Feature/OPED
Alliance of Sahel States: Beginner’s Guide
By Professor Maurice Okoli
Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger, the three Francophone West African countries under military government, have established an Alliance of Sahel States (AES, or Alliance des Etats du Sahel in French), which is a confederation formed between the above-mentioned three countries.
It originated as a mutual defence pact and was created by the three countries on September 16, 2023. The confederation was officially established on July 6, 2024. The AES is anti-French and anti-ECOWAS in outlook. All three member states of the AES have had their pro-Western governments overthrown by their militaries, and each is currently ruled by a military junta as part of the coup belt.
In 2002, Mali withdrew from the internationally backed G5 Sahel alliance, and Niger and Burkina Faso followed suit in 2023. This led to the dissolution of the G5 framework by its last two members, Chad and Mauritania. The AES has finally exited the African Union (AU) and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).
In addition to their enthusiasm to ensure long-term political power, the three have generally joined a growing list of African countries that are turning their economies into better environments for their millions of impoverished citizens.
Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger, in early July 2024, finally withdrew from the African Union and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and have further taken the next collective step to create their own sub-regional bloc referred to as the Alliance of Sahel States (AES).
The treaty underscores a “step towards greater integration” between the signatory countries. The pact is open to new members in the event that the candidate accepts all provisions and the ‘trio’ unanimously agrees on the decision.
In practical terms, the trio has repeatedly explained the primary reasons for the joint action as follows: (i) the AU and the ECOWAS’s significant failure to provide adequate support against fighting the jihadists; (ii) the imposition of ‘illegal sanctions’ that are harming the people; and (iii) that the bloc has fallen under the influence of and indiscriminately manipulated by foreign governments, particularly France. (iv) ECOWAS threatens to intervene to restore civilian rule in Niger.
The Alliance further seeks new members whose political philosophy aligns with the current development challenges. The new confederation’s document outlines various directions on its agenda, including establishing a regional bank and stabilisation fund. It has also issued an executive order to facilitate foreign investment in their territorial space.
The document clip circulated widely on social media, racking up thousands of views and introducing fresh debate around the fact that the former political system was stacked with bureaucracy and conservative policy.
A curious look inside the creation of the Alliance of Sahel States has been making resonating waves. The architects of this alliance, both online and offline, have accordingly been pushing the agenda. The Blueprint Document is open to the public and foreign organisations, the regional bloc ECOWAS, and the continental organisation AU.
Reports have indicated that the inaugural meeting was held on July 6 in Niamey, the capital of Niger, and was attended by President of Burkina Faso Ibrahim Traoré, Transitional President of the Republic of Mali Assimi Goita, and President of Niger’s National Council for the Safeguard of the Homeland, Abdourahamane Tchiani.
The Niamey Declaration, in which the ‘trio’ formally announced the establishment of the new confederation,’s primary multifaceted goals include consolidating joint efforts to ensure security and address the socioeconomic problems of the participating states. The alliance will also pursue and undertake joint development projects as well as address questions relating to trade, industry, and agriculture. The document holds the promise to facilitate the free movement of people, goods, and services.
The Alliance of Sahel States is resonating across the sub-region, across Africa, and beyond. Critics have labelled it a real ‘threat to democracy’ and a step to assert ‘an authoritarian’ takeover of political power and administration, while supporters call it a strategic plan to establish power as one ‘of the people, by the people, and for the people, and probably the irreversible beginning of an end of epoch, 500 years of colonialism.
The Alliance of Sahel States came under the spotlight after their July declaration. As expected in the context of the geopolitical situation and analysing the background of the complexities of the evolving political situation, especially in West Africa, it is very noticeable that the United States, Europe, and a few other external powers have stood on the opposite side.
On the other side, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in its weekly media briefing that while consistently advocating for ‘African solutions to African problems’, the initiative by the leaders of Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger fully meets the interests of the people of those countries. “We are confident that the Alliance of Sahel States will facilitate the formation of a new regional security architecture. Russia reaffirms its intention to continue to provide the necessary support to the countries of the Alliance of Sahel States,” the report said.
In another related development, Mali’s military leader, Assimi Goita, had spoken by phone with Russian President Vladimir Putin about political developments and his approach to settling the crisis in the region as a whole. Putin stressed “the importance of a peaceful resolution of the situation for a more stable Sahel,” according to the transcript posted to the Kremlin’s website.
