🇺🇸▼
Experts in human rights and technology are sounding a serious alarm about the rapid spread of artificial intelligence surveillance across Africa. These new systems are invading the privacy of citizens and creating a fearful atmosphere for entire societies. A recent report indicates that governments on the continent have spent more than $2 billion on tracking technology built in China. Researchers describe this spending as unnecessary and far larger than what is needed for public safety.
The report, created by the Institute of Development Studies, highlights that at least $2 billion was invested by eleven African governments. These funds were used to purchase systems capable of recognizing faces and monitoring the movements of people in public spaces. While national security is often cited as the excuse to install these advanced systems, the report warns that these measures are typically implemented with very little regulation or legal oversight. Without laws to control them, these tools can be used in dangerous ways.
Chinese technology companies often sell these surveillance systems in large packages. These bundles usually include closed-circuit television cameras, facial recognition software, and methods for collecting biometric data, along with cameras that track vehicle movement. Companies present these tools as a way to help rapidly growing cities modernize and lower crime rates, suggesting that the technology will bring order and safety to urban areas.
However, researchers from the African Digital Rights Network, who helped write the report, argue there is no real proof that these systems actually reduce crime. Instead, they warn that these powerful tools allow governments to monitor human rights activists and political opponents. There are reports that the technology helps authorities arrest protesters and forces journalists to practice self-censorship out of fear. The technology is effectively becoming a weapon against those who challenge the current power structure.
Wairagala Wakabi, the executive director of Cipesa in Kampala and a co-author of the report, provided a sharp assessment. Wakabi stated that this large-scale and invasive use of AI in public spaces is neither legal, necessary, nor proportionate to the legitimate goal of providing security. He noted that history has shown such systems are simply the latest tool used by governments to invade the privacy of citizens and stifle their freedom of movement and expression.
The financial data in the report paints a clear picture of the scale of this investment. Nigeria has spent the most on this infrastructure, investing $470 million to install 10,000 smart cameras by last year, representing a massive portion of the total regional spending. Egypt has installed 6,000 cameras, while Algeria and Uganda have each installed approximately 5,000 units. On average, the eleven countries involved spent $240 million each on this technology.
It is important to note that the investment was often funded by loans from Chinese banks. This debt structure adds another layer of complexity to the situation. Countries may be locked into long-term financial obligations while the technology is deployed. The speed of this rollout has outpaced the development of any legal frameworks to govern how the data is stored or used. This lack of regulation is a major concern for civil rights advocates and legal experts alike.
Bulelani Jili, an assistant professor at Georgetown University, offered a nuanced perspective on the legal challenges. He argued that simply introducing laws to regulate surveillance might not be the solution. In fact, he warned that the introduction of laws could be dangerous in some contexts. Surveillance of online activity has frequently been used to crack down on dissent, often legalized through laws that criminalize ordinary people for their posts online.
Jili explained that focusing solely on the introduction of laws could allow governments to claim that the systems have been fully legitimized. If a government passes a law allowing these cameras, it can argue that the monitoring is now fully legal and above reproach. "The real challenge," Jili said, "is not simply whether surveillance is regulated, but how societies negotiate the balance between security, accountability, and civil liberties once these technologies become deeply institutionalised."
There are already documented concerns about the misuse of this technology. Facial recognition systems are reportedly being used to monitor activists in Uganda. Furthermore, surveillance systems were used to crack down on protests led by Generation Z in Kenya. These actions suggest that the technology is being used to suppress political opposition before it can even gain momentum.
Jili warned that this trend poses a danger to anyone deemed a threat to the government in the future. Historically marginalized communities, political activists, journalists, and minority groups can be disproportionately affected when these technologies become embedded in policing and intelligence practices. The power to identify and track individuals represents a significant shift in the balance of power between the state and the individual.
Yosr Jouini, who authored the report's section on Algeria, highlighted how the narrative around these systems is often misleading. She explained that the systems were originally introduced in connection with "smart city" projects, which promised to tackle crime and manage traffic efficiently. In reality, however, they often became primarily tools for security forces. The original promise of convenience and safety was replaced by the reality of state control.
The impact of this surveillance extends beyond immediate arrests. Jouini highlighted how street protests in 2019 and 2021 played a key role in bringing about political change in the region. The expansion of surveillance systems could make people hesitant to protest in the future. The knowledge that they are being watched may deter citizens from participating in public gatherings.
"We know a lot of protesters have been arrested when participating in public space gatherings," Jouini noted. "We don't know for sure if it was based on the cameras but there's a chilling effect – because it could happen – on people's willingness to participate in public gatherings."
This uncertainty is perhaps the most dangerous aspect of the technology. Even if not every protest is tracked, the possibility is enough to silence voices. When citizens fear that their presence in public could lead to identification, tracking, and potential arrest, the very concept of free assembly is undermined. The technology has moved from being a potential safety tool to a mechanism of social control.
The convergence of massive financial investment, advanced Chinese technology, and a lack of regulatory frameworks creates a dangerous precedent. As these systems become more deeply embedded in the infrastructure of African cities, the stakes for civil rights and democracy grow higher. The debate is no longer just about the technology itself, but about who controls it and what it means for the future of freedom on the continent. Without immediate attention and strong safeguards, the promise of smart cities may ultimately result in the loss of fundamental human rights.
The situation remains complex because the technology is spreading faster than the laws that could control it. Governments are eager to modernize, but the cost to civil liberties is high. The lack of transparency in these deals makes it difficult for citizens to understand what data is being collected and how it is used. This opacity allows for abuse without immediate consequences, leaving citizens vulnerable to a system that operates without their consent.
International observers are now calling for stricter guidelines on how this technology is sold and bought. There is a growing demand for companies to ensure that their products are not used to suppress freedom of speech. However, the pressure to modernize quickly often overrides these ethical concerns. The short-term gain of installing cameras often masks the long-term cost to democracy.
As these systems become more common, the definition of public safety is changing. It is becoming less about protecting citizens from crime and more about protecting the government from its citizens. This shift requires immediate attention from legal experts, human rights groups, and the public. The future of democracy in these regions depends on how quickly these safeguards can be established. The window of opportunity to prevent permanent damage is closing fast.