The Oracle

The Oracle: The University As Catalyst for Societal Development (Pt. 6)

Published

2 months ago

January 30, 2026

Eric

By Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN

INTRODUCTION

The last episode of this intervention examined the following core functions of universities as tools for societal development; character formation and value inculcation; research and innovation; economic development; civic engagement and social responsibility; cultural and global influence; social mobility and equity. This week, we shall continue with same theme-focusing on political development; cultural and social transformation. We will thereafter outline the challenges posed to those roles by such factors as underfunding and infrastructural decay and academic brain-drain. Enjoy.

CORE FUNCTIONS OF UNIVERSITIES AS TOOLS FOR SOCIETAL DEVELOPMENT (CONTINUES)

Social Mobility & Equity

One of the most profound contributions of the university to societal development is its role in advancing social mobility and equity. At its best, the university serves as a ladder, a structure through which individuals can ascend beyond the limitations imposed by birth, background, or circumstance. For those born into poverty, marginalization, or restricted opportunity, the gates of a university are not merely doors into lecture halls—they are portals to a transformed life. Education at this level arms the disadvantaged with skills, credentials, and networks that can dramatically alter the trajectory of both their personal fortunes and the fortunes of the communities from which they come.

Empirical evidence substantiates this reality. Research by The Sutton Trust reveals that young people from low-income homes who attend university are four times more likely to achieve upward social mobility than their peers who do not. The study further notes that while elite institutions play a role, even less selective universities are critical engines of social advancement, enrolling large numbers of disadvantaged students who go on to secure higher-paying roles and greater social standing. This shows that the university does not merely reproduce privilege. It has the capacity to disrupt it, provided it remains accessible and responsive to the needs of wider society.

Beyond individual ascent, universities contribute to societal equity by narrowing class-based disparities. They create a relatively level platform where students from diverse backgrounds can compete on the same intellectual field. In this regard, the OECD report Equity in Education: Breaking Down Barriers to Social Mobility emphasizes that when educational systems are designed to promote fairness, students from different socio-economic backgrounds achieve more comparable outcomes in learning, well-being, and professional life.

This is not only a moral good; it is a civic necessity. A society where upward mobility is possible is a society less fractured by resentment, instability, and despair.

In the wider sense, the university’s pursuit of equity strengthens the social fabric itself. Graduates who have risen through the crucible of disadvantage often become symbols of possibility for their communities. Their success challenges fatalistic narratives that consign the poor to perpetual poverty, inspiring others to strive. Furthermore, by producing leaders, innovators, and professionals from diverse backgrounds, universities ensure that the corridors of power, policy, and influence are not monopolized by the privileged few, but reflect the pluralism of the society they serve.

In sum, the university as a catalyst for social mobility and equity is not a theoretical ideal but a demonstrable fact. It provides the opportunity for disadvantaged individuals to rise, contributes to a fairer society, and in doing so, strengthens the moral, economic, and political foundations of a nation. As long as universities remain committed to widening access and supporting success across socio-economic divides, they will continue to be engines not merely of knowledge, but of justice and transformation.

Political Development

One of the most profound contributions of the university to societal development lies in its role as a crucible for political development. A healthy society does not stumble into good governance; it must intentionally raise leaders, nurture public servants, train policy experts, and instill civic consciousness in its citizens. The university is the most natural and potent environment for this training because it combines intellectual discipline with exposure to real societal challenges. Within its walls, young minds are sharpened not only by textbooks but by debates, student politics, and the constant testing of ideas against reality. Thus, the university is not merely a factory of professionals but a nursery of statesmen.

Universities function as training grounds for political leaders, administrators, and policy thinkers who later become the architects of national progress (Time, “It’s Time Africa Had Its Own Harvard.’ Inside a University Training African Leaders to Solve African Problems” https://time.com/5603886/african-leadership-university-mauritius-fred-swaniker/). Institutions such as the African Leadership University (Mauritius) and Senghor University (Egypt) were designed with this vision in mind. The former grooms young Africans to tackle pressing issues like climate change, governance, and entrepreneurship by applying knowledge directly to leadership challenges. The latter, founded in 1990, deliberately trains cadres in public administration, international cooperation, and policy development to equip Africa with leaders capable of addressing its development needs. These examples reveal that universities are more than academic sanctuaries; they are political incubators shaping the competence and vision of future governance.

Equally important, universities act as laboratories of democracy and civic activism. History demonstrates that some of Africa’s greatest liberators and political thinkers first tasted civic responsibility in the university environment. The University of Fort Hare in South Africa stands as a monumental example (Wikipedia, “University of Fort Hare” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Fort_Hare?utm). It produced Nelson Mandela, Oliver Tambo, Robert Sobukwe, Julius Nyerere, and Robert Mugabe—figures who later became the faces of African liberation and governance Fort Hare was not simply an academic space; it was a political furnace where the ideas of freedom, equality, and justice were hammered into steel. This legacy underscores that the democratic consciousness of nations is often first awakened in their universities.

In contemporary Africa, universities continue to serve as strongholds for human rights, democracy, and civic resilience. The University of the Western Cape has institutionalized this role by hosting the African Universities Hub for Human Rights (AUH). Through summer schools and training programs, it equips human rights defenders and civic actors with strategies to strengthen democracy and resist authoritarian drift.

In sum, the university plays a catalytic role in political development by producing leaders, sharpening public administrators, cultivating policy expertise, and incubating civic consciousness. Societies that neglect this function risk raising generations of technically skilled graduates but politically barren citizens.

