The Oracle
The Oracle: The University As a Catalyst for Societal Development (Pt. 3)
Published
4 months agoon
By
Eric
By Prof Mike Ozekhome
INTRODUCTION
The previous installment examined the history of universities and tertiary institutions worldwide, focusing on Germany, Africa and, of course, Nigeria. This week’s piece discusses the various educational theories in the context of universities and the society. Enjoy.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS AND MODELS LINKING UNIVERSITY EDUCATION TO SOCIETAL DEVELOPMENT
HUMAN CAPITAL THEORY
Human Capital Theory treats education, training and health as investments in individuals that raise productivity and yield economic returns; analogous to investing in machines or physical capital. See https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/human-capital-theory> > Accessed on 8th September, 2025. The concept was popularized in the 1960s by economists such as Theodore W. Schultz and Gary Becker, and it underpins much economic analysis of education policy, labour markets, and public investment decisions (https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/032715/what-human-capital-and-how-it-used.asp > Accessed on 8th September, 2025).
Since human capital is the engine of growth, universities then are central economic actors: they produce the skilled labour force, certify competencies and supply the tacit knowledge that firms use. This viewpoint justifies public and private investment in tertiary education, scholarship programs and vocational streams tied to labour market needs. It also explains why governments measure returns to education (wage premiums, productivity gains) and why universities are increasingly evaluated on employability and graduate outcomes.
Human Capital Theory can however be reductive. It tends to treat education as a private good (individual returns) rather than a public good (citizenship, democratic capacity). It may downplay social, cultural and distributional aspects (who gets access to education) and does not fully account for structural constraints (e.g., labour market segmentation or discriminatory hiring). Because it privileges measurable returns, it can encourage narrow vocationalization at the expense of broader civic or critical functions of universities.
MODERNIZATION THEORY
This theory links societal development to social and cultural change: industrialization, urbanization, mass education and bureaucratic institutions produce modern political and social systems (including democracy). See https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/modernization-theory?> Accessed on 8th September, 2025. Early models (e.g., Rostow’s stages of growth) posited relatively linear transitions from “traditional” to “modern” societies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rostow%27s_stages_of_growth > Accessed on 8th September, 2025).
Under modernizationism, universities are engines of modernity: they train bureaucrats, scientists and professionals; diffuse new norms (rationality, meritocracy); and anchor public infrastructure for national development. Expansion of higher education is thus seen as both a consequence and driver of modernization, boosting technical capacity, administrative competence and civic culture.
Modernization Theory has been critiqued for teleology and Eurocentrism (assuming every society follows a single Western trajectory). It can overlook power asymmetries, external constraints, and the role of historical contingency. In practice, simply increasing university enrolment does not guarantee progressive political change or even broad economic growth. Outcomes depend on institutional quality, labour market absorption and equitable access.
SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY
Social Learning Theory, developed most prominently by Albert Bandura (https://www.simplypsychology.org/bandura.html?> Accessed on 8th September, 2025), rests on the idea that people do not learn solely through direct instruction or reinforcement, but also by observing the behaviours of others and modelling them. Central to this framework are concepts such as imitation, role modelling, self-efficacy, and reciprocal determinism — the continuous interaction between personal factors, behaviour, and the surrounding environment. Learning, in this sense, is always contextual and socially mediated; it takes place within environments where norms, values, and practices are continuously displayed, reinforced, or challenged (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267750204_Bandura’s_Social_Learning_Theory_Social_ Cognitive_Leari ing_Theory> Accessed on 8th September, 2025).
Universities are particularly powerful environments for this kind of social learning. While their formal role is to deliver structured knowledge through lectures, textbooks, and examinations, a significant portion of what students learn occurs indirectly, through observation and participation in academic and professional cultures. Students acquire tacit skills, professional norms, and ethical habits not simply from classroom instruction but from the examples set by faculty, supervisors, peers, and the wider institutional culture. The mentoring relationship between professor and student, the apprenticeship model (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325205611_A_Model_of_Supervision_Derived_from_Apprenticeship_ Training> Accessed on 8th September, 2025) of supervision in research or clinical placements, and the informal communities of practice that develop in research groups, laboratories, or student societies all serve as fertile grounds for modelling and imitation. Even the visibility of public intellectuals and successful alumni plays a role, offering aspirational figures whose trajectories implicitly teach what is possible within a given discipline or profession.
The culture of the university itself further shapes learning outcomes. Practices around academic integrity, collegiality, debate, and critical inquiry are not just rules or codes of conduct; they are behaviours continuously modelled and observed. The institutional environment signals what is valued, what is rewarded, and what is considered unacceptable, thereby reinforcing professional and ethical standards.
For university administrators and educators, the programmatic implications of Social Learning Theory are profound. It suggests that teaching should not be conceived narrowly as transmission of knowledge, but as the creation of social contexts in which desirable behaviours and practices are modelled, observed, and internalised. This is why experiential and observational learning opportunities — such as simulations, laboratory work, clinical rotations, internships, peer-learning programs, and scaffolded mentoring — are indispensable components of modern higher education. Equally, it underscores the idea that institutional signaling is as powerful as the curriculum itself: what a university models through its governance, culture, and every day practices often matters as much as what it formally teaches.