Most probably, ECOWAS is now crumbling due to institutional weaknesses combined with being manipulated by external forces. There has been rising anti-western sentiment in the former French colonies. It is also due to the long-standing discontent with and the inability to support effectively in the fight against growing insecurity in the region. Reports say ECOWAS has been working to set up a standing regional force of between 1,500 and 5,000 soldiers, which reports estimate would cost about $2.6bn (£2bn) annually.
But for political observers, their split from ECOWAS comes with many potential ramifications, ranging from economics to security. Buchanan Ismael, a politics professor at the University of Rwanda, believes it “may increase the risk of insecurity” in an already volatile region infested with militant groups.
Hassan Isilow, a political analyst, says in his report that Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger have cemented their split from ECOWAS and formed their own Alliance of Sahel States.
The West Africa region could be headed for ‘foreign-imposed instability,’ warns the University of South Africa’s Ahmed Jazbhay.
More countries could’separate themselves from ECOWAS, if not through coups, then with anti-Western populists,’ says Rwanda-based analyst Buchanan Ismael.
The fact is that the common theme in their statements was greater integration between their countries—the majority of African states that have slowly but surely been drifting away from traditional regional and Western allies.
Research reports published by The Conversation, Agence France Press, British Broadcasting, and many other reputable media indicated that the unilateral withdrawal of three West African countries would be hit by trade regulations and restrictions, thus impacting the population and the economy.
The three are landlocked and among the poorest in the world; this already illustrates their major disadvantage and limited position. Several narratives further pointed to the fundamental fact that the crisis has the potential to escalate into either a conflict across West Africa or the final disintegration of ECOWAS.
In July 2024, Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger signed a confederation security pact and formalised their final exit from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the regional bloc that imposed sanctions on them after the coups in Mali in 2020, Burkina Faso in 2022, and Niger in 2023.
“This summit marks a decisive step for the future of our common space. Together, we will consolidate the foundations of our true independence, a guarantee of true peace and sustainable development, through the creation of the ‘Alliance of the Sahel States’ Confederation,” Traore said in a statement posted on X.
By creating their own Alliance of Sahel States, it exposes the regional bloc ECOWAS and the continental organisation AU’s powerlessness, multitude of weaknesses, and long-term inability and incompetency to deal with regional problems through mediation.
In the ECOWAS guidelines, Article 91 of the bloc’s treaty stipulates that member countries remain bound by their obligations for a period of one year after notification of their withdrawal. For better or for worse, these interim military governments have adopted a hardline stance, consistently delaying fixing concrete dates to hold democratic elections.
The AU Commission chief, Moussa Faki Mahamat, repainted the ‘bleak picture’ with a ‘litany of difficulties’ confronting many African countries during the 37th Ordinary Session of the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the African Union (AU) summit held, from February 14 to February 15, at the AU Headquarters in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. AUC chief Moussa Faki Mahamat assertively spoke of ‘worrying trends’ in North Africa, the Horn of Africa, and also in West Africa.
Moussa Faki Mahamat blasted the failure to counter multiple “unconstitutional changes of government” following a string of coups in West Africa and warned the scourge of “terrorism” was diverting money away from vital social needs to military spending. In practical reality, the summit was now concerned about looking inward, closely protecting their sovereign prerogatives rather than investing in collective security, somehow to fund most of its budget rather than foreign donors. Gabon and Niger were absent from the summit following their suspension over coups last year, joining Mali, Guinea, Sudan, and Burkina Faso, which are also barred for similar reasons.
As an expert in geopolitics and regional economic integration, it is important to take a close look at the possible obvious implications. Despite taking this innovative step, there are still obstacles and explicit challenges in the areas of coordination and cooperation. For instance, the fact that the three are geographically landlocked stipulates the questions of access to the coastline, logistics, and delivery of goods through seaports.
The next question that cannot be overemphasised is whether Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger are members of the West African Economic and Monetary Union, which uses the CFA franc as its common currency. The trio has to create their own currency if they are expelled from the West African Economic and Monetary Union.
Usually referred to as the West African Sahel, it is the vast semi-arid region where Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger, and other countries are located. This West African Sahel region has been plagued by security challenges, including terrorism and organised crime. Terrorist organisations such as Boko Haram, the Islamic State, and al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) have operated in the Sahel, exacerbating violence, extremism, and instability in the region.