Cultural and Social Transformation

Universities are not merely academic institutions; they are crucibles of cultural and social transformation, playing powerful roles in shaping values, identities, and movements that redefine societies. Through their educational and research activities, universities nurture and reinforce social norms. Subjects like sociology, anthropology, and gender studies help students understand societal dynamics; whether appreciating the need for democratic governance or confronting entrenched caste and class structures, thus guiding reflection and change (https://teachers.institute/higher-education-its-context-and-linkages/higher-education-social-stability-change/? > Accessed on 9th September, 2025). Institutions also foster identity formation through community rituals, academic traditions, and public intellectualism. Universities that actively promote diversity and inclusivity further shape institutional culture. For example, the University of Rijeka in Croatia has implemented a Gender Equality Plan (2021–2025) (https://uniri.hr/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/University-of-Rijeka-Gender-Equality-Plan-2021-2025_signature.pdf> Accessed on 9th September, 2025), embedding gender perspectives across its curriculum, institutional policies, and organizational culture. Similarly, Nelson Mandela University in South Africa has made deliberate efforts to normalize female leadership, appointing women to key roles such as Vice-Chancellor, Chancellor, Deputy Vice-Chancellor, and most deanships—demonstrating how universities can lead shifts in cultural expectations and identity norms (https://iol.co.za/news/south-africa/2025-01-14-nelson-mandela-university-leads-gender-transformation-in-academia/> Accessed on 9th September, 2025).

Across the globe, universities have also become battlegrounds and incubators for gender equality and inclusion. Times Higher Education’s 2025 list of top universities advancing the UN SDG 5 (gender equality) includes institutions like Walailak University in Thailand, which actively supports this (https://www.timeshighereducation.com/student/best-universities/top-universities-tackling-gender-equality? > Accessed on 9th September, 2025). Charles Darwin University in Australia shows a different but equally impactful example: it partnered with Our Watch—a national violence prevention organization—to eliminate gender-based violence and promote gender equality across its campuses through curriculum updates, staff training, revised policies, and outreach programs (https://www.couriermail.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=CMWEB_WRE170_a_GPT&dest=https%3A%2%2Fwww.couriermail.com.au%2Fnews%2Fcdu-partners-with-our-watch-to-combat-gender-violence-and-promote-equality-across-campuses%2Fnews-story%2F9d46cdfc400682895c08f1cd11fa01aa&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium&v21=GROUPA-Segment-2-NOSCORE> Accessed on 9th September, 2025). In Africa, Honoris United Universities has played a notable role in promoting gender equity across its campuses and alumni network. Their gender-focused programs, including a virtual bootcamp that engaged 540 women entrepreneurs, and sustained efforts to increase female participation in STEM, demonstrate the power of inclusive education to catalyze socio-economic transformation (https://honoris.net/education-for-impact/community-initiatives/gender-equity-pan-african-initiatives-for-catalyzing-change/ > Accessed on 9th September, 2025).

Universities are also frequently epicenters of protest, resistance, and reform. More recently, European campuses have become rallying grounds for political expression, as seen in widespread protests against the Gaza war in 2024 (https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/05/17/protests-against-gaza-war-take-hold-across-european-campuses_6671727_4.html> Accessed on 9th September, 2025). Indian higher education has produced thought leaders such as Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and Medha Patkar, who used their university experiences as platforms for social justice and environmental activism, demonstrating how campuses can nurture reform-minded leaders committed to equity and democracy (https://teachers.institute/higher-education-its-context-and-linkages/universities-social-change-leadership/google_vignette> Accessed on 8th September, 2025).

Taken together, these examples demonstrate that universities wield profound influence beyond academics. They shape societal values, challenge entrenched norms, and foster identity through scholarship and inclusive culture. They promote social justice and gender equality via proactive institutional policies, outreach, and partnerships. Most importantly, they serve as vibrant spaces for social movements and reform, giving rise to leaders and movements that transform nations.

CHALLENGES HINDERING UNIVERSITIES AS CATALYSTS

Underfunding and Infrastructural Decay
In the grand drama of societal progress, the university ought to be the altar where knowledge is forged, innovation is sparked, and ethical leadership is nurtured. Yet, this noble sacrament is desecrated when the institutions themselves are starved, starved of funds, starved of capacity, starved of dignity. Underfunding is not a mere budgetary gap; it is the severance of the lifeline that binds society’s promise to its tomorrow.

Across Nigeria, the scars of neglect are unmistakable. At the University of Ibadan, once a temple of learning, lecture theatres now bear cracked walls, peeling paint, and leaking roofs; roofs under which the flicker of erudition struggles to glow. Trenchard Hall, symbol of legacy, is now more memorial than monument. Students endure broken seats, dim lighting, erratic power that forces reliance on noisy generators, and water scarcity that sullies hygiene. The libraries (vaults of intellect) are diminished by antiquated facilities and limited spaces. This is no allegory. It is the everyday reality (Independent, “University Of Ibadan: A Legacy Under Threat Of Decaying Infrastructure” https://independent.ng/university-of-ibadan-a-legacy-under-threat-of-decaying-infrastructure/?utm).

Brain Drain of Academics

The university, ideally a crucible of ideas, innovation, and national advancement, is being hallowed out, not by design, but by neglect. The exodus of academics from Nigeria, committed scholars, researchers, lecturers emigrating in search of sustenance and scholarly dignity, is not a mere migration. It is a hemorrhage of the mind and conscience. A man of the world must call this what it is: a betrayal of potential, a systemic failure, and a moral wound.