DEPENDENCY THEORY
Dependency Theory (https://www.britannica.com/topic/dependency-theory> Accessed on 8th September, 2025), which emerged in the 1960s and 1970s through the works of scholars such as Andre Gunder Frank (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274283993_A_Discourse_on_Andre_Gunder_Frank’s_ Contribution_tohe_Theory_and_Study_of_Development_and_Underdevelopment_its_Implication_on_Nigeria’s_development_situation> Accessed on 8th September, 2025) and Fernando Henrique Cardoso with Enzo Faletto, offers a critical lens for understanding patterns of underdevelopment in the global South. At its core, the theory argues that poverty and economic stagnation in many countries are not simply the result of internal shortcomings, but are structurally produced by the way these economies are integrated into the global system. Within this framework, resources, labour, and value consistently flow from the “periphery” to the “core” — that is, from less-developed to more-developed nations — thereby reinforcing dependency and limiting autonomous development. This unequal exchange is further compounded by colonial legacies and by global markets that continue to privilege the interests of industrialised nations over those of emerging economies.
Applied to higher education, Dependency Theory illuminates how universities can inadvertently reproduce dependency rather than foster genuine autonomy. For instance, many institutions import curricula, teaching models, and research frameworks designed in the global North, often without adequate adaptation to local realities. Research agendas are frequently influenced, if not dictated, by donor priorities or international funding agencies, which means that intellectual labour may serve external rather than national needs. Accreditation and evaluation systems also tend to valorize Western benchmarks of quality, sometimes at the expense of context-specific measures of success. Furthermore, the phenomenon of “brain drain,” where highly trained graduates migrate to wealthier countries in search of better opportunities, deprives developing regions of the very human capital they have invested in creating.
These dynamics raise urgent questions about intellectual sovereignty and the role of universities in national development. Dependency Theory thus motivates a range of responses oriented toward decolonization and autonomy. Universities are encouraged to build indigenous research agendas that prioritize local challenges and opportunities, to strengthen scholarship in local languages, and to invest in technologies that are context-relevant rather than imported wholesale. Equally, there is value in creating robust regional research networks that allow knowledge exchange across the global South, thereby reducing reliance on metropolitan centres of knowledge production.
Ultimately, Dependency Theory challenges universities in developing countries to move beyond the role of feeding foreign labour markets or servicing donor-driven priorities. Instead, it urges them to play a more proactive role in shaping national industrial strategies, technological innovation, and cultural identity. In this way, universities become not just sites of knowledge transfer but also engines of self-determined development and resistance to the structural inequalities embedded in the global economy.
KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY THEORY
The concept of the knowledge economy reframes the drivers of economic growth around knowledge, innovation and human capital, rather than relying solely on traditional physical inputs such as land, labour, and raw materials. In this framework, institutions that generate, diffuse, and commercialize knowledge — universities, research centres, and high-tech firms — assume a central role in shaping productivity and competitiveness (https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/695211468153873436/the-knowledge-economy-the-kam-methodology-and-world-bank-operations?utm_source=chatgpt.com> Accessed on 8th September, 2025). The policy discourse around the knowledge economy has been heavily shaped by global institutions such as the The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5152799_The_Knowledge Based_Economy_Conceptual_Framework_or_Buzzword> Accessed on 8th September, 2025, the World Bank (https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/695211468153873436/the-knowledge-economy-the-kam-methodology-and-world-bank-operations> Accessed on 8th September, 2025) , and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000114252> Accessed on 8th September, 2025), which have developed both conceptual frameworks and measurement tools for understanding innovation systems and knowledge-driven growth.
Within this paradigm, universities perform a wide range of overlapping economic functions. At the most fundamental level, they engage in both basic and applied research, producing new knowledge and technologies that advance science and industry. They also serve as sites of talent production, equipping graduates, researchers, and postdoctoral fellows with skills that fuel the labour market. Beyond this, universities act as engines of technology transfer, turning academic discoveries into practical innovations through patents, licensing agreements, and start-ups. They also provide policy advice and consulting, often shaping industrial strategies and informing public decision-making.
Governments and universities operationalize the knowledge economy through a variety of policy levers and institutional instruments. These include research and development (R&D) funding, research fellowships, and infrastructure investments that sustain academic inquiry. They also extend to structured university–industry partnerships, incubators, technology transfer offices, and science parks designed to accelerate commercialization. Intellectual property regimes, such as Bayh-Dole type reforms, have further enabled universities to retain rights over publicly funded research and translate it into marketable products. Alongside these measures, the use of metrics and indicators such as patents, publications, citations, and innovation indices has become an essential tool for benchmarking performance and guiding policy interventions.
Yet, the knowledge economy is not without its risks and critiques. The emphasis on commercialization and measurable outputs can sometimes push universities to prioritize short-term applied research over fundamental scholarship, which may undermine their broader educational and societal missions. There is also the danger of mission drift, as universities increasingly orient themselves toward market logics at the expense of cultural, ethical, and civic roles. Moreover, if access to the benefits of innovation is uneven. For instance, concentrated in wealthy nations or among elite groups the knowledge economy risks deepening inequality rather than mitigating it. (To be continued).