According to the latest issue of the Global Terrorism Index, there is a strong link between organised crime and terrorism in this region. Terrorism is on the rise, and the Sahel accounts for almost half of all deaths from terrorism globally.
This is further exacerbated by the cross-border operations of armed groups and rising violent extremism. That, combined with widespread and growing desertification, contributes additional strain to the region’s development. Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger have a combined population of approximately 80 million people and some of the fastest population growth rates in the world. But development has been assessed as poor, far below what is needed to guarantee a normal living standard.
In addition to insecurity and instability, these countries are engulfed in various socio-economic problems combined with traditional cultural practices that have lessened development. The system of governance and poor policies largely hinder sustainable development.
In light of the above, ECOWAS will have to adapt its strategy to this new geopolitical reality. The AES could seek to establish or strengthen its partnerships with other international actors, such as Russia or China, of the multipolar BRICS Alliance, which have shown growing interest in Africa.
Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger together comprise some 72 million people, almost a fifth of the regional bloc’s population. It remains one of the least developed countries in the world, with a GDP of $16.23 billion in 2022. Geography and the environment contribute to Burkina Faso’s food insecurity.
Mali’s key industry is agriculture. Cotton is the country’s largest crop export and is exported west throughout Senegal and Ivory Coast. Gold is mined in the southern region, and Mali has the third-highest gold production in Africa (after South Africa and Ghana).
Niger is the second-largest landlocked nation in Africa, behind Chad. Over 80% of its land area lies in the Sahara. In 2021, Niger was the main supplier of uranium to the EU, followed by Kazakhstan and Russia. Despite its large deposit of uranium, Niger has a multidimensional underdevelopment, and 80% of its citizens consistently live in abject poverty.
The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) continues to look for appropriate mechanisms to resolve the ongoing crisis. The regional bloc has come under persistent criticism; it has slackened on its primary responsibilities, while some have called for drastic reforms and personnel changes (overhauling or restructuring), attributing to the complete inefficiency of the organisation.
Consisting of 15 member states, ECOWAS facilitates peacekeeping through systematic collaboration with civil society, cooperation with development policies, and other activities to meet sub-regional security challenges. Established on May 28, 1975, the bloc’s reputation has been at stake and most probably needs new dynamic faces at the Secretariat in Abuja, Nigeria.
Professor Maurice Okoli is a fellow at the Institute for African Studies and the Institute of World Economy and International Relations, Russian Academy of Sciences. He is also a fellow at the North-Eastern Federal University of Russia. He is an expert at the Roscongress Foundation and the Valdai Discussion Club.
As an academic researcher and economist with a keen interest in current geopolitical changes and the emerging world order, Maurice Okoli frequently contributes articles for publication in reputable media portals on different aspects of the interconnection between developing and developed countries, particularly in Asia, Africa, and Europe. With comments and suggestions, he can be reached via email: markolconsult (at) gmail (dot) com.
By Ivie Abiamuwe
Nigeria’s economic resilience has historically been driven by its nano and micro-enterprises, ranging from roadside kiosks to rapidly growing digital vendors. These businesses form a critical component of economic activity, employment generation, and community stability across the country.
These nano and micro-businesses form the bedrock of the country’s economic drive. According to the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) account for approximately 96% of businesses in Nigeria, contributing nearly 48% to the national GDP and employing over 80% of the workforce. Yet, despite their fundamental importance, many of these businesses operate without a formal financial structure or long-term strategic planning.
In 2026, this informal model is becoming increasingly unsustainable. As Nigeria continues to pursue broader economic ambitions, the transition from subsistence operations to strategic participation in the digital value chain is essential. Financial readiness has moved from being a social choice to a macroeconomic imperative.
A common misconception is that nano-SMEs are too small to integrate into formal financial systems. In reality, their collective impact is the primary engine of community stability. However, many operate with limited financial visibility, mixing personal and business finances and lacking the verifiable transaction histories required for credit assessments by financial institutions.
Businesses operating outside formal financial systems may face limitations in accessing structured financing and growth opportunities
Financial readiness begins with digital visibility. In today’s economy, businesses operating outside formal financial systems may face limitations in accessing structured financing and growth opportunities. Digital transactions and traceable expenses form a “financial footprint.” FairMoney Microfinance Bank provides digital financial solutions designed to support entrepreneurs in transitioning from informal cash-based operations to more structured financial practices.