In Nigeria, the push factors are undeniable: chronically low salaries, delayed allowances, incessant strikes, insecurity, and the corrosion of academic autonomy all conspire to drive brilliant minds abroad. Lecturers earning a mere ₦195,000 monthly (around US $195), while their peers in Niger or Chad earn more, demonstrate the absurd disparity that compels intellectual flight (Dateline, “The Persistent Brain Drain in Nigeria’s University System” https://dateline.ng/the-persistent-brain-drain-in-nigerias-university-system/?utm). The weight of poor compensation, compounded by delayed Earned Academic Allowances (EAA), overwhelm moral appeals; the youth of academia (the most promising) flee when their dignity is denied. (To be continued).

THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK

“Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world” – Nelson Mandela

The Oracle

The Oracle: The New Digital Colonialism: Navigating AI Policy Under Foreign Tech Dominance (Pt. 2)

Published

5 days ago

March 13, 2026

Eric

By Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN

INTRODUCTION

The inaugural installment of this piece was necessarily foundational, providing the background to the emergence of AI; how it transformed the digital space; applicable regulatory frameworks; its algorithimic transparency/accountability; its ethical dimensions and implications and the threat of foreign tech dominance/digital colonialism. This sophomore edition traces the evolution of AI; notable developments; the history of technological dependency in Africa and policy trends in the continent and beyond. Enjoy.

THE EVOLUTION OF AI

AI has progressed from rule-based systems to machine learning and deep learning models capable of autonomous decision-making. Applications range from healthcare diagnostics to autonomous vehicles, predictive policing, and financial algorithms. While AI enhances productivity, concerns arise over:

Job displacement due to automation. (Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies. W. W. Norton & Company).

Surveillance capitalism, where personal data is exploited for profit.

Algorithmic governance, where AI influences public policy without sufficient oversight (O’Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of Math Destruction. Crown Publishing.). The conceptual origins of Artificial Intelligence (AI) can be traced to the mid-20th century, when pioneering figures such as Alan Turing and John McCarthy began to explore the possibility of creating machines capable of simulating human intelligence. Turing’s seminal 1950 paper, “Computing Machinery and Intelligence,” posed the provocative question, “Can machines think?”—a question that laid the philosophical groundwork for modern AI research. (Turing, Alan M. “Computing Machinery and Intelligence.” Mind 59, no. 236 (1950): 433–460.) McCarthy, who coined the term “artificial intelligence” in 1956, convened the historic Dartmouth Conference, widely considered the birth of AI as a formal field of inquiry (McCarthy, John et al., “A Proposal for the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence,” (1955).

EARLY ASPIRATIONS AND TECHNOLOGICAL MILESTONES

Early AI efforts focused on symbolic logic, rule-based systems, and expert systems, which relied on hand-coded rules to simulate decision-making processes. These systems, while limited in scope, found application in fields such as medical diagnostics (e.g., MYCIN) and chess-playing algorithms. The emergence of machine learning in the late 20th century—particularly supervised learning techniques—ushered in a new era in which machines could learn patterns from data rather than rely solely on pre-programmed rules.
The exponential growths in computing power, availability of big data, and algorithmic innovation have since culminated in what many scholars refer to as the “AI revolution.”

NOTABLE DEVELOPMENTS

Notable developments include deep learning techniques powered by artificial neural networks, natural language processing exemplified by large language models (LLMs), and computer vision systems that rival or exceed human performance in specific domains (LeCun, Yann, Bengio, Yoshua, and Hinton, Geoffrey. “Deep Learning.” Nature 521, no. 7553 (2015): 436–444).

FROM AUTOMATION TO AUTONOMY

AI has transitioned from automating repetitive tasks to performing complex cognitive functions previously thought to be the exclusive domain of humans. Self-driving cars, AI legal assistants, autonomous drones, and AI-generated art demonstrate the breadth of AI’s applications. As these systems grow in sophistication, they increasingly exhibit autonomy—the capacity to make decisions and take actions without direct human intervention. This shift raises profound questions about accountability, transparency, and control.

ACCOUNTABILITY, TRANSPERENCY AND CONTROL

For example, autonomous weapons systems capable of selecting and engaging targets without human oversight challenge existing norms under international humanitarian law (IHL). Similarly, AI systems deployed in judicial or parole decisions raise concerns about bias, fairness, and due process, especially when the logic behind decisions is opaque even to their developers—a phenomenon referred to as the “black box problem.” (Pasquale, Frank. The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information. Harvard University Press, 2015).

HISTORY OF TECHNOLOGICAL DEPENDENCY IN AFRICA

The critique that digital technologies embody, enable, or reproduce colonial power relations is not new. As early as the 1970s, debates around communication and technology were linked to questions of sovereignty, inequality and dependency. In March 1976, at the Non-Aligned Media Seminar in Tunis, representatives from 38 NAM states and 13 observers declared that “colonialist, imperialist and racist powers have created effective means of information and communication which are conditioning the masses to the interests of these powers.” This seminar built on earlier efforts of the Non-Aligned Movement (est. 1955), which, by its 1973 Algiers summit, had embraced the decolonization of information, communication, and culture as part of the wider struggle for independence.

