Digital Sovereignty in Africa: The Geopolitics of Data, Technology, and Cybersecurity

The rapid advancement of digital technologies has transformed the global political economy and redesigned the nature of sovereignty in today’s world. Globally, data has become a strategic resource similar to oil or rare minerals, and the control of digital infrastructure such as cloud systems, telecommunications networks, artificial intelligence, and cybersecurity frameworks has become essential to national authority.

Digital sovereignty in Africa is a complex issue influenced by geopolitical dynamics, technological rivalry, and the need for national autonomy. African nations are increasingly vocal about the imperative to build and control their own internet infrastructure, seeking to craft digital boundaries that reflect political independence and economic ambition.  With both China and several Western nations possessing the technical capability to get engaged with the continental digital transition, African countries face a complex dilemma to choose partners to build their digital futures.

While African countries face dual challenges in their pursuit of digital sovereignty. On the one hand, they are highly dependent on foreign technology providers, especially from China, due to limited domestic capacity. On the other hand, they are shaped by Western data governance norms, particularly in their legislation. Africa’s technological and legal dependence on external powers raises serious questions about whether true digital sovereignty is achievable on their own terms.

This article analyses the geopolitics of data, technology, and cybersecurity in Africa, exploring how digital sovereignty is influencing the continent’s diplomatic relations and strategic future.

The Concept of Digital Sovereignty in International Relations

Digital colonialism poses a major threat to Africa’s technological sovereignty, economic independence and human rights. For Africa, the issue of digital sovereignty sits at the juncture of geopolitics, development, and security. While digital transformation and the inherently global nature of the internet pose significant challenges to the Westphalian model of sovereignty.

With the rise of the internet and the accelerating forces of globalisation, digital technologies have created a momentum that seems to defy legal governance and control. With the concept gaining increasing prominence in policy discourse, a state’s digital sovereignty involves two dimensions: the power to compel compliance, where internet users and companies are free to operate but must comply with state directives, and the power to define the terms of compliance, whereby governments shape how digital firms operate within their jurisdictions.

As digital networks become deeply embedded in the society, states increasingly recognise the need to exert authority over the digital sphere to maintain sovereign control. Arguably, some cyber-libertarian, rejected any form of governmental regulation over the internet and asserted that cyberspace exists beyond national borders and should not be subject to governmental jurisdiction. They further observed that external sovereignty, law, and territoriality are expected to matter less in the context of transnational networks.

However, the appeal of decentralised governance has significantly weakened in recent years. To sustain the internet’s infrastructure. such an argument has steadily given way to a more nuanced challenge to sovereignty through the model of multi-stakeholder internet governance. It is increasingly noted that governments are reasserting sovereign control over the digital sphere in response to emerging threats, such as cybercrime, disinformation, and national security concerns.

Even though imposing stronger state involvement in digital governance, more and more countries have reformed legal frameworks aimed at governing cyberspace and re-establishing state authority. They have even sought to justify their state oversight to safeguard public interests such as privacy, cybersecurity, and the fight against misinformation. It is worth noting that assertions of digital sovereignty are inherently double-edged, through which citizens can be protected and simultaneously controlled as well. The state, meanwhile, gains the capacity to govern its citizens’ digital activities  and their access to internet. In different social, economic and legal settings, digital sovereignty serves conflicting political and ideological goals.

Table 1: Key Indicators of Africa’s Digital Growth

Sources: International Telecommunication Union, World Bank, GSMA Mobile Economy Report, International Finance Corporation, GSMA / Briter Bridges.

These statistics climax the fast digital transformation happening across Africa, predominantly in fintech hubs such as Nigeria, Kenya, South Africa, and Egypt.

Great Power Rivalry and Africa’s Digital Infrastructure

At the centre of digital sovereignty lies the question of data governance. Data generated by citizens, governments, and businesses has turned out to be a strategic advantage for economic development, artificial intelligence, and national security. Most African data is stored abroad, primarily in the U.S. (56%) and Europe (32%), highlighting both a dependency risk and a market opportunity.

While hosting data on foreign servers would result in a loss of political, economic, and technological autonomy. From another perspective, the African data centre market is projected to grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 12.73% between 2021 and 2027, with investment expected to reach US$4.5 billion by 2027.