THOUGHT TOR THE WEEK
“The function of education is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. Intelligence plus character – that is the goal of true education”. (Martin Luther King, Jr.)
Related
You may like
The Oracle
The Oracle: Human Rights: Our Everyday Essentials (Pt. 1)
Published
10 hours agoon
April 11, 2026By
Eric
By Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN
INTRODUCTION
Human rights are the basic freedoms and protections that belong to every person by virtue of their humanity. They are not favour to be granted by governments, nor luxuries to be afforded by wealth, but guarantees essential for dignity, justice, and peace. They follow us into classrooms, marketplaces, courts, homes, voting booths, and hospitals. They are embedded in our everyday lives often unnoticed until they are violated.
Yet, across the world today and particularly in Nigeria these rights are under pressure. Millions are deprived of quality education, clean water, fair trials, and safety from violence. Inequalities persist across gender, ethnicity, ability, and economic status. Authoritarian tendencies are growing. Youths are rising to protest brutality. Women are demanding equality. Minorities are seeking inclusion. Human rights, once considered universal, are increasingly contested.
We shall take a deep dive into the current state of human rights, globally and locally, with a sharp focus on Nigeria’s complex terrain. It begins by tracing the historical evolution of rights, then explores the challenges of our age from digital surveillance to climate displacement and highlights the voices of the marginalized. We will also examine the legal and institutional mechanisms of enforcement and end with a call to collective action to build a just, inclusive, and equitable world.
THE ORIGINS AND EVOLUTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Human rights did not appear suddenly in history. They evolved through centuries of philosophical thought, political revolutions, social struggles, and legal innovations. They were shaped by ancient traditions, redefined through war and rebellion, and finally enshrined into the legal frameworks that now govern modern societies. To understand why they are so essential today, we must trace their origins.
Though the modern language of “human rights” emerged in the 20th century, the quest for dignity and justice is as old as civilization (Sheeba Malik, ‘Evolution of Human Rights from Ancient Times till 20th). Early African societies had customary laws that emphasized communal welfare and fairness. Ancient Egyptian law promoted justice (Ma’at), while Yoruba traditional systems emphasized collective responsibility and moral order (Emmanuel J. Udokang, ‘Traditional Ethics and Social Order: A Study in African Philosophy’ (2014) Cross-Cultural Communication 10 (6)).
One of the earliest landmarks in the journey toward human rights was the Magna Carta, signed in 1215 by King John of England under pressure from rebellious barons (Britannica, ‘Magna Carta’ <https://www.britannica.com/topic/Magna-Carta> Accessed on the 4th of December, 2025.). At the time, kings ruled with near absolute authority. The Magna Carta was revolutionary because it introduced the idea that even the monarch was subject to the law. Though its original intent was to protect the privileges of the English nobility, it contained principles that would echo through history. Clause 39 of the document states:
“No free man shall be seized or imprisoned… except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.”
This was the seed of the concept of due process, the idea that justice must follow legal procedures and not be based on arbitrary power. Over time, the Magna Carta inspired later legal developments such as habeas corpus (the right to challenge unlawful detention), and even modern constitutions (Chertsey Museum, ‘Magna Carta: Freedom under Law’ <https://chertseymuseum.org/magna_carta> Accessed on the 4th of December, 2025.). In essence, it was one of the first formal rejections of unchecked authority.
Centuries later, in 1789, the French Revolution gave rise to the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen), another cornerstone of modern human rights thought (Yale Law School Library, ‘Declaration of the Rights of Man – 1789’ <https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/rightsof.asp> Accessed on the 4th of December, 2025.). Inspired by Enlightenment thinkers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Montesquieu, and influenced by the American Declaration of Independence (1776), this document was a powerful assertion that rights belonged not just to nobles or monarchs, but to all citizens. It declared, in Article 1:
“Men are born and remain free and equal in rights.”
The Declaration emphasized liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression. It proclaimed freedom of speech, the presumption of innocence, and the sovereignty of the people. Importantly, it broke from feudal traditions and asserted the universal nature of rights. These ideas would later influence the constitutions of many nations, including Nigeria.
While these early documents were monumental, they were not perfect. The Magna Carta did not protect women or peasants, and the French Declaration did not extend full rights to women or enslaved people in French colonies. But they signaled a new era one where rights were no longer gifts from rulers, but entitlements grounded in human dignity.
However, the greatest leap came after World War II, when the world, shocked by the Holocaust and widespread atrocities, convened under the United Nations to craft a global framework of human dignity.