The Tunis meeting marked the birth of the New World Information and Communication Order (NWICO); a call to redress global inequalities in media ownership, information flows, and infrastructure. Tunisian minister Mustapha Masmoudi highlighted the imbalance: “Almost 80 percent of the world news flow emanates from the major transnational agencies; however these devote only 20 to 30 percent of news coverage to the developing countries”. NWICO gained traction at UNESCO, culminating in the 1980 MacBride Report, which directly challenged the Western doctrine of “free flow of information.” The United States and the UK eventually withdrew from UNESCO in protest, but NWICO left a lasting intellectual and political legacy: it framed global communication as a site of structural inequality and technological dependency.

Building on these debates, communication scholars introduced the idea of electronic colonialism. Herbert Schiller’s Mass Communication and American Empire argued that U.S. commercial media systems were becoming instruments of empire. Thomas McPhail later extended this, defining electronic colonialism as “the dependent relationship of poorer regions on post-industrial nations, caused and established by the importation of communication hardware and foreign-produced software, along with engineers, technicians and related information protocols” (Jacob Mahlangu, ‘Technological Apartheid: The Digital Divide Between Africa and the West’ (Sagepub.com, 6th May, 2025) < https://advance.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.31124/advance.174652029.93416488/v1#:~:text=The%20digital%20divide%20between%20Africa%20and%20the%20West%20represents%20not,colonialism%2C%20and%20contemporary%20digital%20imperialism). This lens made clear that dependency was not only economic but also infrastructural and epistemic.

Parallel critiques arose in anthropology and development studies. Post-development theorists such as Arturo Escobar and James Ferguson argued that development projects often failed to empower but instead re-entrenched colonial hierarchies. They identified technology as a key tool in this process, framed as a “solution” but often deployed in paternalistic ways that deepened dependency. ICT4D (Information and Communication Technologies for Development) initiatives of the late 1990s and early 2000s exemplified this tension. While promising to democratize knowledge and spur development, many projects replicated older patterns: reliance on imported technology, disregard for local context, and reinforcement of global asymmetries.

By the late 2000s, scholars in postcolonial computing extended these critiques to human–computer interaction (HCI). They demonstrated how design practices in “development tech” mirrored colonial flows: low-cost labor and raw materials from the Global South, transformed into finished products exported back under narratives of benevolence. The One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) project (< https://laptop.org/ > Accessed on 16th September, 2025) epitomized this, marketed as a humanitarian innovation but dependent on the feminized labour of Asian workers in global supply chains.

In 2013, Dal Yong Jin introduced platform imperialism, analyzing how U.S. tech giants like Google, Apple and Facebook exerted global dominance through platform capitalism, intellectual property regimes and cross-border expansion (Jin, Dal Yong, ‘“The Construction of Platform Imperialism in the Globalization Era.” Triple C: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal For a Global Sustainable Information Society’ ( Researchgate.net, January, 2013) < https://researchgate.net/publication/275652379_Jin_Dal_Yong_2013_The_Construction_of_Platform_Imperialism_in_the_Globalization_Era_Triple_C_Communication_Capitalism_Critique_Open_Access_Journal_For_a_Global_Sustainable_Information_Society_111_145-#:~:text=Abstract,accumulation%20in%20the%20digital%20age. > Accessed on 16th September, 2025). His argument made explicit that digital platforms were not neutral infrastructures but instruments of geopolitical power.

These intellectual trajectories resonate strongly with dependency theory, advanced by Samir Amin, which argued that underdevelopment in the Global South is not accidental but structurally produced through dependence on the North. Applied to technology, this means Africa’s reliance on imported hardware, software, and infrastructures reinforces systemic subordination in the global digital hierarchy. Postcolonial thinkers like Frantz Fanon and Edward Said similarly highlighted how colonialism survives in cultural, psychological, and technological forms, keeping the Global South positioned as consumer rather than producer.

From NWICO to electronic colonialism, from ICT4D critiques to postcolonial computing and platform imperialism, the throughline is clear: each era has witnessed renewed forms of technological dependency. What changes are the technologies themselves: satellites, mass media, ICTs, platforms, and now AI, but the structural critique persists. Today’s debates on digital colonialism continue this intellectual lineage, reframing old concerns around sovereignty, extraction and dependency in terms of data, algorithms and artificial intelligence. Far from a rupture, this is the latest chapter in a long struggle for technological self-determination in Africa and the wider Global South.

AI POLICY TRENDS GLOBALLY AND IN AFRICA

Global AI policy is crystallizing around a few core themes: risk-based regulation of high-impact systems, the embedding of human rights (< https://2021-2025.state.gov/risk-management-profile-for-ai-and-human-rights/#:~:text=In%20March%202024%2C%20all%20193,the%20enjoyment%20of%20human%20rights.%E2%80%9D > (State.gov, 25th July, 2024) Accessed on 10th September, 2025) and ethics principles, and the development of technical standards to operationalize trustworthiness. The European Union’s AI (https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory-framework-ai > Accessed on 10th September, 2025) Act illustrates this risk-based approach by classifying systems according to potential harm and imposing proportionate obligations, while still promoting innovation. Similarly, the OECD AI Principles (< https://oecd.ai/en/ai-principles > (OECD.ai) Accessed on 10th September, 2025), the NIST AI Risk Management Framework (US) (< www.nist.gov/itl/ai-risk-management-framework > (NIST.gov) Accessed on 10th September, 2025), and UNESCO’s global AI ethics recommendations (< www.unesco.org/en/artificial-intelligence/recommendation-ethics#:~:text=Recommendation%20on%20the%20Ethics%20of%20Artificial%20Intelligence,human%20oversight%20of%20AI%20systems. > (UNESCO.Org) Accessed on 10th September, 2025) provide international benchmarks centered on transparency, accountability, robustness, and human oversight.

