By Prof Mike Ozekhome
Introduction
This concluding part of our treatise examines the human rights challenges posed by AI such as the right to privacy; equity/non-discrimination; freedom of expression/assembly; right to due process. It also explores the legal responses to AI in Europe, the US, China, etc. It concludes with the situation in Nigeria, by wondering whether our is a case of exclusion by design and when identity becomes a barrier. Enjoy.
Key Human Rights Challenges Posed By AI
Artificial Intelligence (AI) intersects with human rights in complex ways, often creating tensions between innovation and the protection of fundamental freedoms. While AI systems can promote accessibility, improve healthcare, and enhance efficiency in governance, they can also entrench existing inequalities, violate privacy, suppress dissent, and deprive individuals of due process. This section outlines four critical human rights areas most impacted by AI: privacy, non-discrimination, freedom of expression, and the right to an effective remedy.
The Right to Privacy and Data Protection
Privacy, enshrined in Article 12 of the UDHR and Article 17 of the ICCPR, is among the most directly challenged rights in the age of AI. AI systems rely heavily on the collection, analysis, and inference of massive amounts of personal data. Through processes such as data mining, profiling, and predictive analytics, individuals’ behaviors, preferences, and even emotions can be monitored, predicted, and manipulated.
A key area of concern is the deployment of facial recognition technologies (FRT), particularly in public surveillance. In countries like China, facial recognition is widely used for social control purposes; in liberal democracies, it is increasingly adopted by law enforcement, often without sufficient oversight. The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that surveillance practices without safeguards against abuse constitute a violation of Article 8 of the ECHR.
Furthermore, AI’s ability to generate “derived data”—inferences about individuals’ health, beliefs, or sexual orientation—raises concerns that go beyond conventional notions of privacy. These inferences, often made without consent or transparency, can result in stigmatization and discrimination.
The Right to Equality and Non-Discrimination
AI systems are often marketed as neutral and objective. However, they are trained on datasets that reflect historical and societal biases, and thus risk perpetuating and amplifying discrimination. This threatens the right to equality and non-discrimination, protected by Articles 2 and 7 of the UDHR and Article 26 of the ICCPR.
Freedom of Expression and Assembly
AI is increasingly used to moderate online content, either through automated filters or human-machine hybrid systems. While these systems aim to reduce hate speech and misinformation, they also risk over-censorship, threatening the right to freedom of expression and assembly (Article 19 and 20 of the UDHR).
AI-driven moderation can suppress legitimate dissent, satire, or political speech—especially when content is flagged based on opaque and proprietary standards. For example, during protest movements, authorities have used AI surveillance and social media monitoring to track, intimidate, and detain activists.
Moreover, recommendation algorithms on platforms like YouTube or Facebook have been shown to amplify polarizing and extremist content to maximize engagement—contributing to disinformation and social fragmentation. These developments challenge not only freedom of expression, but the very integrity of democratic discourse.
The Right to Due Process and Effective Remedy
A foundational principle of the rule of law is that individuals must have the right to challenge decisions that affect their rights. This is codified in Article 8 of the UDHR and Article 2(3) of the ICCPR. However, the deployment of AI in decision-making—whether in criminal sentencing, immigration, or welfare benefits—often undermines this principle. Automated decision-making systems can be inscrutable (“black boxes”), making it difficult for affected individuals to understand the basis of decisions, challenge errors, or seek redress. When algorithms are protected as trade secrets, transparency is further compromised.
Legal Responses To AI: National And International Approaches
European Union (EU)
The EU is at the forefront of AI regulation through its proposed Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA), introduced in 2021. The AIA adopts a risk-based approach, classifying AI systems into unacceptable, high-risk, limited-risk, and minimal-risk categories.
United States
The U.S. has taken a more market-driven and decentralized approach to AI governance. Federal efforts include:
* The Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights (2022), which outlines principles such as safe and effective systems, algorithmic discrimination protections, and data privacy,
* Sector-specific guidance from agencies like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
China
China integrates AI regulation within a broader framework of state surveillance and political control. Key regulations include the Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL) and Algorithmic Recommendation Management Rules (2022), which require transparency in recommendation engines and allow users to opt out.
International and Regional Instruments
UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Ethics of AI (2021)
UNESCO’s landmark non-binding recommendation sets out global ethical norms for AI, including principles of accountability, transparency, fairness, non-discrimination, and environmental sustainability. It urges member states to establish legal frameworks, ethical impact assessments, and inclusive governance mechanisms.
Council of Europe
The Council is drafting a binding international convention on AI, human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. This would be the first legally binding treaty on AI governance with a human rights focus. The treaty aims to complement the European Convention on Human Rights and provide judicial redress mechanisms for violations.
African Union
The African Union has initiated discussions on an AI continental strategy, focusing on data sovereignty, inclusivity, and capacity building. While regulatory developments are nascent, countries like Kenya, Nigeria, and South Africa are exploring AI frameworks that align with local contexts and human-centered development goals.
