Digital Rights Africa Alliance

1. Establishing a shared baseline of understanding among Member States and stakeholders on key AI risks and opportunities, particularly as they affect the Global South. This includes acknowledging existing governance gaps and the disproportionate impact of unregulated AI systems on vulnerable groups. 2. Making meaningful inclusion central, so that that governance discussions are not dominated by a few powerful states and/ or corporations 3. Establishing continuity so that discussions evolve into sustained collaboration and measurable progress. 4. Integration of human rights principles as core and overarching obligations for states and tech companies; with clear and measurable commitments embedded in global AI governance frameworks as a basis for accountability. Clear reporting from States on their progress in AI & Human Rights compliance policies 5. Providing meaningful access for CSO engagement in the AI policy making process, monitoring and implementation. Adoption of a CSO engagement strategy for regular consultation and feedback

• Transparency, accountability, and human oversight
• Social, economic, ethical, cultural, linguistic and technical implications of AI
• Protection and promotion of human rights
• AI capacity-building

The selected priorities reflect key governance challenges and opportunities facing Uganda and the wider Global South in the development and deployment of AI systems. AI capacity-building is a critical priority because many developing countries still face significant gaps in technical expertise, regulatory preparedness, research infrastructure, and digital literacy. Strengthening local capacity is necessary to enable meaningful participation in AI governance, innovation, and oversight, rather than dependence on externally developed systems and standards. The social, economic, ethical, cultural, linguistic and technical implications of AI are equally important, particularly in contexts where local languages, identities, and lived realities remain underrepresented in AI systems. Greater attention is needed to address issues such as exclusion, algorithmic bias, unequal access, and the disproportionate impact of AI systems on marginalized communities. The protection and promotion of human rights must remain central to global AI governance. From a Global South perspective, rights-based governance is essential to ensuring that AI systems do not deepen discrimination, surveillance, exclusion, or digital harms, especially for vulnerable groups. It also helps ensure that international human rights standards are consistently upheld across different governance contexts. Transparency, accountability, and human oversight are necessary to operationalize these protections in practice. Explainability, auditability, and effective oversight mechanisms help ensure that AI systems remain contestable, subject to governance; and aligned with public interest. While closely connected to human rights protections, these safeguards also represent distinct governance tools that are critical for building public trust and accountability in AI systems.

1. Data governance and data justice. Questions about who collects, controls, and benefits from the data need to be answered. This issue largely concerns data extraction from the Global South, consent, ownership, and fair value distribution. 2. Gender and intersectional inclusion. Although it was partly implied under social and ethical implications, the specific risks faced by women and marginalized groups; such as online violence, algorithmic bias, and exclusion from design processes require more deliberate focus. Especially algorithmic bias. 3. Climate and environmental justice should also be considered as an emerging cross-cutting issue in AI governance. AI systems rely on energy-intensive infrastructure, large-scale data centres, and resource extraction processes that can have significant environmental impacts. These effects are especially important for developing countries that already face climate vulnerability and resource inequalities. As AI adoption grows, governance discussions should therefore consider sustainability, responsible resource use, and the environmental footprint of AI systems alongside innovation and economic development.

Governance gaps in the selected thematic areas continue to affect Uganda and the wider African region, particularly in relation to human rights, accountability, and institutional preparedness for AI adoption. A major challenge is the increasing use of AI-enabled surveillance technologies, including biometric systems and digital monitoring tools, often without adequate transparency, oversight, or safeguards. In Uganda and other contexts, concerns have emerged around surveillance at border crossings, during protests, and within security operations, raising risks to privacy, freedom of expression, and civic participation. These risks are compounded by weak AI regulatory frameworks, limited enforcement of data protection standards, and low institutional capacity to oversee rapidly expanding technologies. Many African countries remain largely consumers of externally developed AI systems, with limited influence over accountability standards or corporate obligations. Weak oversight also increases risks of AI-enabled disinformation, profiling, and targeted manipulation of activists, political actors, and vulnerable groups. At the same time, there are important opportunities. Existing human rights and data protection frameworks, including Uganda's Human Rights (Enforcement) Act, can provide a foundation for rights-based AI governance if effectively strengthened and implemented. Regional initiatives such as the African Union Continental Artificial Intelligence Strategy also present an opportunity to promote coordinated, inclusive, and context-responsive AI governance across Africa.

The AI Dialogue can play an important role in advancing international cooperation by creating an inclusive and continuous platform for coordination, knowledge-sharing, and collective action on AI governance. It can help establish a shared understanding among Member States and stakeholders on key AI risks and opportunities, particularly those affecting the Global South. This includes recognizing existing governance gaps, the disproportionate impact of unregulated AI systems on vulnerable communities, and the need for rights-based and context-responsive approaches. Meaningful inclusion should remain central to the Dialogue. International AI governance discussions should not be dominated by a few powerful states or corporations; instead, voices from developing countries, civil society, academia, and marginalized communities must be meaningfully represented in agenda-setting and decision-making processes. The Dialogue can also strengthen international cooperation through the sharing of good practices, particularly experiences and lessons emerging from the Global South. Continuous regional and national consultations should be encouraged to ensure that governance approaches reflect different cultural, linguistic, social, and legal realities. It can support multilateral capacity-building efforts for oversight institutions, regulators, and civil society actors, especially in developing countries that currently face significant technical and institutional gaps in AI governance. The Dialogue can promote sustained collaboration on issues such as data governance, digital platform accountability, transparency standards, and human rights protections, while establishing follow-up mechanisms that ensure discussions translate into measurable progress and long-term cooperation.