USA, EU, CHINA’S PREFERENCES

National strategies, however, diverge. The United States favours voluntary, sector-specific frameworks to preserve innovation flexibility (Tatevik Davtyan, ‘THE U.S. APPROACH TO AI REGULATION: FEDERAL LAWS, POLICIES, AND STRATEGIES EXPLAINED’ (scholarlycommons.law.case.edu, 24th January, 2025) < https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?params=/context/jolti/article/1172/&path_info=auto_convert.pdf > Accessed on 10th September, 2025). China pursues a state-driven, techno-industrial strategy linking AI to national development goals(Kyle Chan, Gregory Smith, Jimmy Goodrich, Gerard Dipippo, Konstantin F, Pilz ‘China’s Evolving Industrial Policy for AI’ (Rand.org, 26th June, 2025) < www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA4012-1.html > Accessed on 10th September, 2025). The EU relies on its regulatory power (“the Brussels effect”) to set global supplier standards (Marco Almada, Anca Radu, ‘The Brussels Side-Effect: How the AI Act Can Reduce the Global Reach of EU Policy’ (Cambridge.org, 19th February, 2024) < www.cambridge.org/core/journals/german-law-journal/article/brussels-sideeffect-how-the-ai-act-can-reduce-the-global-reach-of-eu-policy/032C72AEC537EBB6AE96C0FD90387E3E > Accessed on 10th September, 2025). Together, these approaches create a patchwork of norms that countries and companies must navigate. (To be continued).

THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK

“Like all technologies before it, Artificial Intelligence will reflect the values of its creators. So inclusivity matters – from who designs it to who sits on the company boards and which ethical perspectives are included” – Kate Crawford

The Oracle

The Oracle: The New Digital Colonialism: Navigating AI Policy Under Foreign Tech Dominance (Pt. 1)

Published

2 weeks ago

March 6, 2026

Eric

Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN

ABSTRACT

This article interrogates the intersection of Artificial Intelligence (AI), digital transformation and sovereignty in the African context, with particular focus on Nigeria. It critiques the growing dominance of foreign technologies in shaping the continent’s AI policies, innovation ecosystems and legal frameworks, often without commensurate local input or contextual grounding. The work warns that the unchecked proliferation of imported AI systems risks entrenching digital dependency, algorithmic inequality and policy misalignment with local constitutional values, especially the right to dignity, privacy and non-discrimination.

The author posits that Africa’s technological renaissance must not be outsourced to external actors whose platforms may embed biases, opaque logic and extractive data practices. He advocates for a homegrown model of AI governance rooted in the principle of “Ethics by Design”, one that reclaims human dignity and aligns technological progress with constitutional and cultural realities. The study highlights the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023 as a positive, albeit preliminary, effort toward asserting regulatory control. However, it urges a more robust framework that includes mandatory data localization, algorithmic accountability and institutional capacity-building.

The paper further calls attention to the geopolitical dimensions of digital transformation, where Africa must negotiate its place not as a passive consumer but as an active co-creator of ethical, inclusive technologies. In conclusion, the author proposes a new social contract for the AI age, one that places human dignity, data sovereignty and indigenous innovation at the center of Africa’s digital future. Without this, foreign dominance in AI may reproduce colonial power asymmetries in digital form, undermining both democratic governance and developmental autonomy.

KEYWORDS: Artificial Intelligence and Digital Transformation, Regulatory Frameworks, Data Localization, Data Sovereignty, Algorithmic Accountability, Algorithmic Transparency, Ethics by Design, Foreign Tech Dominance, Digital Colonialism.

INTRODUCTION

In situating arguments advanced in this article, it is essential to clarify certain operative terms that recur throughout our discourse. Artificial Intelligence, digital transformation and related regulatory concepts are often deployed with varying meanings across technical, legal and policy discourses. Without clear definitional grounding, the analysis of foreign technology dominance in Africa’s innovation ecosystem risks being blurred by semantic ambiguity.

Accordingly, the following section sets out key terms as used in this study, providing not only conventional definitions but also the contextual nuances most relevant to Africa’s socio-legal environment. These definitions are drawn from authoritative international sources, comparative regulatory frameworks and scholarly discourses and they are tailored to the themes of sovereignty, accountability and digital justice that underpin the critique of “new digital colonialism.”

Artificial Intelligence (AI)

This term refers to the field of computer science and engineering devoted to building systems capable of performing tasks that ordinarily require human intelligence, such as reasoning, learning, perception, decision-making and natural language processing (Cole Stryker, Eda Kavlakoglu, ‘What is Artificial Intelligence? (IBM.com, 9th August, 2024) <www.ibm.com/think/topics/artificial-intelligence> accessed on 9th September, 2025). It encompasses a broad set of techniques, including machine learning, deep learning, expert systems, and natural language understanding, through which systems recognize patterns in data, build predictive models, and adapt through feedback (https://cloud.google.com/learn/what-is-artificial-intelligence> accessed on 9th September, 2025).

AI powers a wide range of applications: autonomous vehicles, healthcare diagnostics, financial risk analysis, e-commerce personalization and governance tools. Beyond its technical utility, AI also raises profound legal and policy questions about accountability, ethics, bias, privacy and sovereignty

Digital Transformation

Digital Transformation is the comprehensive integration of digital technologies, particularly artificial intelligence (AI), data analytics, cloud computing and automation, into every facet of economic, social and institutional life. It goes beyond mere digitization to fundamentally reshape how businesses, governments and societies operate, create value and deliver services.