Meanwhile, it is part of the European strategy to impose strict standards on data governance and extend the European Union’s authority over data processing, even beyond its borders. By setting these standards, the European Union encourages other regions to adopt laws similar to the GDPR. The United States takes a laissez-faire approach, favouring unrestricted data flows, which benefits its technology companies, which control the largest share of the global market.

However, through the CLOUD Act2 (BSA 2021), the United States maintains its sovereignty by requiring US entities to disclose data upon request for reasons of national security, regardless of its location. China, meanwhile, maintains tight control over domestic and international operations.

One of the major features of digital sovereignty in Africa is the rising technology rivalry amongst global powers, predominantly the United States and China. Several African countries have also introduced data governance frameworks that resemble those in China. In 2021, Senegal was notably the first African country to replicate the Chinese data governance model, which requires all servers to be located within the country’s borders. The state transferred government data and digital platforms that were stored on servers abroad to a data centre built by Huawei in Senegal. This data centre was financed by a Chinese loan.

Table 2: African governments must pilot contending regulatory models:

African policymakers must decide which model best aligns with national benefits. Meanwhile, the rivalry between these models places African regimes in a complex strategic place. Rather than aligning solely with one bloc, many African states follow digital non-alignment, collaborating with multiple allies while making an effort to maintain policy autonomy.

Cybersecurity Threats and Digital Vulnerabilities

The advancements of the twenty-first century have placed immense value on data. Multinational technology companies based in the Global North aggressively amass vast amounts of personal data from African users. Recent studies show that over 91 per cent of companies outside Africa achieve immeasurable value from data and analytics. This data usually encompasses various aspects of life including location, browsing history, social media activity and financial transactions. Generally, these companies claim to use the data for purposes such as product improvement and other personalised services.

Within the African context, this practise thrives because the data ecosystem in most African countries lacks comprehensive laws and regulations. For example, in Nigeria, it is alleged that 55 per cent of the recurring cyber challenges are a result of the country’s poor legal infrastructure for cybersecurity and data protection. Such absence of strong legal frameworks, stemming from fragmented and sector-specific regulations across jurisdictions, rapid technological advancements (such as AI), and powerful lobbying by tech giants, and the enticing nature of the collected data motivate multinational tech companies to operate with limited accountability and collect user data without adequate safeguards. For instance, Google faced nearly US$3 billion in fines in 2024 and paid a US$1.4 billion settlement to Texas in May 2025 for unauthorised data collection. These penalties often equate to less than a few weeks’ cash flow for such firms, allowing questionable data practices to continue largely undeterred.

Table 3: Cybersecurity Statistics in Africa

Source: Interpol, African Union, Kaspersky Security Report.

Possible Future Scenarios

Scenario 1: Digital Dependency

In this scenario, African states remain heavily dependent on foreign technology providers. There will be continued dominance of foreign tech companies and imperfect domestic innovation; also, this could strengthen digital neo-colonialism and deteriorate African sovereignty.

Scenario 2: Strategic Balancing

African governments can also expand technological partnerships amid China, the West, and emerging powers such as India. This will help to reduced reliance on a single actor, improved negotiating power and help better technological access. Meanwhile, this approach reflects Africa’s comprehensive non-aligned geopolitical policy.

Scenario 3: African Digital Sovereignty

In the most ambitious scenario, African states advance strong local technology sectors and regional digital governance. Key developments such as advance of African tech companies, increase of homegrown data centres, robust cybersecurity collaboration, while execution of the African Digital Single Market which would meaningfully improve Africa’s geopolitical sovereignty in the digital age.

Conclusion

The US, China, and Europe are currently Africa’s top three digital market share competitors, each with its own unique digital governance model. African policymakers must take charge and shape the continent’s digital sovereignty according to their vision. This effort requires integrated and unified action from the continent, rather than fragmented efforts.

Lastly, Africa needs broader, enforceable regulations, developed by pan-African bodies like the African Union, for a unified continental approach, complemented by harmonised national laws from individual governments to address local contexts, that tackle emerging digital challenges and ensure a sovereign governance of its digital economy. For example, the AU’s Continental AI Strategy and Data Policy Framework provides regional guidelines on ethical AI and data protection, while national laws like South Africa’s POPIA and Kenya’s Data Protection Act enforce algorithmic accountability and cross-border data rules at the country level.