The increasing use of automation in African public services has raised concerns about accountability and the potential for algorithms to harm citizens. When an automated system denies a social grant or misidentifies a person as a suspect, it can be difficult to determine who is responsible. This issue was recently discussed on The Angle Podcast, where public policy specialist Dr. TK Pooe emphasized the need for absolute accountability in statecraft. He argued that introducing technology into public administration does not absolve governments of their constitutional obligations.
Research from the Tayarisha African Centre of Excellence in Digital Governance has shown that automating public services without proper institutional capability can automate inequality. A study by public sector governance specialist Kenneth Riany found that algorithms can reproduce social marginalization, particularly in Kenya. Riany's research revealed that automated systems, such as GovBot and tax profiling, can target informal micro-enterprises while ignoring high-value corporate evasion. This has resulted in systematic allocation bias, exacerbating existing social inequalities.
The problem of algorithmic harm is not limited to Kenya. In South Africa, the use of proprietary software suites has created a procurement trap, where state departments buy software off the shelf but lack the technical competence to audit the code or provide support internally. This has led to a situation where bureaucrats can claim innocence by pointing to the screen, while private software vendors disclaim public liability behind intellectual property clauses. As a result, citizens are left with limited recourse when they are harmed by automated decisions.
The experience of the Indian state of Kerala offers a contrasting approach to automation in public services. Kerala rejected corporate lock-in and established in-house technical capacity within the civil service to build public technologies using free, open-source software. By training police officers and administrative personnel to code their own civic tools, Kerala ensured that public servants understood how decisions were generated and preserved human discretion alongside direct legal responsibility. This approach can serve as a model for African governments looking to automate public services while maintaining accountability.
However, the danger deepens when automated governance merges with security infrastructure. Researchers James Maisiri, Leroy Maisiri, and Blessing Mbalaka found that centralized digital tools can expand state surveillance rather than citizen empowerment. They argued that state-led digital transformation often mirrors colonial patterns of centralized social regulation, with technology becoming an instrument of social control rather than public service. This highlights the need for radical, bottom-up democratic oversight to ensure that state algorithms prioritize community well-being over elite interests.
Advocates of public sector automation often invoke efficiency as a defense, arguing that algorithmic scoring eliminates petty bribery and clears administrative backlogs. However, in the South African context, the constitutional reality collapses this technocratic defense. Section 33 of the Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to administrative action that is lawful and procedurally fair. When an algorithm executes a decision, procedural justice requires that the affected person receives intelligible reasons for the outcome.
Ultimately, the use of algorithms in public services raises important questions about accountability and the potential for harm. As African governments continue to automate public services, it is essential that they prioritize transparency, accountability, and citizen empowerment. This can be achieved by establishing in-house technical capacity, using open-source software, and ensuring that public servants understand how decisions are generated. By doing so, governments can ensure that automation serves the public interest rather than perpetuating inequality and social control.
Key points
- African governments must prioritize transparency and accountability when automating public services to prevent harm to citizens.
- The use of proprietary software suites can create a procurement trap, limiting accountability and perpetuating inequality.
- The experience of Kerala offers a model for African governments to follow, prioritizing in-house technical capacity and open-source software to ensure accountability and citizen empowerment.
