Artificial Intelligence is already embedded in Nigeria’s banks, hospitals, farms, and classrooms. Yet, as the country races ahead with digital ambitions, it has no binding law to govern these powerful systems. The result is a surge in deepfake fraud, automated bias, and gender-based abuse that leaves citizens unprotected.
The Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023, while important, only covers data handling. It does not address what AI does with that data—algorithmic profiling, discriminatory outcomes, or automated bias. These gaps persist even as the Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation warns that algorithmic bias poses a material risk to financial stability.
Across finance, healthcare, agriculture, and education, AI is shaping decisions and services. In telecommunications, e-commerce, manufacturing, and public administration, automated systems influence risk assessments, citizen profiling, and service delivery. But this rapid deployment is happening in a complete legal vacuum, as detailed in a recent policy paper by the Center for Fiscal Transparency and Public Integrity.
Nigeria has climbed 31 places in the global Government AI Readiness Index and is drafting a National Artificial Intelligence Strategy. But a strategy without a legal framework is a dangerous gamble. Without safeguards, citizens face escalating harms: convincing deepfake videos used for financial scams, AI-driven misinformation threatening social stability, and the rise of non-consensual sexualized images generated by AI tools on social media platforms.
Rural communities are especially vulnerable, with apps incentivizing the unauthorized filming and uploading of individuals for monetization. When victims seek justice, tech platforms often deflect responsibility.
The regulatory landscape is fragmented, with at least nine bodies—including NITDA, NDPC, CBN, NCC, and FCCPC—exercising overlapping jurisdiction. Without coordination, enforcement is inconsistent, allowing powerful actors to exploit regulatory gaps while citizens bear the consequences.
Skeptics argue that premature regulation could stifle innovation, or that Africa should not regulate a technology it did not develop. But Nigeria routinely regulates foreign pharmaceuticals, aviation systems, and telecoms equipment to protect public safety. AI should be no different.
However, wholesale import of Western frameworks like the European Union AI Act is not the answer. Nigeria’s governance must be context-sensitive, recognizing its material constraints. AI data centers are energy-intensive, and bridging Nigeria’s electricity deficit to support sovereign AI infrastructure would require an estimated $10 billion annually for a decade.
Given these realities, the regulatory focus must prioritize risk management, human rights, and citizen protection over tech hype. Policymakers should execute a rights-based, context-sensitive strategy that moves from aspiration to safety.
AI governance cannot wait. Continued delay will allow digital harms to scale faster than remedies can, ceding national data sovereignty to unaccountable corporate interests. It is time to step out of the black box and establish the safeguards citizens deserve.
