Introduction

From the perspective of many African countries, the transformative potential of Ai is matched by the profound concerns about exclusion, inequality, and the imposition of standards set elsewhere. The United Nations’ “Governing AI for Humanity: The Final Report” provides an authoritative global analysis of these challenges and opportunities from a global perspective. This research note unpacks key findings and proposals from the report, placing them in the context of Africa’s position in global AI governance debates.

Overview and Structure of the Report

The UN “Governing AI for Humanity” report was prepared by the high-level advisory group of international experts from governments, academia, civil society, and industry. Its central goal is to outline the urgent need for international approaches to AI governance, particularly given the technology’s cross-border nature, and to provide practical recommendations for filling current governance gaps. As such, the report examines:

1. The current “governance deficit” in AI
2. Gaps in representation, coordination, and implementation at the international level
3. Emerging risks of exclusion and underlying power imbalances
4. And provides recommendations for inclusive, effective governance rooted in human rights and international law

The report recognises that existing approaches whether national regulations or unrepresentative international groupings are not sufficient to address AI’s global reach and risks that lie beyond sovereign boarders. It recognises the historic epistemic inequality in international standard-setting processes.

The International Governance Deficit: Africa’s Exclusion

One key finding of the report is that AI’s governance is currently shaped by a handful of States and corporations, leaving at least 118 countries—mostly in Africa and the Global South—out of core international decision-making processes. The report notes that seven nations (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK, and the USA) are parties to all the key sampled AI governance initiatives; meanwhile, every state in Africa except one is excluded from these forums.

This exclusion is deeply consequential for Africa, which continues to be underrepresented even at all levels at the UN for instance. Consequently, decisions about AI policy, ethical standards, risk management, and future direction are increasingly made without input from African experts, governments, or civil society. African priorities—such as Congo, natural resource extraction and the Ai supply chain, skills drain, underrepresentation and labour exploitation in Ai development, data sovereignty, and algorithmic discrimination against people of African descent and other marginalised or indigenous groups in Africa—rarely feature in such for a in meaningful ways. If global regulation of AI continues to evolve without Africa at the table, the continent risks renewed and deepened technological dependency and data exploitation. Of course this is but one possible source of such dependency and exploitation.

Why National Efforts Are Not Enough

Some African countries have launched national AI strategies or joined the African Union’s efforts for continent-wide digital policy. But, as the report argues, these fragmented initiatives face severe limitations in the face of the boarders less online space and Ai’s undeniably global reach:

• AI’s very infrastructure and applications are global. Data, supply chain, compute power & manufacturing, and cloud storage often lie beyond the reach of traditional territorial boarders, and in the case of Africa, this infrastructure largely lies outside the continent – barring a few like data, human capacity and natural resource.
• Large tech and data corporations wield more influence than States. As the report notes, multinational tech companies routinely shape downstream applications in Africa without significant oversight by host governments.
• Ai entails transboundary risks—such as cybercrime, algorithmic bias, and privacy breaches—which cannot be contained or managed by any single state or region.

For Africa, this underlines the need for international frameworks that address AI’s cross-border risks and ensure African interests are properly defended and advanced. At the same time, this cannot be an argument for deprioritising local and regional governance, the relative maturity of African States in the governance of data and digital technologies in general. As the report suggests, such local and regional measure, including for the regional and local governance of Ai are indeed necessary, but ultimately not sufficient. An international layer, with the UN as the strategic enabler, remains necessary for the outlines reasons.

Key Risks for Africa in the Absence of International Governance

The report identifies concrete dangers for Africa if global AI governance remains exclusive and ad hoc

1. Data Exploitation

African personal, economic, and cultural data is increasingly valuable to global AI developers, but too often used without consent or benefit-sharing—perpetuating extractive models reminiscent of colonial exploitation. While there is an increasing number of States with data protection legislation, there are still some jurisdictions who are yet to adopt them. What is consistent among those States with data protection legislation is challenges with effective implementation, among others, because they often have less leverage to mitigate harm downstream at application level, or hold far-away multinational corporations accountable.