In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was born (Wikipedia, ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights> Accessed on the 4th of December, 2025.). It declared that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” It introduced the world to 30 rights including freedom from torture, freedom of speech, the right to work, and the right to education. Though not legally binding, it inspired over 60 international instruments, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
Nigeria, having gained independence in 1960, is a signatory to most major international human rights treaties (Wikipedia, ‘Human rights in Nigeria’ <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Nigeria> Accessed on the 4th of December, 2025.). The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria enshrines many of these rights in Chapter IV from the right to life (Section 33) to freedom of expression (Section 39) and movement (Section 41). However, these rights are too often suspended in practice not through law, but through silence, impunity, and neglect.
As we trace this historical evolution, a painful irony becomes clear: never before have human rights been more recognized, yet so routinely violated. The gap between theory and reality continues to widen.
NIGERIA AND THE GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS CRISIS
Human rights lose their power when they are not equally applied. While laws may proclaim that all people are equal before the law, reality often reveals a very different picture especially in societies like Nigeria, where social, economic, and cultural divisions determine whose rights are truly respected. The most dangerous threat to human rights is not always violent abuse, but silent exclusion. Across gender, ethnicity, disability, and sexual identity, many Nigerians are systematically denied full citizenship in the realm of rights.
Women, who make up nearly half of Nigeria’s population (STATISTICAL REPORT ON WOMEN AND MEN IN NIGERIA (2022) <https://www.nigerianstat.gov.ng/pdfuploads/2022_Statistical_Report%20on%20Women%20and%20Men_%20in%20Nigeria.pdf> Accessed on the 4th of December, 2025.), continue to face entrenched discrimination. The 1999 Constitution guarantees equality under Section 42 (1) A citizen of Nigeria of a particular community, ethnic group, place of origin, sex, religion or political opinion shall not, by reason only that he is such a person…, and Nigeria has ratified key international instruments like the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) (Eseni Azu Udu et al., ‘Evaluating the Enforcement of the Rights of Women under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) 1979: The Nigerian Experience’ (2023) Beijing Law Review 14 (2). However, the Gender and Equal Opportunities Bill, which seeks to domesticate CEDAW into Nigerian law, has been rejected multiple times in the National Assembly (Femi Falana, ‘Condemnation of the National Assembly’s rejection of bills seeking gender equality by Funmi Falana’ Vanguard News <https://www.vanguardngr.com/2022/03/condemnation-of-the-national-assemblys-rejection-of-bills-seeking-gender-equality-by-funmi-falana/> Accessed on the 4th of December, 2025.). Women’s rights to inheritance, land ownership, education, and protection from gender based violence remain severely compromised, especially in rural and northern regions.
According to the Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS 2018), 31% of women aged 15 to 49 have experienced physical violence (*FIDA, ‘PRESS STATEMENT BY FIDA NIGERIA ON THE COMMEMORATION OF INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY 2025’ <https://fida.org.ng/author/lern/page/6/#:~:text=Accordingly%2C%20across%20Nigeria%2C%20millions%20of,states%2C%20leaving%20many%20women%20unprotected.> Accessed on the 4th of December, 2025.), while about 1 in 4 Nigerian girls are married before age 18 in violation of the Child Rights Act (2003). Although this law prohibits child marriage, it has not been adopted in several northern states where religious or cultural practices override federal statutes. The result is a two tiered legal system that fails to offer equal protection to all Nigerian children.
The rights of persons with disabilities are similarly neglected. After years of advocacy, Nigeria passed the Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities (Prohibition) Act in 2018, which mandates accessibility, education, and protection against discrimination (Anietie Ewang, ‘Nigeria Passes Disability Rights Law; Offers Hope of Inclusion, Improved Access’ Human rights watch <https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/01/25/nigeria-passes-disability-rights-law> Accessed on the 4th of December, 2025.).
However, enforcement remains minimal. Many public buildings, schools, and health centers are still inaccessible, and employers routinely exclude disabled persons from job opportunities, despite Section 6 of the Act requiring equal employment access. The National Commission for Persons with Disabilities, established to oversee compliance, remains under resourced and under recognized.
Religious minorities, too, face threats to their basic freedoms. Nigeria’s constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion under Section 38 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (As Amended) is often tested in regions where religious laws are enforced to the detriment of minorities. In 2022, the killing of Deborah Samuel, a Christian student in Sokoto accused of blasphemy, drew national and international outrage. Despite video evidence, few arrests were made, and no prosecutions followed (Aljazeera, ‘Mob kills student over ‘blasphemy’ in northern Nigerian college’ <https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/5/12/mob-kills-student-over-blasphemy-in-northern-nigerian-college> Accessed on the 4th of December, 2025.). This case shows the dangerous intersection of mob justice, religious extremism, and weak rule of law.
Ethnic marginalization also remains a major fault line in Nigeria’s political and social fabric. From the historic exclusion of Igbo people after the Biafran War, to the neglect of minority communities in the Niger Delta and Middle Belt, political power and resource allocation are often shaped by ethnic favoritism. The execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other Ogoni activists in 1995 for protesting environmental degradation in the Niger Delta remains one of Nigeria’s most infamous human rights violations. Though the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) was created to address the region’s neglect, corruption and underperformance have kept many oil-producing communities impoverished and polluted.
These realities expose a hard truth: the majority of Nigerians live on the margins of their own rights. Legal recognition means little without enforcement, and equality on paper is meaningless without access, inclusion, and accountability.
