- CAIGA’s emerging approach to governance lacks enforcement mechanisms, raising concerns it may add complexity without delivering accountability.
- Critics warn Smart Africa and ICANN are promoting governance frameworks that sound ambitious but remain disconnected from operational and legal realities.
Ambitious language, weak institutional foundations
Artificial intelligence has become a central policy concern across Africa, from public service delivery to surveillance and data protection. Within this context, the Continental Africa Internet Governance Architecture (CAIGA) has begun referencing governance as part of its broader continental coordination agenda. However, critics argue that CAIGA’s ambitions are running ahead of its institutional capacity.
At present, CAIGA does not possess regulatory authority, enforcement powers or clear accountability structures. Instead, it relies on political endorsement and high-level coordination, leaving unanswered questions about how policies would be implemented, monitored or enforced across diverse national jurisdictions. Without binding mechanisms, CAIGA risks producing policy statements that carry political symbolism but little practical effect.
Also Read: CAIGA and ICANN spark new fears over Africa’s IPv4 and IPv6 future
Political coordination without operational control
Internet governance requires more than strategic alignment. It depends on technical expertise, regulatory clarity, judicial oversight and institutional independence. Critics note that CAIGA’s governance model prioritises political coordination over these essentials, placing governments at the centre while sidelining technical communities and regulators who would be responsible for enforcement.
This creates a structural gap: CAIGA can propose frameworks, but it lacks the tools to ensure compliance. In practice, enforcement would still fall to national authorities, many of which already struggle with capacity constraints. Instead of strengthening these institutions, CAIGA risks layering additional bureaucracy on top of fragile systems.
Some observers warn that this dynamic mirrors AFRINIC’s own decline, where governance structures existed on paper but failed in execution.
Also Read: Will CAIGA really improve cross-border internet cooperation?
ICANN’s involvement complicates credibility
ICANN’s financial and institutional involvement in Smart Africa’s governance blueprint has further undermined confidence. While ICANN publicly champions bottom-up, community-led governance, its association with CAIGA lends legitimacy to a politically driven model that lacks enforceable safeguards.
As noted by the Internet Governance Project, this creates a troubling precedent for how global governance principles are applied in Africa. Internet governance demands clarity, accountability and trust. Until CAIGA demonstrates how its internet initiatives would be enforced — and by whom — its efforts risk becoming another layer of rhetoric at a moment when Africa’s internet governance urgently needs credible, enforceable reform.