United Nations
The UN’s High-Level Advisory Body on AI, established in 2023, is tasked with developing a Global AI Governance Framework. Its priorities include mitigating harms, enabling inclusive access, and fostering global cooperation. However, enforcement remains a challenge due to state sovereignty and divergent political interests.
Challenges in Global AI Regulation
Despite growing momentum for AI regulation, several challenges persist:
Jurisdictional Fragmentation: Differing legal cultures and priorities make international harmonization difficult. For example, the EU emphasizes human rights, the U.S. prioritizes innovation, and China focuses on state control.
Regulatory Lag: The law struggles to keep pace with rapid advances in AI capabilities, especially in generative AI and autonomous systems.
Exclusion By Design: When Identity Becomes A Barrier
The central irony of Nigeria’s digital identity architecture is that it often excludes those it was intended to include. Many Nigerians particularly those in remote or underserved regions lack access to the infrastructure necessary for NIN registration. Others face language barriers, physical inaccessibility, or the sheer economic burden of traveling to registration centres. These exclusionary practices turn identity from a right into a privilege, doled out only to those who can navigate a complex and centralised system.
This problem is exacerbated by the uncritical integration of digital identity into essential services. When NIN becomes the gateway to healthcare, banking, education, and welfare, it also becomes a weapon of exclusion. Individuals without it are effectively rendered invisible to the state, unable to assert their rights or access services. In many ways, this constitutes a form of structural violence perpetuated not by malice, but by institutional neglect.
The NDPA 2023 attempts to confront this problem by empowering the NDPC to issue binding guidelines and orders to both public and private data controllers. The Commission is authorised to mandate equitable access and fairness in digital platforms, including those tied to identity systems. However, the law is yet to address the design of accessibility, including provisions for persons with disabilities, rural dwellers, and indigenous communities. Until digital inclusion is made a legislative priority, not just a technical aspiration, the architecture of exclusion will persist.
Conclusion: Charting an Ethical and Inclusive Digital Future for Nigeria
As Nigeria stands at the crossroads of digital transformation, the imperative to embed ethics, human dignity, and inclusive governance into every layer of its technological ecosystem has never been more urgent. This work has illuminated the profound ethical, legal, and societal implications of deploying artificial intelligence, digital identity systems, and data-driven governance in a complex socio-political environment. From the conceptual underpinnings of human rights to the operational challenges of data sovereignty and AI oversight, the picture that emerges is one of a nation both full of promise and fraught with systemic risk. The passage of the Nigeria Data Protection Act (NDPA) 2023 marks a crucial milestone, but it is only a foundational step. Laws, no matter how well-written, are only as effective as the institutions that enforce them, the infrastructure that supports them, and the citizenry that holds them accountable.
At the centre of this article is the recognition that technology is not neutral. Algorithms, databases, and biometric systems are not mere technical tools, they are deeply political instruments that reflect, reinforce, or resist existing power dynamics. In Nigeria, where inequalities based on geography, gender, disability, and socio-economic status already shape access to services, uncritical digitisation risks amplifying these disparities. We have seen real-world illustrations: the disenfranchisement caused by the hasty implementation of the National Identity Number (NIN) system; the exclusion of rural and disabled citizens from registration processes; the misuse of surveillance and AI systems without proper legal safeguards. Each instance is not just a policy failure, it is a breach of the constitutional promise of dignity, autonomy, and justice.
By centering human dignity, participatory design, and intersectional fairness, Nigeria can develop AI systems and data policies that do not simply function, but uplift. This means operationalising consent as something more than legal formality; mandating explainability and accountability in all algorithmic decision-making; ensuring the right to opt out is real and accessible; and making digital systems interoperable with the lived realities of every Nigerian, not just the digitally literate or economically privileged.
Citizens must have avenues to influence how data is collected, how AI is used, and how rights are protected. Building public trust in digital systems is impossible without transparency, inclusiveness, and redress mechanisms. Institutions like the Nigeria Data Protection Commission must be empowered not only with legal mandates but with the political independence and technical capacity to oversee complex digital ecosystems. Likewise, the role of civil society, academia, and the private sector cannot be relegated to the sidelines they must be co-creators of Nigeria’s digital future.
Ultimately, Nigeria’s digital transformation must be judged not merely by the sophistication of its technologies, but by the justice of their impacts. A truly sovereign digital state is not defined by control over infrastructure alone, but by its commitment to protecting the rights, dignity, and agency of its people. The challenge is immense but so too is the opportunity. If Nigeria seizes this moment with foresight, courage, and moral clarity, it can build a digital society where innovation serves inclusion, and where technology becomes a force for equity, not exclusion. The path forward is clear: ethical by design, inclusive by intention, and human-centred by law. (The end).
Thought for the week
“Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do. (Potter Stewart).
No Comment! Be the first one.