Toward AI Governance Alignment in Africa, Middle East, and Türkiye (AMET) Region
Global Center on AI Governance (GCG) (2026), 54 pp.
"The analysis begins by identifying the core “centric approaches” that guide Artificial Intelligence (AI) national strategies. These include security-anchored models driven by state control, innovation-led frameworks that prioritise competitiveness, rights-based regimes centred on fundamental protections, and developmental approaches focused on public service delivery and technological catch-up. Each approach expresses incentives, risk perceptions and administrative capacities. Out of these foundational choices, there are different groupings. Various regions within AMET are adopting recognisable patterns of regulation that reflect their political economies, institutional structures and geopolitical positions. These groupings are not static categories, but evolving alignments shaped by domestic pressures, supply-chain dependencies and shifting global power dynamics.
Across all regions, a set of cross-cutting issues consistently shapes the regulatory landscape. Data protection and interoperability remain central, alongside growing demands for accountability, explainability and robust auditing. Standards and certification are emerging as tools for both trustbuilding and geopolitical influence. Sector-specific rules in finance, health, education and public administration are increasingly decisive. Capacity constraints, fiscal limits and uneven institutional strength continue to define what is realistically possible for many governments. Geopolitical tensions and cloud concentration reinforce questions around sovereignty, infrastructure control and long-term strategic autonomy. This report translates these insights into practical implications for states, regional bodies and technology firms. It highlights workable pathways for reconciling innovation with safety, managing cross-border data flows, and building resilient digital infrastructure. It also identifies areas where architecture choices such as regional cloud centres, culturally calibrated testing layers and tiered sovereignty models can support both regulatory goals and developmental priorities. The recommendations emphasise flexible alignment, cooperation through standards, and the need for shared mechanisms that accommodate political diversity while reducing fragmentation. Taken together, the framework provides a stable and operational way of understanding global AI regulation. It clarifies the interests driving different jurisdictions, the pressures that shape convergence or divergence, and the strategic considerations that technology firms and policymakers must navigate as the regulatory environment continues to evolve." (Executive summary)
Across all regions, a set of cross-cutting issues consistently shapes the regulatory landscape. Data protection and interoperability remain central, alongside growing demands for accountability, explainability and robust auditing. Standards and certification are emerging as tools for both trustbuilding and geopolitical influence. Sector-specific rules in finance, health, education and public administration are increasingly decisive. Capacity constraints, fiscal limits and uneven institutional strength continue to define what is realistically possible for many governments. Geopolitical tensions and cloud concentration reinforce questions around sovereignty, infrastructure control and long-term strategic autonomy. This report translates these insights into practical implications for states, regional bodies and technology firms. It highlights workable pathways for reconciling innovation with safety, managing cross-border data flows, and building resilient digital infrastructure. It also identifies areas where architecture choices such as regional cloud centres, culturally calibrated testing layers and tiered sovereignty models can support both regulatory goals and developmental priorities. The recommendations emphasise flexible alignment, cooperation through standards, and the need for shared mechanisms that accommodate political diversity while reducing fragmentation. Taken together, the framework provides a stable and operational way of understanding global AI regulation. It clarifies the interests driving different jurisdictions, the pressures that shape convergence or divergence, and the strategic considerations that technology firms and policymakers must navigate as the regulatory environment continues to evolve." (Executive summary)
"Africa, Middle East, and Türkiye (AMET) constitutes a contested space where competing AI governance paradigms collide. European Union (EU) rights-based frameworks, United States (US) market-driven approaches, and China’s state-centric models all vie for influence, yet none achieves hegemony. This paradigmatic competition creates conditions for genuine regulatory innovation rather than mere template adoption. Unlike regions where single models dominate (EU’s GDPR supremacy in Europe, China’s Cybersecurity Law domestically), AMET’s heterogeneity compels states to actively choose, adapt, or synthesize approaches, revealing the material and political factors shaping regulatory trajectories.
Central to AMET countries’ adoption of AI as a strategic asset is the development of governance systems capable of unlocking AI’s potential to transform national economies. In this context, digital sovereignty is increasingly framed as a means for states to assert control over how AI is developed and deployed within their borders. While the term is used in different ways, it commonly captures (i) state autonomy—the ability to take independent decisions about digital infrastructure and technology deployment; (ii) economic autonomy—a broader industrial policy orientation that links digital control to the transformation of key sectors; and (iii) user autonomy, which the African Union also frames as data justice. This third dimension responds to the risk that growing reliance on data—particularly in automated decisionmaking—may reproduce historical injustices and structural inequalities. In the AU’s framing, data justice is concerned with fairness in relation to who is visible, represented, underrepresented, or discriminated against through the production and use of digital data. Taken together, digital sovereignty is not only about managing dependencies; it also entails building infrastructures of control that make meaningful governance possible.
