AI Policy Recommendations for Southern Africa Informed by Region-Specific Risks and Domestic Governance Precedents
Génevieve Chikwanha, Karabo Motsileng
AI governance frameworks and risk taxonomies have been developed
predominantly for Global North settings, yet AI adoption across
Southern Africa is accelerating. Emerging scholarship has begun
mapping AI risks in the African context, but the relationship between
those academic risk categories and documented cases of AI-related harm
in the region has received limited attention, and the connection between
region-specific risks and actionable domestic policy precedents remains
underdeveloped. This paper triangulates six academic risk-mapping
sources with eleven empirical sources, including case law, regulatory
investigations, and legislative instruments across six African
jurisdictions, to identify where academic risk categories hold, where
they require mechanistic specification, and where they miss documented
harms entirely. We find a systematic divergence: the academic literature
covers surveillance, disinformation, and general algorithmic bias, while
the empirical evidence documents sectoral algorithmic discrimination,
legal ambiguity as a structural risk enabler, and fiscal base erosion from
technology outsourcing. We then analyse AI policy objectives across
four Southern African countries and the African Union, identifying gaps
between stated policy goals and the empirically documented risks. Using
fiscal base erosion as a focused case, we demonstrate that South African
legal and regulatory precedents already contain interpretive tools that
can inform mechanism-level AI policy recommendations. For each
recommendation, we state the institutional antecedents required for it to
apply beyond South Africa.
This paper tackles an important gap in AI governance by focusing on risks and policy needs that are specific to Southern Africa rather than relying only on governance frameworks developed for the Global North. I particularly liked the comparison between academic AI risk taxonomies and real-world documented cases, which clearly shows where existing research does not fully capture the region's challenges. The paper is well structured, easy to follow, and makes good use of legal and policy sources.
One area that could strengthen the paper is expanding the recommendation section beyond the fiscal erosion example. Applying the same level of analysis to other findings, such as legal ambiguity or algorithmic discrimination, would better demonstrate how the proposed approach can be used across different AI governance challenges. It would also help to explain more clearly under what conditions the South African legal precedents could be applied to other countries in the region.
Overall, this is a thoughtful and well-researched paper that makes a meaningful contribution to regional AI governance and provides a solid foundation for future work.
This is a very strong submission. It is immediately relevant and informative for researchers or policy-makers. It fills in a highly relevant gap and it was simply a pleasure to read!
Cite this work
@misc {
title={
(HckPrj) AI Policy Recommendations for Southern Africa Informed by Region-Specific Risks and Domestic Governance Precedents
},
author={
Génevieve Chikwanha, Karabo Motsileng
},
date={
},
organization={Apart Research},
note={Research submission to the research sprint hosted by Apart.},
howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}
}


