There was a time when colonialism was easy to recognise. It arrived in uniforms, planted flags, drew borders and claimed territory. It extracted our minerals, controlled our trade and governed our people. Independence was supposed to end that arrangement. But colonialism has evolved.
Today, it arrives through smartphones, platforms, algorithms, cloud infrastructure and artificial intelligence. It does not always need to occupy our territory because it can occupy our digital spaces. It does not have to seize natural resources when it can extract something equally valuable: our data.
This is the uncomfortable question Africa must confront: have we achieved political independence without achieving digital sovereignty?
There is nothing inherently wrong with using foreign technology. No country develops everything it needs. The problem begins when dependence becomes so deep that we lose the ability to determine who controls our data, how algorithms make decisions about us, where our information is stored and who benefits from our digital economy.
That is where the new colonialism begins.
Read Also: When the Plebeians Walked Away: How Rome’s commoners forced the republic to change
The New Resource Is Data
The most valuable resource of the 21st century may not be oil. It may be data. Every time Nigerians search online, make a digital payment, use navigation, post on social media, stream a video, access a government service or interact with an AI system, they generate data. Individually, these interactions seem insignificant. Collectively, they create a detailed picture of who we are, what we buy, where we live, what we believe and what we want.
The crucial question is not simply whether Nigerians are connected. It is who owns, controls and benefits from the value generated by that connectivity? This is where Africa’s digital predicament resembles the old extractive economy.
During colonialism, raw materials were extracted from Africa, processed elsewhere and returned as expensive finished products. Today, we risk exporting raw data and importing digital products built from data, algorithms, computing power and intellectual property controlled elsewhere.
The pattern is familiar. We provide the users, data and market. Others provide the platforms, infrastructure, algorithms and capital. They capture much of the value. We must therefore become more deliberate about the terms on which we participate in the digital economy. Economic independence without technological capacity may prove equally fragile.
AI Could Deepen the Divide
Artificial intelligence makes the issue more urgent. AI is increasingly used in education, banking, healthcare, recruitment, journalism, government and business. But there is another side.
AI systems are only as good as the data and assumptions embedded in them. If African realities are poorly represented in the datasets used to develop these systems, AI may reproduce the biases and blind spots of the societies in which it was created.
An algorithm trained predominantly on Western faces may perform poorly when recognising African faces. A language model developed largely from English and other dominant languages may understand Nigerian languages inadequately. A system designed around Western labour markets, financial systems or social assumptions may produce inappropriate results here.
The danger is not only that AI may misunderstand Africa. It is that Africa may increasingly organise parts of its society around technologies that misunderstand Africa.
There is also the question of jobs. Nigeria has one of the world’s largest youth populations, with millions entering the labour market every year. Yet technologies promising productivity gains may also automate routine jobs.
If Nigeria becomes primarily a consumer of foreign AI, we may enjoy some benefits while bearing many social costs. But if we build capacity to develop, adapt and govern AI ourselves, the technology could become a powerful instrument of African development. The difference is leadership.
Digital Sovereignty Does Not Mean Digital Isolation
Some may hear “digital sovereignty” and imagine shutting out foreign technology companies or attempting to build every digital product domestically. That would be neither realistic nor desirable. Digital sovereignty is not technological isolation. It is the capacity to make informed choices.
A digitally sovereign country should know where its critical data is stored. It should have the legal and institutional capacity to protect citizens’ information. It should be able to scrutinise algorithms that affect people’s rights and opportunities. It should possess enough technical expertise to negotiate effectively with technology companies and have domestic businesses capable of creating digital value rather than merely consuming it.
Imagine an algorithm deciding that someone is not eligible for a loan, scholarship, job or social protection programme. Who made it? What data did it use? Was the data accurate? Was the system biased? Can the person appeal? Who is accountable when the algorithm is wrong?
As governments digitise public services, these questions become more important. Digital government can reduce corruption, improve efficiency and make services more accessible. But poorly governed digital systems can also automate exclusion. A discriminatory human decision is bad enough. A discriminatory algorithm operating at scale can be much worse.
This is why Nigeria needs more than digital transformation. It needs rights-based digital transformation.
Africa Must Stop Being Just the Market
Africa is often described as the next great frontier for technology. But Africa must negotiate from a position of greater confidence. We need stronger data protection, local cloud and computing infrastructure, African researchers and engineers, and support for startups creating intellectual property.
There are already promising initiatives. Nigeria’s AI Collective is bringing together government, civil society, academia and the technology ecosystem to promote responsible, locally relevant AI, while the National AI Strategy provides a broader policy framework. Talent Nation and Itana by Talent City are also helping build the ecosystem in which African digital talent and technology businesses can thrive, making it easier for companies to establish and scale from Nigeria into African markets. Digital sovereignty is not simply about regulating foreign technology; it is about creating the conditions for African talent, businesses and innovation to flourish.
We also need universities producing world-class AI researchers and policymakers capable of regulating technology without stifling innovation. No African country can compete with the largest technology companies alone, but collectively the continent has significant bargaining power. The African Continental Free Trade Area should therefore help create an integrated digital market in which African companies can scale.
Nigeria has a particularly important role to play. Our population, entrepreneurial energy, creative industries and technology ecosystem give us the potential to become a digital powerhouse. But population alone is not power. A country that consumes technology without creating intellectual property remains a market, not a technological power.
The objective should be clear: Nigeria must move from being a market for the digital world to becoming a maker of the digital world.
There are reasons for optimism. Nigeria’s AI Strategy, AI Collective, data protection initiatives and growing regulatory scrutiny of global technology companies show that the country is beginning to assert its digital interests. Across Africa, the AU’s Continental AI Strategy and Data Policy Framework are laying foundations for greater coordination.
Digital sovereignty will not come from rejecting global technology. It will come from developing the capacity to negotiate with it, regulate it, adapt it and ultimately create our own.
The question is no longer simply who controls our land, minerals and borders. It is also: Who controls our data, algorithms, digital infrastructure and technological future?
The first colonialism was about controlling territory. The second was about controlling resources. The next may be about controlling intelligence.