A human rights framework must address not only individual liberty but also systemic inequality. If justice is to have real meaning in Nigeria, it must start by amplifying the voices of those pushed to the edges women, children, persons with disabilities, ethnic minorities, and sexual minorities. These are not special interest groups; they are citizens of equal worth, entitled to the same protections, dignity, and opportunities as anyone else. (To be continued).
THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK
“To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity”. – Nelson Mandela.
Related
The Oracle
The Oracle: The New Digital Colonialism: Navigating AI Policy Under Foreign Tech Dominance (Pt. 5)
Published
1 week agoon
April 4, 2026By
Eric
By Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN
INTRODUCTION
In our last outing, we continued from the dangers of weak localization and disproportionate influence of foreign technology on African ecosystems. Followed by an in-depth analysis of the issues generated by AI policy and later at what African States needs to do to tackle the challenge-using Nigeria as a case study with special emphasis on the pen in the trans-continental transformation of AI technology and later x-ray the need for technological sovereignty and for crafting an indigenous AI policy agenda. We shall then conclude with an overview of lessons from abroad including the US, EU and China. Today, we shall take a look at the Future of African Digital Sovereignty, starting from Lagos to Accra, Cape Town to Cairo, Dakar to Dares Salaam, and in fact all fifty-four nations of African continent. We shall thereafter conclude with how the choices made by the African nations today with respect to AI governance, data sovereignty, and technological infrastructure will determine whether the continent will remain passive a consumer of foreign systems or emerges as an active shaper of global digital futures. Enjoy.
THE FUTURE OF AFRICAN DIGITAL SOVEREIGNTY
Imagine this: the year is 2050. From Lagos to Accra, Cape Town to Cairo, Dakar to Dares Salaam, all fifty-four nations of our beloved continent stand as co-authors of a shared digital destiny. The pen that once wavered in the hands of fragmented states has become steady, guided by unity, foresight and the vision to craft a future defined not by dependence, but by sovereignty, equity and innovation.
Across Africa, technology is no longer imported as a foreign product but created, nurtured and exported as a global standard. In Lagos, young engineers design energy-efficient AI chips that rival and surpass those made in Silicon Valley. In Kigali, a hub once celebrated for its early smart city experiments, Africa’s first quantum computing centre now powers healthcare breakthroughs across continents. Nairobi has become the headquarters of the Pan-African AI Ethics Council, an institution that sets the global benchmark for human-centred artificial intelligence. Accra, Addis Ababa and Johannesburg anchor Africa’s digital economy with data centres that rival those of Europe and Asia, ensuring that Africa’s data never again flows outward without reciprocity.
The transformation began with a recognition: technology is not neutral. Africans understood that algorithms, data systems and biometric technologies are instruments of power. Instead of uncritically adopting systems that excluded the rural, the poor, the disabled or the linguistically diverse, the continent chose a different path: technology that reflects African values of dignity, community and justice. The lessons of early missteps, such as exclusionary ID systems and exploitative data mining by foreign corporations, were not forgotten. They became rallying points for reform.
By 2035, every African nation had adopted a binding Digital Bill of Rights, enshrining privacy, dignity, transparency and accessibility as constitutional guarantees. Consent is no longer a perfunctory box to be ticked but an active and meaningful right, accessible even to citizens with low literacy or those living in remote communities. Algorithms deployed in courts, schools, banks and hospitals are explainable, accountable and open to independent audit. Citizens are not passive subjects of technology but active shapers—through participatory platforms that allow them to influence how data is collected, how AI is used, and how rights are protected.
The institutions that guard this ecosystem are robust, independent and trusted. The African Data Protection Commission; born out of a coalition of all fifty-four nations, operates with technical excellence and political autonomy. It not only oversees compliance but actively invests in capacity-building across the continent. Local regulators are no longer captured by external interests; they are guardians of sovereignty. Civil society, academia and entrepreneurs are embedded in digital governance as co-creators, not outsiders. The result is an ecosystem where technology is democratized and trust is the currency of digital life.
Infrastructure, once the Achilles’ heel of African development, is now its greatest strength. Universal broadband covers the continent, powered by a mix of green energy grids, solar satellites and fibre networks woven through deserts, forests and cities. Every village is a node in Africa’s digital constellation. Data centres, built and managed by Africans, ensure that information flows within Africa before it flows outward. These infrastructures are interoperable, resilient and sovereign.
Economic life thrives within this digital ecosystem. The African Continental Free Trade Area has blossomed into the world’s largest digital single market, seamlessly integrating fintech, e-commerce and cross-border innovation. A farmer in Mali can sell directly to buyers in Morocco using blockchain-backed platforms that guarantee fair prices, transparency, and security. A nurse in Uganda consults instantly with a doctor in Tunisia through AI-powered telemedicine networks. Start-ups in Lusaka or Ouagadougou scale as easily as those in Paris or Singapore, because Africa’s venture ecosystem is rich, connected and self-sustaining.