The issue of credit remains a significant hurdle. While many entrepreneurs avoid formal borrowing, credit, when used responsibly, is a strategic growth tool rather than a liability. Building a track record of disciplined repayment increases trust and may improve access to financing opportunities, subject to applicable risk assessment and eligibility requirements.
Access to responsible and appropriately structured financial solutions can help small businesses manage short-term liquidity pressures, support inventory cycles, and improve operational resilience, subject to applicable terms and conditions. For longer-term scaling, fixed-term products allow entrepreneurs to lock away funds and accrue interest at applicable rates, supporting financial resilience over time.
One of the most persistent challenges facing nano-SMEs is the inability to separate personal and business finances. Without this separation, it is nearly impossible to determine if a business is truly profitable. Establishing a dedicated business account is a critical step toward the data-driven decision-making required to scale.
The Nigerian entrepreneur is globally recognised for resilience, but in a tightening regulatory framework, survival alone is no longer sufficient. The future belongs to businesses that are structured and financially prepared.
Financial readiness is the bridge between subsistence entrepreneurship and sustainable value creation. It transforms daily income into a system for building long-term capital. Nigeria does not lack entrepreneurial capacity; what is required is a stronger financial and structural foundation capable of translating that entrepreneurial energy into sustainable economic growth. For nano-SMEs, bridging the digital and structural gap is no longer optional—it is essential for long-term growth, resilience, and participation in Nigeria’s evolving economy.
Ivie Abiamuwe is the Director of Business Banking at FairMoney Business
By Sani Abdulrazak, PhD
It is a boom season for Nigerian Governors; at no time before have they had it this much. Huge sums of money are being allocated to them every month. To whom much is given, they say, much is expected. What are the visible things they have put in place commensurate with the allocations they receive? How do we hold them accountable for such?
Nigeria today faces one of the widest electricity supply gaps in the world. Despite having an installed generation capacity of over 13,000 megawatts, the country still struggles to generate and distribute between 4,000 and 5,500 megawatts on most days for a population exceeding 220 million people. Experts estimate that Nigeria requires at least 30,000 megawatts to enjoy stable and functional electricity, while industrial economies of comparable size generate far more. Recent reports from the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission and industry operators revealed that many power plants operate below 40 per cent capacity due to gas shortages, poor infrastructure, transmission bottlenecks, and weak investment. The consequences are devastating. Small businesses spend billions annually on diesel and petrol generators. Manufacturers relocate to neighbouring countries with better energy systems. Investors avoid regions where production costs are inflated by unstable electricity. According to several business and energy reports, unreliable electricity continues to cost Nigeria billions of dollars yearly in lost productivity, collapsed businesses, unemployment, and reduced foreign direct investment. In Northern Nigeria, especially, where industrialisation is already fragile, unstable electricity has become a direct enemy of economic growth, security, and prosperity.
Nothing will boost and improve our local economy, especially here in Northern Nigeria, like the provision of stable electricity. Recently, the president smartly threw the ball into our Governors’ court by signing the Electricity Act. The Electricity Act by Bola Ahmed Tinubu gave states the power to decentralise electricity. We have seen states like Abia State, Lagos State and Ogun State grabbing the opportunity with both hands in order to boost the local economy.
It left me wondering what Northern states are doing about this. Are our people aware of this great opportunity to compel our Northern Governors to provide stable electricity to us? Or are they so consumed with who occupies what office? Or “Falle nawa ne”? Why are our Northern know-it-all Analysts and intellectuals silent about this now, only to hammer on the same issue years later when the opportunity is probably no longer there? Will our traditional rulers save us by echoing it into our leaders’ ears?
Electricity is no longer merely a social amenity; it is the backbone of modern civilisation. Every thriving economy is powered first by energy before politics, rhetoric, or propaganda. Stable electricity determines whether factories operate efficiently, whether hospitals can preserve lives, whether schools can provide quality learning environments, whether technology hubs can emerge, and whether local entrepreneurs can compete globally. Nations do not industrialise in darkness. History has repeatedly shown that economic revolutions are built upon reliable energy systems. From China to India, from South Korea to Rwanda, serious governments understood that a constant electricity supply is the oxygen of development.
