The rapid expansion of AI-powered mass surveillance systems across Africa is violating citizens’ right to privacy and having a chilling effect on society, according to experts in human rights and emerging technologies.
Eleven African governments have spent at least $2bn (£1.5bn) on Chinese-built surveillance technology that recognizes faces and monitors movements, according to a new report from the Institute for Development Studies, which warns that national security is being used to justify the implementation of these poorly regulated systems.
Chinese companies often sell the technology in packages that include CCTV systems, facial recognition, biometric data collection and cameras that track vehicle movements and are presented as a tool to help rapidly urbanizing countries modernize their cities and reduce crime.
But researchers from the African Digital Rights Network, a co-author of the report, said there was no real evidence that these systems reduce crime and warned that they allow governments to monitor human rights activists and political opponents, arrest protesters and drive journalists into self-censorship.
Wairagala Wakabi, executive director of Kampala-based political body Cipesa and co-author of the report, said: “This large-scale, invasive AI-based surveillance of public spaces is not ‘legal, necessary or proportionate’ for the legitimate objective of providing security. History shows us that this is the latest tool used by governments to invade the privacy of citizens and suppress freedom of movement and expression.”
Nigeria is the country that has spent the most on infrastructure, investing $470 million in 10,000 smart cameras last year. Egypt has installed 6,000, while Algeria and Uganda have around 5,000 each.
The 11 countries spent an average of $240 million, and the investment was often financed with loans from Chinese banks.
The report emphasizes that the lack of regulation or legal framework on the storage and use of personal data is worrying, given the rapid deployment of this technology, but Bulelani Jili, an assistant professor at Georgetown University, said that even the introduction of laws could be dangerous.
Surveillance of online activity has often been used to suppress dissent and has been legalized through laws that can criminalize ordinary people for their online posts. Jili said focusing on introducing laws could simply allow governments to claim that systems have been legitimized.
“The real challenge, therefore, is not simply whether surveillance is regulated, but how societies negotiate the balance between security, accountability and civil liberties once these technologies become deeply institutionalized,” he said.
He said there had already been concerns about the use of facial recognition to monitor activists in Uganda and that surveillance systems were being used to suppress protests led by Generation Z in Kenya.
He warned that this could pose a danger to anyone considered a threat to governments in the future.
“Historically marginalized communities, political activists, journalists, and minority groups can be disproportionately affected when these technologies are integrated into policing and intelligence practices,” Jili said.
Yosr Jouini, author of the report’s section on Algeria, said the systems were originally introduced in connection with “smart city” projects that promised to fight crime and manage traffic, but in reality they often became primarily a tool of security forces.
“The narrative is framed solely through a security lens, which dismisses any other concerns and does not provide sufficient mechanisms for citizens to ensure their rights are protected,” he said.
He highlighted how the street protests of 2019 and 2021 played a key role in political change, but the expansion of surveillance systems could make people hesitant to protest in the future.
“We know that many protesters have been arrested when participating in gatherings in public spaces. We don’t know for sure if it was because of the cameras, but there is a chilling effect – because it could happen – on people’s willingness to participate in public gatherings.”