In practice, digital transformation involves rethinking business models, optimizing operations and enhancing stakeholder experiences through data-driven decision-making. AI is its central driver: by automating routine processes, enabling predictive analysis, and personalizing interactions, AI not only improves efficiency but also generates entirely new modes of production, governance, and innovation.

At the societal level, digital transformation promises economic growth, financial inclusion and more adaptive public institutions. Yet it also introduces vulnerabilities such as cyber-security threats, dependency on foreign digital infrastructures and risks of algorithmic biases. In regions like Africa, where much of the enabling infrastructure is controlled by foreign technology providers, digital transformation intersects directly with questions of sovereignty, regulatory autonomy and the equitable distribution of technological benefits.

Regulatory Frameworks (for AI and Digital Technologies)

This concept refers to the system of laws, policies, institutions and enforcement mechanisms that govern the design, deployment, and use of emerging technologies. They establish permissible uses, set technical and ethical standards, protect fundamental rights (privacy, dignity, non-discrimination) and ensure accountability of both domestic and foreign actors operating within a jurisdiction.

In the context of AI, regulatory frameworks commonly rest on principles of algorithmic accountability, transparency, fairness, human oversight and data protection. They are meant to balance innovation with safeguards against harms such as bias, opacity, or exploitative data practices.

Comparatively, the EU’s proposed AI Act (< https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/ > (Artificialintelligenceact.eu) Accessed on 9th September, 2025.) exemplifies a risk-based approach, regulating AI systems according to their potential impact on rights and society. In Nigeria, emerging efforts such as the Data Protection Act (2023, < https://placng.org/i/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Nigeria-Data-Protection-Act-2023.pdf > (Place.org) Accessed on 9th September, 2025.), the Startup Act, the Advertising Regulatory Council of Nigeria (ARCON) Act, and initiatives like the National Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Robotics (NCAIR) (< https://ncair.nitda.gov.ng/ > Accessed on 9th September, 2025.) under National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA) (< https://nitda.gov.ng/ > Accessed on 9th September, 2025) signal movement toward structured oversight. Together, these instruments reflect attempts to localize data control, regulate AI-related services and guide innovation within Nigerian values and constitutional guarantees.

For Africa, the challenge is sharper: regulatory frameworks must also contend with foreign technology dominance, ensuring that imported AI systems and platforms are adapted to local contexts, protect sovereignty and advance developmental priorities rather than replicate external power asymmetries.

Algorithmic Transparency and Accountability

These are complementary principles designed to ensure that algorithmic systems operate in ways that are both understandable and responsible. Transparency requires that the processes, logic, data inputs and decision rules shaping algorithmic outcomes be visible and interpretable to users, regulators and other affected stakeholders (< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmic_transparency > Accessed on 9th September, 2025). It is a precondition for effective oversight, enabling independent review, auditing and informed consent. While transparency alone does not guarantee fairness, it makes unfair or biased practices detectable and open to challenge. Its key components include explainability, documentation of data sources, model interpretability and disclosure of decision pathways, with global benchmarks such as the European Union’s “right to explanation” and the European Centre for Algorithmic Transparency (ECAT) illustrating its growing importance.

Accountability, on the other hand, extends beyond visibility to place direct responsibility on the organizations that design, deploy, or rely on algorithms for the outcomes they generate (< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmic_accountability > (Wikipedia.org) Accessed on 9th September, 2025). It encompasses proactive measures such as algorithmic impact assessments, audits and bias testing, as well as reactive mechanisms including remedies for harm, liability before regulators or courts, and obligations to correct discriminatory or harmful results.

Taken together, transparency and accountability form the backbone of ethical AI governance. They ensure not only that algorithmic systems can be scrutinized, but also that those who use them remain answerable for their consequences, thereby aligning technological innovation with legal standards, human rights, and democratic values.

ETHICS BY DESIGN

This is a proactive philosophy and operational approach that integrates ethical principles such as fairness, privacy, human dignity, non-discrimination and accountability directly into the design and development of technological systems, especially AI (Philip Brey, Brandt Dainow, ‘Ethics by Design for Artificial Intelligence’ (Springer.com, 21st September, 2023) < https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43681-023-00330-4 > Accessed on 9th September, 2025). Unlike “ethics as compliance,” which treats ethics as a regulatory checkbox, Ethics by Design embeds ethical impact assessments, stakeholder consultations, bias testing and data protection safeguards into the technical architecture and governance frameworks from the outset.

Its purpose is to ensure that technologies are not only efficient but also equitable and humane, preventing harms such as systemic bias, privacy violations, or opaque decision-making. Global concerns around algorithmic discrimination, data misuse, and failed digital rollouts underscore the risks of neglecting this approach. In contexts like Nigeria, Ethics by Design must go beyond code and courtrooms, extending to grassroots participation, inclusive innovation and civil society engagement to ensure that AI systems respect democratic values of dignity, autonomy and justice.

Foreign Tech Dominance

The situation in which a small number of large foreign technology firms hold disproportionate influence over infrastructure, platforms, data, algorithms, investment and policy in sectors like AI in Africa, often shaping agendas, norms and capacities, sometimes at the expense of local innovation, control, or sovereignty.

This dominance can manifest via cloud services, data storage and processing, algorithmic platforms, AI model deployment, foreign intellectual property, foreign regulatory templates.

Implications include dependency, technology transfer gaps, limited local capacity building, reduced bargaining power, risks of exporting bias, unfair terms, and potentially extractive data practices.

