By Hafeni Kashimbonde
Just last week at the opening of the 9th National ICT Summit in Ongwediva, Information Communication and Technology Minister Emma Theofelus announced that Cabinet has directed her ministry together with the Office of the Prime Minister to co-develop an internal AI policy aimed at civil servants to dictate how they can safely and ethically use artificial intelligence in public administration.
While this directive heavily impacts the broader public sector it strictly focuses on public service and civil servants, effectively remaining silent on immediate binding mandates for the private sector and parastatals.
What does this mean?
An Office of the Prime Minister internal public service directive does not automatically bind parastatals outside of their explicit statutory mandates unless it is formally extended to them through a broader national framework.
The operational and administrative mandate of the office is grounded in the Public Service Act, 1995 (Act 13 of 1995) which applies solely to core government entities and explicitly omits parastatals.
Challenge:
Parastatals often govern critical national assets such as power grids, water supplies transportation and network. They also adopt AI innovation such as predictive maintenance, workflow and process intelligence much faster than traditional ministries do.
Left outside a structured national AI framework, these entities may adopt siloed, unregulated AI tools which can expose critical infrastructure to automated cyberattacks and algorithmic manipulation.
Unlike the state, parastatals deploy automated technologies that directly impact citizens, such as allocating social grants, processing tax data, or determining municipal services.
Failing to mandate strict algorithmic accountability and bias checks on these entities can lead to catastrophic service failures. These should have been prioritized.
When an AI system deployed by a private firm like “Old Mutual” fails for example, liability laws are relatively straightforward. However, when an autonomous or automated system operated by the “Ministry of Finance” causes a massive breakdown in Tax refund payments, this lack of clarity leaves affected citizens with limited legal recourse and creates confusion within state legal departments.
Solution:
Even in the absence of explicit, standalone national AI laws, parastatals remain bound by corporate governance laws, companies acts, and national privacy protections (e.g., POPIA in South Africa or Data Protection Bills in Namibia).
Parastatals that embed responsible AI governance practices in their business now will not only be better positioned to comply with future AI regulation, but will also satisfy their current legal obligations and meet the growing expectations of investors, counterparties and regulators.
*Hafeni Kashimbonde is an independent governance expert and the former company secretary at FirstRand group and FNB Namibia. He currently lends his expertise to Joburg Ballet as a member of two key boards: the Social, Ethics and Transformation Committee and the Remuneration, Nominations and Governance Committee.