The AI Dialogue can add value by building on and connecting existing global, regional, and emerging initiatives, while strengthening coherence and inclusion in global AI governance. It should draw from established normative frameworks such as the OECD AI Principles and the UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, which provide widely recognized standards on trustworthy and rights-based AI. It can also build on regional efforts such as the African Union Continental Artificial Intelligence Strategy, not necessarily through alignment, but by learning from regional experiences and ensuring that global norms remain responsive to diverse contexts. In addition, it can connect with emerging academic and policy contributions such as the White Paper on AI and Human Rights (Oxford AI Ethics Initiative), which explores the idea of an AI bill of rights and strengthens the human rights framing of AI governance. At the practical level, it can also learn from evolving national AI strategies and pilot initiatives across countries, including emerging practices in African states such as Rwanda, where digital governance and innovation ecosystems are being actively developed. While formal multi-sectoral AI governance forums are still limited in many contexts, the Dialogue can help surface and systematize such emerging practices into shared global learning. The added value of the AI Dialogue lies in its ability to synthesize fragmented initiatives into a coherent global cooperation space, reduce duplication, and elevate good practices; especially from the Global South. It can also serve as a bridge between normative frameworks and implementation, while promoting inclusive participation, capacity-building, and continuous peer learning across regions. Ultimately, it can transform dispersed efforts into a more coordinated, inclusive, and actionable global AI governance ecosystem.

Different stakeholders can contribute to the AI Dialogue in complementary ways if the format is deliberately structured to ensure meaningful and balanced participation, rather than symbolic inclusion. A multi-stakeholder model with balanced representation is essential to avoid state-dominated discussions and to ensure that governments, civil society, academia, youth, and the private sector all meaningfully shape outcomes. The Dialogue should combine plenary sessions for consensus-building with thematic working groups for technical depth. These two levels must be deliberately connected: technical experts benefit from civil society input on human rights and lived experiences, while civil society gains insight into technical constraints and trade-offs in AI system design. This integration helps ensure that AI governance is both technically sound and rights-respecting. In addition, dedicated regional and youth/civil society tracks should be established to ensure inclusivity. Youth participation is particularly important given their role as primary users and future shapers of digital technologies, especially in the Global South. A formal mechanism for written submissions, issue papers, and follow-up reporting should also be introduced to ensure that contributions are structured, documented, and translated into actionable outcomes rather than remaining at the level of discussion. Finally, a standing coordination mechanism or secretariat support is important to ensure continuity beyond annual meetings. This body could also oversee follow-up reporting and implementation tracking, helping the Dialogue evolve from a periodic convening into a sustained global governance process.

Underrepresented voices in global AI governance discussions include several groups whose perspectives are often absent or insufficiently influential in shaping policy and technical standards. A key gap is the limited participation of actors from the Global South, particularly grassroots communities and local practitioners who experience the direct impacts of AI deployment but are often excluded from agenda-setting spaces dominated by Global North institutions and private sector actors. Another important but often overlooked group is small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and informal sector actors, especially in African economies. These actors are central to local innovation ecosystems but rarely have structured access to global AI governance forums, despite being directly affected by platform economies, automation, and data-driven systems. Youth and civil society voices are also still inconsistently integrated, even though they are among the most affected by digital technologies and are key drivers of innovation and accountability in digital spaces. As highlighted in our reflections on the 2026 AI Impact Summit in India (https://digitalrightsalliance.africa/reflections-for-africa-from-the-2026-ai-impact-summit-in-india/), there is a need to deliberately broaden participation beyond state and corporate actors to include these underrepresented constituencies, ensuring that global AI governance reflects real-world diversity and lived experience. To address these gaps, inclusion can be strengthened through structured mechanisms such as regional consultation processes, targeted stakeholder tracks for SMEs and informal sector actors, accessible submission platforms for issue papers, and funded participation for grassroots and youth representatives. In addition, partnerships with regional digital rights networks and civil society coalitions can help channel local perspectives into global policy discussions in a more systematic way.

Innovative engagement formats during the AI Dialogue should prioritize interaction, co-creation, and inclusive participation rather than traditional passive panel discussions. A multi-stakeholder co-creation format can be used, where governments, civil society, technical experts, youth, SMEs, and the private sector jointly work in structured sessions to develop shared recommendations, rather than speaking in isolation. Thematic breakout "labs" or working clinics can allow participants to jointly explore real governance challenges; such as algorithmic bias, data protection, and accountability in practical, solution-oriented discussions that connect technical and rights-based perspectives. Interactive regional dialogue sessions during the main forum can ensure that Global South perspectives are actively integrated in real time, rather than being treated as side contributions. Rapid response or "live case" sessions could also be introduced, where real-world AI incidents are discussed collaboratively to test governance responses and identify gaps. Then also; youth, civil society, and SME innovation showcases within the Dialogue can create space for lived experiences, grassroots solutions, and emerging innovations to directly inform global discussions.

At the global normative level, the UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence provides a human rights-based framework grounded in inclusion, sustainability, and ethical AI development. At the regional level, the African Union Continental Artificial Intelligence Strategy offers a coordinated African approach to AI governance focused on ethical use, capacity-building, and inclusive development, while the SADC Digital Transformation Strategy highlights the role of AI, big data, and high-performance computing in advancing digital transformation while emphasizing data sovereignty and bridging the digital divide. Similarly, the East African Community Artificial Intelligence Strategy (2026-2031) provides a regional framework for accelerating AI development and cooperation across member states. At the national level, countries such as Ghana are advancing AI governance through national strategies, including Ghana's AI Strategy (2025-2035), aimed at positioning the country as a regional hub for responsible AI development. In addition, the European Union AI Act represents a leading risk-based regulatory model that categorizes AI systems based on levels of risk and imposes corresponding governance requirements. Complementing these frameworks; practical tools such as algorithmic impact assessments, AI audits, and model transparency frameworks are increasingly used to assess bias, improve accountability, and strengthen oversight in deployed AI systems