Digital sovereignty can therefore be understood as both a legal and infrastructural claim: a call not merely for jurisdiction, but for the capacity to securely store, process, and govern data and digital products in ways that advance national development goals. In the African context, persistent infrastructure deficits and limited financing have encouraged an increasingly regional framing of digital sovereignty—one that emphasizes integration and collective action to maximise competitive advantage across the continent. Consequently, the AMET region embodies the sovereignty paradox. Colonial legacies such as the rigidity of inherited colonial legislative frameworks shape contemporary AI governance through infrastructural dependencies and developmental path constraints rather than direct legal inheritance. Yet simultaneously, AMET states pursue aggressive sovereignty assertions; Nigeria has issued policy guidelines encouraging local content thresholds in public-sector ICT procurement, though enforcement varies across agencies; Saudi Arabia’s draft Global AI Hub Law proposes ‘data embassies’ where foreign data centres operate under foreign law on Saudi soil; Senegal explicitly frames data policy as resistance to ‘digital colonialism.’ This tension between inherited dependencies and sovereignty ambitions generates distinctive governance patterns absent in regions with either secure technological autonomy (North America, East Asia) or resigned dependency (some Pacific and Caribbean states)." (Introduction, pages 5-6)
Central to AMET countries’ adoption of AI as a strategic asset is the development of governance systems capable of unlocking AI’s potential to transform national economies. In this context, digital sovereignty is increasingly framed as a means for states to assert control over how AI is developed and deployed within their borders. While the term is used in different ways, it commonly captures (i) state autonomy—the ability to take independent decisions about digital infrastructure and technology deployment; (ii) economic autonomy—a broader industrial policy orientation that links digital control to the transformation of key sectors; and (iii) user autonomy, which the African Union also frames as data justice. This third dimension responds to the risk that growing reliance on data—particularly in automated decisionmaking—may reproduce historical injustices and structural inequalities. In the AU’s framing, data justice is concerned with fairness in relation to who is visible, represented, underrepresented, or discriminated against through the production and use of digital data. Taken together, digital sovereignty is not only about managing dependencies; it also entails building infrastructures of control that make meaningful governance possible.
Digital sovereignty can therefore be understood as both a legal and infrastructural claim: a call not merely for jurisdiction, but for the capacity to securely store, process, and govern data and digital products in ways that advance national development goals. In the African context, persistent infrastructure deficits and limited financing have encouraged an increasingly regional framing of digital sovereignty—one that emphasizes integration and collective action to maximise competitive advantage across the continent. Consequently, the AMET region embodies the sovereignty paradox. Colonial legacies such as the rigidity of inherited colonial legislative frameworks shape contemporary AI governance through infrastructural dependencies and developmental path constraints rather than direct legal inheritance. Yet simultaneously, AMET states pursue aggressive sovereignty assertions; Nigeria has issued policy guidelines encouraging local content thresholds in public-sector ICT procurement, though enforcement varies across agencies; Saudi Arabia’s draft Global AI Hub Law proposes ‘data embassies’ where foreign data centres operate under foreign law on Saudi soil; Senegal explicitly frames data policy as resistance to ‘digital colonialism.’ This tension between inherited dependencies and sovereignty ambitions generates distinctive governance patterns absent in regions with either secure technological autonomy (North America, East Asia) or resigned dependency (some Pacific and Caribbean states)." (Introduction, pages 5-6)
1 Introduction, 5
2 Understanding AI Regulation Across the AMET Region, 9
3 AMET Country Snapshots on Applicable AI Governance Frameworks, 15
4 REGIONAL APPROACHES TO AI GOVERNACE, 23
4.1. Africa: Overview & Trends, 23
4.2. Middle East: Overview & Trends, 31
4.3. Türkiye: Overview & Trends, 36
5 Key Themes & Cross-Cutting Issues, 39
6 Conclusion: Policy Implications & Recommendations, 46
2 Understanding AI Regulation Across the AMET Region, 9
3 AMET Country Snapshots on Applicable AI Governance Frameworks, 15
4 REGIONAL APPROACHES TO AI GOVERNACE, 23
4.1. Africa: Overview & Trends, 23
4.2. Middle East: Overview & Trends, 31
4.3. Türkiye: Overview & Trends, 36
5 Key Themes & Cross-Cutting Issues, 39
6 Conclusion: Policy Implications & Recommendations, 46