Digital Colonialism

This refers to the new forms of control, dependency and power asymmetry in the digital and AI sphere, where developing or formerly colonized societies remain subject to external influence through foreign-owned infrastructures, platforms, algorithms, investment and data flows. Like classic colonialism, which relied on railways and trade routes to extract value, digital colonialism operates through proprietary software, corporate cloud systems and centralized internet services that capture, exploit and commodify local data for external profit.

This phenomenon compromises digital sovereignty when critical infrastructural, legal, or algorithmic decisions are determined abroad, raising urgent questions about who sets global standards, whose values are embedded in AI systems, who profits from data, and whether fundamental rights: privacy, dignity, non-discrimination are preserved. Scholars have described it as a continuation of extractive logics under new technological guises, with Big Tech corporations imposing cultural norms, business models and algorithmic biases designed to maximize profit while presenting them under the rhetoric of “progress,” “development,” or “connecting people.”

Digital colonialism frames the global digital order as one in which the Global South risks remaining a consumer and data supplier, rather than an equal co-creator of the technologies that increasingly govern economic and social life. (To be continued).

THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK

“Some people call this artificial intelligence, but the reality is this technology will enhance us. So instead of artificial intelligence, I think we’ll augment our intelligence” (Ginni Rometty).

The Oracle

The Oracle: Entertainment is the Next Hope for Nigeria After Oil (Pt. 2)

Published

3 weeks ago

February 27, 2026

Eric

Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN

INTRODUCTION

The inaugural part of this piece was necessarily introductory. It examined the interplay between economic development and the demand for leisure; the growth and evolution of the entertainment industry- with a focus on Nigeria, specifically Nollywood. This week’s feature (its second and final installment) continues from where the previous week’s stopped with an assessment of other aspects of the industry like comedy and music. Thereafter, we discuss the potential of entertainment as the new ‘oil’ and conclude with a review of the impact emerging technologies such as Artificial Intelligence is having on the entertainment industry. Enjoy.

NOLLYWOOD (continues)

Nigeria’s biggest export to the world comes from her entertainment sector. In recent years Nigerian home videos, music and culture have found their ways into several African countries where they are dominating the local film and music industry.

A 2010 article by The Economist said thus: “Nigerian films are as popular abroad as they are at home. Ivorian rebels in the bush stop fighting when a shipment of DVDs arrives from Lagos. Zambian mothers say their children talk with accent learnt from Nigerian television. When the president of Sierra Leone asked Genevieve Nnaji, a Lagosian screen goddess, to join on the campaign trail, he attracted record crowds at his rally. Millions of Africans watch Nigerian films every day, many more than see American fare. And yet Africans have mixed feelings about Nollywood.” (The Economist. Lights, camera, Africa.http://www.economist.com/node/17723124).

So ubiquitous and pervasive is the Nigerian Entertainment industry that several African countries have actually raised alarm over what they term “the Nigerianization of Africa” (sort of a modern recolonization of Africa by Nigeria) –with some countries going as far as instituting measures to curb the growth of Nigerian films (and invariably Nigerian culture) in their country.
It is instructive to note that the Nigerian film industry has been able to propel itself to the current position it stands at without government support. The films are produced by individual financiers and marketed by private companies. However, recently- government and other international organization, like the World Bank, have begun to make effort to boost the industry. The Nigerian government and World Bank recently made available a loan scheme for movie producers and directors Nigeria’s entertainment and media market grew by 19.3% in 2014 to reach US$4 billion. By 2019, the market will be more than twice as big, with estimated total revenue of US$8.1 billion (tp://www.financialnigeria.com/nigeria-s-entertainment-and-media-industry-to-grow-to-8bn-by-2019-sustainable-photovideo-details-140.html#sthash.YKRy1xfI.dpuf).

COMEDY INDUTSRY

The Comedy sector of the Entertainment industry has become so huge that comedy has now become one of Nigeria’s export to Africa and the world. It is not yet clear how much or to what extent the sector contributes to the economy. A guess however, is that it is likely to be substantial. If not for anything, the very fact that the sector has acted as a catalyst to pull some Nigerian youth out of poverty into a life of affluence is more than enough contribution to the advancement of the economy. Comedians earn millions putting smiles on the faces of disgruntled Nigerians, giving them a short reprieve from the challenges faced on a daily basis. In addition to engaging their talents, entertainers also exploit their increasing celebrity status, resulting in income from endorsements of companies from a range of industries. The creative arts industry holds the potential to enrich Nigerians of all ages but also provides much needed therapy to help soothe the social woes that plague this developing nation.

NIGERIA MUSIC

Much like the film industry, the Nigerian music industry has grown over the years largely on individual efforts rather than governmental or institutional support. Nigerian music and the accompanying videos, are the most followed and watched, in Africa, with local acts collaborating with different music acts across the world from American’s Kanye West to Tanzania’s Diamond Platnumz. Davido’s signing with Sony Music has been described as a major game changer for Nigerian pop music. Another triumph is the story of Wizkid who is currently on a roll with an appearance on Drake’s album, as well as several other reported collaborations with Jidenna and Chris Brown.

Like Nollywood, the Nigerian music industry has enormous influence in the socio-cultural activities of the country –and indeed the rest of Africa. Nigerian musicians have coined several slangs (often nonsensical and meaningless) that have gained acceptance in mainstream Nigerian languages and are often weaved intricately into the social behavior, communication and behavior of the public.
It was reported that an estimated 1200 concerts and musical shows take place every year and account for a combined annual turnover of US$105.5 million from that sector alone!

