

7. Kwet, M. (2020). "Digital Colonialism: The Evolution of American Empire in the Internet Era." Race & Class.

8. Le Monde (2018). Revelations on African Union Data Breach.