Yet the utopia is not measured by economic prosperity alone. Africa’s digital future has become a moral compass for the world. By embedding Ethics by Design into every innovation, Africa proved that technology could uplift rather than exclude. AI systems in Africa are trained on diverse datasets that reflect the continent’s multitude of languages, cultures, and histories, ensuring that bias is minimized and inclusion maximized. Assistive technologies empower people with disabilities to thrive. Rural communities once disconnected are now innovators, shaping tools that respond to their own realities—tools built in Hausa, Wolof, Amharic, Zulu and hundreds of other African languages.
Education has been re-imagined. Many children across the continent now have access to quality, personalized, AI-driven learning, designed with local contexts in mind. Universities collaborate through the Pan-African Digital Knowledge Network, pooling resources to create world-leading research in AI, biotechnology, renewable energy and cyber security. Brain drain has reversed—talent flows into Africa, not away from it.
Crucially, Africa’s rise did not come through isolation but through strategic partnership. Unlike the extractive digital colonialism of the past, today’s partnerships are forged on reciprocity and respect. Africa sits at the table of global digital governance as an equal, co-drafting the ethical frameworks that guide the use of AI, biotechnology and space technologies. Where once it was a consumer, Africa is now a producer, standard-setter and exporter of innovation and ideas.
This Africa is not utopia because it is flawless. It is utopia because it has embedded resilience, justice and inclusion into the fabric of its digital transformation. It has proven that sovereignty is not about closing borders but about opening opportunities, not about resisting technology but about owning it, shaping it, and ensuring it serves humanity.
CONCLUSION
Africa stands at a crossroads. The choices made today about AI governance, data sovereignty, and technological infrastructure will determine whether the continent remains a passive consumer of foreign systems or emerges as an active shaper of global digital futures. To avoid a new wave of digital colonialism, African states must embed ethics, sovereignty, and inclusion into their AI policies, invest in indigenous innovation, and strengthen regional collaboration. Only then can Africa wield the pen of authorship—crafting a digital destiny rooted in dignity, justice, and self-determination. (The end).
THOUGHTS FOR THE WEEK
“Historically, privacy was almost implicit, because it was hard to find and gather information. But in the digital world, whether it’s digital cameras or satellites or just what you click on, we need to have more explicit rules – not just for governments but for private companies”. – Bill Gates.
“Social media is changing the way we communicate and the way we are perceived, both positively and negatively. Every time you post a photo, or update your status, you are contributing to your own digital footprint and personal brand” – Amy Jo Martin.
Related
The Oracle
The Oracle: The New Digital Colonialism: Navigating AI Policy Under Foreign Tech Dominance (Pt. 4)
Published
2 weeks agoon
March 27, 2026By
Eric
Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN
INTRODUCTION
The last episode of this treatise concluded our examination of the preferences of the Western (US, EU) and Eastern (China) hemispheres on the subject after which we considered the dangers of weak localization and disproportionate influence of foreign technology on African ecosystems. This was followed by an analysis of the issues generated by AI policy and later we looked at what African States needs to do to tackle the challenge-using Nigeria as a case study. Today, we shall continue with same with special emphasis on the pen in the trans-continental transformation of AI technology and later x-ray the need for technological sovereignty and for crafting an indigenous AI policy agenda. We shall then conclude with an overview of lessons from abroad including the US, EU and China. Enjoy.
AI POLICY AND DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION IN AFRICA, WHO WIELDS THE PEN?
In one sentence, we wield the pen. Our governments, independent state actors, entrepreneurs, African men, women and youth all share in this responsibility. The future of Africa’s digital transformation depends on whether we choose to author our own story or allow others to continue writing it for us.
Africa is witnessing an increasing call for technological sovereignty: the ability to control our own infrastructure, data and innovations. This idea, central to decolonial frameworks, insists that we must move away from being a passive consumer of technologies and reclaim control of its digital future. Kwame Nkrumah emphasized the importance of pan-African cooperation for achieving sovereignty. That vision today extends to the digital realm, where regional collaboration and homegrown solutions are critical for breaking dependency on Western corporations. Achille Mbembe further argues that Africa should leverage indigenous knowledge systems and local resources to create technologies that reflect African values, rather than merely importing Western tools ill-suited to its unique needs.
The digital divide between Africa and the West is not merely technical; it is rooted in structural and historical inequalities. The continent’s persistent reliance on foreign technologies reflects centuries of global imbalances that continue to shape how resources and knowledge flow. A central issue is technological dependency: Africa consumes technologies made elsewhere instead of shaping them (Tyler Robinson, ‘Navigating Digital Neocolonialism in Africa’ (cigionline.org) < www.cigionline.org/static/documents/DPH-paper-Stevenson_1.pdf > Accessed on 16th September, 2025).
Global tech giants dominate Africa’s digital landscape, extracting vast amounts of data without adequate investment in local infrastructure or people. Data extraction not only perpetuates Western dominance but also strips Africa of sovereignty over its own digital futures. Without robust regulations or sufficient local technological capacity, African nations remain vulnerable to these external forces.