ENTERTAINMENT AS THE NEW OIL

As stated above, Price water house Coopers came out with a report that the Nigerian entertainment industry is predicted to generate revenue in excess of $8 billion dollars by 2019. If President Buhari’s budget for 2016 is N6.02 trillion, and expected earnings from the industry are pegged at N2.51616 trillion ($8 billion at the official rate of N314.52), then the Nigerian entertainment sector is clearly at the forefront of the economy. If the entertainment industry, an industry currently underfunded and previously disregarded, can garner that much in terms of revenue, then Nigerians can be hopeful and confident of the future, despite the gathering economic storm clouds. As good as this sounds, there are other positive signs based on projections of the future growth direction of the industry (Naija.com. Feature: Entertainment as the alternative to oil for Nigeria. https://www.naij.com/823542-now-that-crude-oil-is-worthless-heres-another-option-for-nigeria.html).

Analysts had said that the movie segment made about N1.72trn in 2013. According to Business Day, the rebasing exercise shows the huge leap how the entire entertainment sector had been hugely underrated over the years. The sector was earlier classified amongst ‘other services’ that barely contribute N5bn to the annual GDP. The share has risen, sharply, from its once-insignificant status to become the first five. “What surprises me the most is the ‘Motions pictures, sound recording and music production’, which jumped to N9trn, which is a huge amount. I didn’t expect that kind of jump. Initially, it was under ‘other services’ where items that are too small are captured during the GDP computation,” (Leadership Newspaper. How Entertainment Contributes To Nigeria’s GDP. http://leadership.ng/entertainment/364405/entertainment-contributes-nigerias-gdp).

Also, in the last five years, the industry has grown in terms of quality and has been rated the third most valuable movie industry in the world, behind Hollywood and Bollywood. The development has also impacted on returns. The United Nations said, last May, that Nollywood is estimated to employ some 1,000,000 people and had the potential to create 1,000,000 more in the future if properly managed. Its release of about 50 films a week puts it in the same bracket in terms of production with movie-mad India, although revenues — thought to be about $590m a year — are considerably less.

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN THE MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY

I agree with Aluko and Oyebode (https://www.aluko-oyebode.com/insights/artificial-intel-in-nigeria-issue-1/ accessed on 30th January, 2026) that the distribution of content in the global media and entertainment industry is rapidly changing. The reasons are not far-fetched: the increasing accessibility of content creation technologies such as high-resolution cameras, content development software, and smartphones, almost anybody can now create, publish, and share written, audio, and video content.

I also agree with them that this trend is further accelerated by the proliferation of the internet, which has led to the replacement of traditional media channels like cable and radio with on-demand streaming platforms like Netflix and YouTube. Consequently, consumers have potentially limitless options to choose from, in terms of media consumption, with the results that media companies are facing the need to raise the quantity as well as the quality of content they create to attract as many consumers as they can to drive higher value. This is where advanced technologies like Artificial Intelligence (AI) have proved handy in helping media companies to improve their services and enhance the customer experience.

I couldn’t agree more with their opinion that the following are instances of the use of AI in transforming the media and entertainment industry:

Content Personalization

We all enjoy popular SVOD platforms like Netflix, Hulu, and Prime which brings to us the kind of shows and movies that we love; this surely better than scrolling through their database searching for content that we prefer. That’s AI at the work. Additionally, content streaming sites have perfected their streaming recommendations according to different tastes and preferences for people of all locations, deploying machine-learning and AI algorithms to analyze user behavior, in terms of what genre of content users are mostly streaming in order to maximize the user experience. AI uses these data insights to create a highly personalized experience for every user.

Search Optimization

AI has also made it easier and more accurate to obtain search results and suggestions. For example, rather than searching for the title of a movie or the name of an item, you may just submit an image to Google and obtain results based on the image. Instead of searching for random lyrics to find the name of a song, you may play it and a streaming software like Shazam can identify the music for you. You may also instruct your phone to perform some actions after tapping the back or the screen for a particular number of time.
Regrettably, Nigeria has a long way to go in enacting appropriate universal AI regulation, forcing operators of these platforms to contend with mostly local laws, such as those dealing with copyright, when dealing with protected content. This also includes the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc) (Amendment) Act, 2024, in respect of illegal contents, Child Pornography and the Nigeria Data Protection Act and Regulations when dealing with consumers data.

CONCLUSION

John Litwack (The Lead Economist for Nigeria, World Bank.) stated that: “the large number of underemployed youth is a serious threat to the economic and political stability of the country. The median age in Nigeria is 14, and the population continues to grow at a rate close to 3 percent”. There is no doubt that Nigeria as a nation continues to remain one with tremendous potential.

However, it only remains that – a nation with tremendous potential – if Nigeria remains over dependent on the oil and gas industry and adequate investments are not made in initiatives that are more promising. The music industry continues to impress, transforming the global perception of Nigerians and employing teeming Nigerian youth whilst proving to be a lucrative venture for zealous entrepreneurs. Nollywood has also been identified as a promising industry with the potential to unlock both economic and social benefits. The industry has already hinted at its promise and is internationally competitive despite relatively little financial input. More investments need to be made to improve the quality and marketing of movies, but also enable the establishment of a self-sustaining domestic cinema industry. The industry however, remains far from its potential and with increased investments should not only help employ and entertain a significant portion of the Nigerian populace, but also provide forex flows from a growing international customer base. (The end).

THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK

“The world is a stage, the stage is a world of entertainment”. -Howard Dietz.