Author: Esther Chihaavi – 12/07/2026
Digital Sovereignty – attainable in Sub-Saharan Africa?
Esther Chihaavi
Sovereignty has long been a key concept in ensuring states have, and maintain, control over the activities within their boundaries and relating to their citizens. The digital landscape, which is primarily characterized by lack of borders, has shifted this perspective. Digital sovereignty is a concept similar yet different from traditional sovereignty. It now not only relates to control by sovereign states, but also by international groups/organizations.
The goal here is to look at what digital sovereignty has been deemed to be made up of, seeing as there is no clear cut definition, and how it can be exercised by states in Sub-Saharan Africa in an effective manner.
What is digital sovereignty?
As aforementioned, digital sovereignty, a term that brings together two terms, compelling us to restructure the concept of sovereign territory/boundaries in an ever evolving digital landscape, is not easy to define.
The fluidity of movement and storage of data has begun a whole new war on the ability of states to maintain their sovereignty over their citizens’ data. This concept however falls within the wider purview of digital sovereignty, a concept that has been said to have different approaches. Santinello narrows it down to two approaches: the institutional approach, and the constructivist approach. To a large extent, the discourse around digital sovereignty has taken a constructivist approach, with most states and organizations basing their policies on the ability to exercise a measure of control over the digital sphere.
Different states have modelled it in various ways, some more restrictive than others. We will however take a look at the model adopted by the EU.
Digital Sovereignty in the EU
It goes without saying that innovation in the digital sphere has been spearheaded in large measure by the US and China, with other states seeking to catch up in the race, in order to exercise some measure of control in the digital space, both within the states’ territory and outside of it.
In the EU, a study was conducted by Roberts H et.al to determine what sovereignty means to European lawmakers, based on its usage within their official statements, reports, etc. The key areas of focus that emerged when discussing digital sovereignty were data governance, controlling platform powers, cybersecurity, emerging technologies and digital infrastructure.
Looking at the European regulatory landscape, these have been key areas that the European legislator has sought to address. For instance, when it comes to controlling platform powers, the EU has enacted, among others, the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the Digital Services Act (DSA) to address the challenge posed by the large power wielded by platforms that have been categorized as gatekeepers. Additionally, we have seen efforts to encourage the development of digital infrastructure by EU innovators, thereby reducing dependence on infrastructure by non-European players.
These measures have been lauded and criticized, with market based proponents arguing that it merely closes off entry into the market by companies that would have much to offer the EU, and to the very development of homegrown digital infrastructure. On the other hand, it has been deemed a useful standard not only for the EU but also in line with the ‘Brussels Effect’, setting the standard for a global move by different states/bodies towards digital sovereignty.
Digital Sovereignty in Sub-Saharan Africa
Developed countries have generally been better placed to take concrete steps towards digital sovereignty as they have a high political standing in geopolitics, coupled with the resources to take such steps. Developing and least-developed countries on the other hand still largely rely on resources from developed countries, including digital infrastructure, thereby limiting their ability to effectively assert their digital sovereignty. However, this does not wholly preclude their ability to work towards such sovereignty.
One way has been through data localization requirements. Kenya, for instance, in the Data Protection Act, requires that personal data be processed within the country unless it is being exported to a country with adequate protections, a concept similar to the EU’s adequacy requirements. However, this is just one side of digital sovereignty, and more steps are absolutely necessary to wholly achieve digital sovereignty.
Beyond localization rules, digital sovereignty also requires the infrastructure to back it up. A possible way of doing so is to prioritize the development of homegrown digital infrastructure. This is not merely pushing limited financial resources towards research and development in this area, but largely by prioritizing it in the political agenda. Doing this helps them control the narrative even as it comes to data flows, as data protection can be enhanced, ensuring that, in an age of constant technological change, the use of their citizen’s data is directed at dealing with actual problems facing them, and developing systems with them in mind, all the while respecting their privacy.
It is not lost that reliance on developed countries has not merely been by choice, but by a need for financial support. This then means that mere political goodwill will not address the financial gap that still lies herein. For example, in Nigeria, there are about 17 data centers requiring around 137 MW of power capacity, an amount the national grid cannot meet, which forces operators to rely on costly diesel generation.
This highlights the need for localized capital raising specifically focused on their digital landscape. One of the ways this can be done is by government issued bonds for the development of digital infrastructure and supporting digital innovation, backed by policies that reflect this priority, to enhance investor confidence. With higher investments by local investors, the support of homegrown solutions is likely to have a more stable foundation, that is not threatened at every turn of geopolitics.
It is so far clear that a claim to digital sovereignty plays into geopolitics. Therefore, strengthening homegrown solutions to their digital needs in turn strengthens their position within the geopolitical landscape.
Digital sovereignty by developing and least developed countries in Sub-Saharan Africa is a hard task but not an impossible one to achieve. With the core areas of digital sovereignty clearly identified, the political will to prioritize them sustained and resource mobilization in play, significant progress is within reach.