NEED FOR TECHNOLOGICAL SOVEREIGNITY
Against these challenges, the need for technological sovereignty becomes undeniable. Africa must not remain a passive participant in the global digital economy. We must take proactive steps to build our own technological infrastructure and policies. Sovereignty in the digital age is not just about access but about authorship: designing systems that align with African values, priorities and aspirations. Some progress is already visible. Many governments are beginning to reclaim data oversight by establishing national data centres, such as those in Benin and Togo. These centres enable local data governance and prevent exploitation. Even when international institutions provide support, African states are increasingly insisting on local ownership and oversight (ibid).
Partnerships and trade agreements have also played a role in shaping Africa’s digital transformation, sometimes limiting, sometimes enabling. The Policy and Regulatory Initiative for Digital Africa (PRIDA), funded by the European Union and implemented by the African Union, supports broadband access, harmonized digital policies, and the capacity to implement them. While the framework is influenced by European legislation, it ensures stronger protections for African citizens. The Pan-African e-Network Project, originally launched in India but now African-led, connects countries via satellite and fibre, enabling teleeducation and telemedicine across borders. It demonstrates that partnerships can succeed when they are driven and managed by Africans. Similarly, the Smart Africa Alliance was established to transform the continent into a collaborative digital market. By centring ICTs within socio-economic development agendas, the alliance promotes sustainable policies, digital infrastructure, and affordable access across its member states.
TOWARD AN INDIGENOUS AI POLICY AGENDA: RECOMMENDATIONS
While significant progress has been made, more must be done to ensure that Africa wields the pen in shaping its digital destiny. Recommendations emerging from this discussion are clear:
1. Prioritize investment in indigenous technologies and local innovation rather than relying primarily on foreign solutions.
2. Expand digital literacy and capacity-building across the continent to empower citizens to participate meaningfully in the digital economy.
3. Strengthen regional collaboration by developing a unified digital strategy that reflects Africa’s collective interests and unique needs.
4. Establish and enforce robust regulatory frameworks to protect data, safeguard citizens, and curtail exploitative practices of global tech corporations.
5. Pursue strategic partnerships with external actors only on terms that guarantee local ownership, oversight, and long-term autonomy.
6. Operationalise Ethics by Design across all AI and digital identity systems by embedding impact assessments, fairness audits, user consent, and accountability mechanisms at every stage—from policy formulation to system deployment.
7. Mandate algorithmic explainability and independent auditing for all AI models impacting critical sectors such as healthcare, credit, policing, and education, ensuring transparency and bias detection.
8. Localise and secure data within national borders by requiring sensitive national datasets to be stored in certified local data centres, supported with investments in infrastructure and cybersecurity.
9. Extend NDPA protections to vulnerable and marginalised communities by enabling inclusive identity verification methods, community-based registration agents, and exemptions for hard-to-reach populations.
10. Establish a Public Interest Technology Task Force composed of ethicists, technologists, civil society, and legal scholars to provide oversight and human rights evaluations before new systems are rolled out.
11. Prioritise national capacity building in data ethics and digital rights through mandatory training for government agencies, judiciary, MDAs, and law enforcement bodies.
12. Make digital consent comprehensible, accessible, and verifiable by requiring plain-language terms, local translations, audio/visual options, and legal avenues to revoke consent.
13. Decentralise and democratise identity systems by adopting a federated model where local governments, trusted institutions, and community actors can verify identity, reducing exclusion and dependency on centralised systems.
14. Enforce mandatory Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs) for high-risk public projects, with findings made public and subject to independent review; impose strict penalties for non-compliance.
15. Create civic engagement pathways in digital governance through open consultations, citizen assemblies on AI ethics, participatory monitoring, and data literacy campaigns to treat citizens as democratic stakeholders.
Only by embracing these recommendations can Africa move from dependency to sovereignty. This continent must wield the pen herself, authoring a digital future rooted in African values and aspirations and ensuring full participation in the global digital economy on our own terms.
LESSONS FROM THE EU, US AND CHINA
THE EU
1. The European Union’s AI Act provides a tiered, risk-based approach to regulating artificial intelligence, distinguishing between unacceptable, high, limited, and minimal risk. Obligations such as transparency, oversight, and outright bans are matched to the level of risk. For Africa, this model illustrates how to avoid over-regulating low-risk tools while ensuring strict oversight of high-risk applications.
2. Closely tied to this is the EU’s privacy-by-design approach, anchored in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Here, privacy safeguards, data minimisation, and “by default” protections are integrated from the outset of system design. Africa can adopt this holistic model by embedding privacy and data rights into both law and practice, with strong enforcement mechanisms.
3. The EU also prioritises transparency, accountability, and liability. High-risk systems must undergo conformity assessments, independent audits, and documentation processes. Liability frameworks are being expanded to ensure that citizens can seek redress when harmed by AI systems. This provides a template for Africa to hold developers, deployers, and regulators accountable.
4. In addition, the EU AI Act prohibits certain practices outright, such as social scoring, manipulative techniques, and some forms of biometric surveillance. Setting non-negotiable boundaries protects citizens while providing clarity for innovators.