2. Widening Digital Divides

AI accelerates wealth and opportunity in countries with access to research, data resources, and infrastructure. Without deliberate measures including at the international level, Africa States risks being left behind in the emerging digital economy. They risk becoming passive consumers rather than active participants in Ai development

3. Weakened Autonomy

International technological standards and regulatory models set without African participation risk imposing compliance costs and legal burdens that do not fit the continent’s legal, cultural, or economic realities. There is also a risk of normative and contextual misalignment as well. This undermines digital sovereignty and digital self-determination over the continent’s digital futures.

The Report’s Principles anchors AI governance in inclusion and rights. The UN being the most representative global forum emerges at the centre of the report’s recommendations. While this is a prudent approach, from an African perspective, the continent remains starkly underrepresented, despite the fact that it is the largest bock of States at the UN level. The UN has historically been critiques as an instrument for and by Western countries created when African countries were still colonies,[1] and more recently it has accused of double-standards in favour of Western countries.[2] Against this backdrop, “Governing AI for Humanity” sets out clear principles for international, UN-centric, AI governance, that AI must be governed inclusively, with all States and communities benefitting, not just the powerful few.

Mechanisms and Recommendations with African Relevance

The report recommends several practical steps whose effective implementation:

1. A UN AI Office

A new, agile office within the UN Secretariat would coordinate and lend structure to global AI governance processes, ensure a common voice across the UN system, and act as a “glue” to bring together diverse international initiatives—a chance for African priorities to be more systematically integrated.

2. Capacity Development Networks

Specific emphasis is placed on building technical, regulatory, and institutional capacity in underrepresented regions. This means not only transferring technology, but also supporting African experts, regulators, and innovators in AI science and policymaking.

3. International Data Frameworks:

Shared governance over global AI data resources—ensuring data is not simply extracted, but used ethically, and with appropriate benefit-sharing and control for all stakeholders.

4. Global Scientific and Policy Panels

Establishing structures where African scientists, policymakers, and civil society groups participate directly in global efforts to understand and shape AI’s development, rather than relying on foreign expertise alone

5. Looking Ahead: Moving from Exclusion to Action

As AI matures, fair and robust international governance is not just necessary for global safety, security and economic growth—it is essential for stability, justice and equality. As discussions continue in UN fora and other international venues, the African Union and national governments need to develop clear strategies, strengthen coalitions, and prioritise the development of local skill and expertise. Africa has much to gain, but as it would seem, it also must once more demand its due, – a meaningful seat at the table.

Disclaimer: “Africa” is a continent of 54 diverse countries, each with unique histories, cultures, political systems, and economic realities. Any generalizations made within this article are for the purpose of broad analytical discussion and do not capture the vast complexities and specificities of individual African nations or their peoples.

References

 United Nations, Governing AI for Humanity: The Final Report of the High-level Advisory Body on Artificial Intelligence (June 2024) https://www.un.org/techenvoy/sites/www.un.org.techenvoy/files/2024-06/UN%20High-level%20Advisory%20Body%20on%20AI%20-%20Final%20Report%20-%20Governing%20AI%20for%20Humanity.pdf

[1] Franck Kuwonu, ‘Four African countries at the founding of the UN in San Francisco in 1945’ (2020) UN Africa Renewal, noting, that “at the time of the historic conference, most African territories were still under colonial rule; James Thuo Gathii (2021) “The Promise of International Law: A Third World View,” American University International Law Review: Vol. 36 : Iss. 3 , Article 1. Available at: https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/auilr/vol36/iss3/1

[2] CIVICUS, ‘GAZA: Double standards erode the principles of international humanitarian law and undermine its credibility’, available at https://civicus.org/index.php/media-resources/news/interviews/7019-gaza-double-standards-erode-the-principles-of-international-humanitarian-law-and-undermine-its-credibility; Sorcha O’Callaghan, Ayesha Khan, Kathryn Nwajiaku-Dahou, Theo Tindall, Leen Fouad, Cecilia Milesi, ‘Humanitarian hypocrisy, double standards and the law in Gaza’ 08 November 2023, Expert comment, https://odi.org/en/insights/humanitarian-hypocrisy-double-standards-and-the-law-in-gaza/