5. Finally, the EU demonstrates the value of operational readiness and compliance infrastructure. GDPR compelled companies to build compliance units (e.g., privacy officers, auditing mechanisms), which now serve as the foundation for AI oversight. Africa should similarly invest early in institutions, regulators, and technical capacity to ensure that laws are enforceable in practice.
THE UNITED STATES
1. The United States illustrates how rapid executive action can shape emerging technologies even before legislation matures. For instance, Executive Order 14110 (2023) on AI mandated agency risk assessments, civil rights considerations, and workforce planning. Africa can similarly use presidential or ministerial directives to establish immediate governance frameworks while legislative processes catch up.
2. The Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights (2022) articulates citizen protections, including transparency, fairness, privacy, and the right to opt out. This offers a model for Africa to enshrine AI-related rights in constitutional or statutory instruments, ensuring that protections are not left as policy afterthoughts.
3. The U.S. also underscores the importance of equity and non-discrimination. Policies emphasize audits, training, and oversight in areas such as employment, housing, health, and policing to prevent algorithmic bias. Africa should follow this lead by embedding protections for marginalized groups into its AI strategies, addressing gender, ethnic, and rural-urban disparities
4. At the same time, the U.S. demonstrates how innovation and competition can be promoted alongside regulation. Federal agencies such as NIST, together with grant schemes and research funding, stimulate startups and infrastructure growth. For Africa, combining protective regulation with incentives for local innovation will ensure that governance does not stifle creativity or competitiveness.
CHINA
1. China’s national AI strategy highlights the power of entrepreneurial hubs and incubators as engines of innovation. Africa can adapt this model by building regional AI hubs that connect academia, industry, and startups while attracting diaspora talent.
2. China also leveraged digital financial inclusion by integrating AI into mobile payments and lending platforms. With Africa’s mobile money infrastructure already strong (e.g., M-Pesa), scaling digital finance to directly support entrepreneurs could accelerate indigenous innovation.
3. Through initiatives like Made in China 2025, China has pursued indigenous innovation and self-sufficiency, investing in local chip design, cloud infrastructure, and AI frameworks. Africa, too, must localize its data, develop homegrown AI models, and reduce dependence on foreign technology.
4. The country’s advances in AI for healthcare: diagnostics, wearables, predictive analytics, demonstrate how technology can bridge systemic service gaps. Africa could apply similar solutions to leapfrog chronic shortages in health systems.
5. China’s Digital Silk Road shows how digital exports can extend influence abroad. Africa can flip this approach by creating an African Digital Corridor, exporting its innovations and setting standards based on African values.
6. At the same time, China’s struggles with semiconductors underscore the risks of supply chain dependency. Africa must build resilience through semiconductor R&D, local cloud infrastructure, and open-source software ecosystems.
7. Finally, China shows how standards and regulation can be tools of global influence. By actively shaping AI governance in developing regions, it is carving out international leadership. Africa, through the AU and AfCFTA, can harmonize its own AI standards, strengthening its voice in global digital policy debates. (To be continued).
THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK
“Over time I think we will probably see a closer merger of biological intelligence and digital intelligence”. (Elon Musk).
Related


Nation Building Reimagined: Integrated Principles and Strategies for Sustainable Growth
Dear CDS, NSA, Your Prodigal Sons, Brothers Have Killed General Braimah
Voice of Emancipation: Lessons from the Iran/USA War
Ovation @30: A Triumph of Vision, Courage and African Excellence
ADC National Convention: To Be or Not to Be?
Israel Questions Pakistan’s Credibility in Mediating over US-Iran Ceasefire Agreement
Osun 2026: INEC Planning to Recruit APC Members As Electoral Officials, Lawmakers Allege
‘ADC Membership Hits 500,000 after INEC Derecognition of Leadership’
Trump Delays Iran’s Strike by 2-Weeks As Pakistani Leaders Intervene
FG Expels US Missionary Alex Barber
Benin Republic 2026: Romuald Wadagni, The President in Waiting
ADC Raises Alarm over INEC’s Plot to Prevent Party from Fielding Candidates
I Won’t Be Intimidated, Seun Okinbaloye Replies Wike
Amnesty Condemns Wike’s ‘Shoot’ Remark Against Seun Okinbaloye
Trending
-
News5 days ago‘ADC Membership Hits 500,000 after INEC Derecognition of Leadership’
-
World3 days agoTrump Delays Iran’s Strike by 2-Weeks As Pakistani Leaders Intervene
-
National3 days agoFG Expels US Missionary Alex Barber
-
Featured2 days agoBenin Republic 2026: Romuald Wadagni, The President in Waiting
-
Featured5 days agoADC Raises Alarm over INEC’s Plot to Prevent Party from Fielding Candidates
-
Featured5 days agoI Won’t Be Intimidated, Seun Okinbaloye Replies Wike
-
Headline5 days agoAmnesty Condemns Wike’s ‘Shoot’ Remark Against Seun Okinbaloye
-
News3 days agoProminent ADC Leaders Storm INEC Hqrs in Protest Against Dictatorship