Sadly, Northern Nigeria still behaves as though electricity is a luxury rather than an economic necessity. In many parts of the region, communities spend more time discussing political appointments and ethnic calculations than discussing energy policy, industrial development, or economic competitiveness. Yet, no serious investor will establish industries where electricity remains uncertain for most hours of the day. No meaningful manufacturing revolution can occur where generators roar louder than factories. Our youths cannot become globally competitive in digital innovation when power outages interrupt learning, research, and productivity every few hours.
What makes the current moment even more painful is that the constitutional and legal opportunity now exists for states to take charge of their electricity future. The decentralisation enabled by the Electricity Act allows states to generate, transmit, and distribute electricity independently under their own regulatory frameworks. This means governors can no longer endlessly blame Abuja for every darkness their people endure. The era of absolute dependence on the national grid is gradually fading. States willing to think ahead can establish independent power projects, attract private investors, support renewable energy initiatives, and create regional energy markets capable of transforming their economies.
Already, signs of this new direction are emerging. Lagos State has moved aggressively toward controlling its electricity market and attracting independent suppliers. Energy reforms and localised agreements are being pursued to reduce dependence on the unstable national grid and improve supply to businesses and residents. Other states are beginning to recognise that power supply is no longer solely the responsibility of the Federal Government. The question now is whether Northern states will rise to the occasion or continue watching from the sidelines while others move ahead economically.
Even though the “fabled” Northern elites and elders are still struggling to define what regional development is, let alone develop a realistic framework and awareness about it, we would be grateful if they could lend a hand in the actualisation of a stable power supply, the stream that waters the root of development.
Kaduna State, for example, has a Governor amongst Governors, a serving Speaker of the Federal House of Representatives, and two senior, powerful ministers. I hope, pray, and expect Kaduna State to take the lead in the North in providing a stable, uninterrupted power supply to its people. Kaduna possesses the intellectual capacity, political influence, industrial history, and strategic importance to become the energy model for Northern Nigeria. If properly harnessed, stable electricity in Kaduna alone could revive industries, empower small businesses, strengthen agriculture processing, create jobs for thousands of youths, and attract investors back into the state.
Northern Nigeria cannot continue to lament insecurity, poverty, unemployment, and underdevelopment while ignoring one of the foundational pillars of economic transformation. Stable electricity will not solve every problem overnight, but without it, many other solutions will remain ineffective. We must begin to ask tougher questions of those entrusted with public resources. Citizens must move beyond political sentiments and demand measurable development. Governors who receive enormous allocations monthly must show visible investments in energy infrastructure, industrial expansion, and economic productivity.
The future belongs to regions that understand that development is deliberate, not accidental. We can no longer afford leadership without vision or citizens without demands. The opportunity is here. The law is now favourable. The resources are available. What remains is political will, public pressure, and leadership that understands that darkness has never built any civilisation.
Long live the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Sani Abdulrazak writes from Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria and can be reached via email at [email protected]
By Nafisat Damisa
Introduction
The proliferation of generative AI has transformed Nigeria’s cybercrime landscape, enabling deepfake fraud, automated social engineering, and AI-enhanced phishing at scale. In early 2024, scammers using AI-generated deepfake videos impersonating a company’s CFO defrauded a Hong Kong finance worker of $25.6 million. As similar threats emerge in Nigeria’s fintech sector, this article examines whether the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015 (as amended 2024) is legally adequate, or whether Nigeria’s evidentiary and accountability frameworks are too weak to support effective prosecution of AI-driven cybercrime
Current Legal Landscape
Nigeria’s primary legal framework on preventing cybercrime is the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015, amended in 2024 to address cryptocurrency transactions, cyberbullying and various forms of digital misconduct. Complementary frameworks include the National Information Technology Development Agency Act 2007, the Nigerian Data Protection Act 2023, and sectoral regulations such as the CBN’s Risk-Based Cybersecurity Framework. However, the majority of these frameworks were issued far before now, and emerging risks like AI-driven threats are not really being addressed. The Act nowhere mentions “artificial intelligence,” “algorithm,” or “autonomous system.” Notably, the National Artificial Intelligence Commission (Establishment) Bill, 2025, is currently pending before the Senate. If passed, it would establish a dedicated commission to coordinate AI strategy, research, and ethical deployment. However, the Bill in its present form focuses primarily on development and innovation promotion, with limited provisions on criminal liability, evidence handling, or enforcement against AI-facilitated cybercrime, leaving the core accountability and evidentiary gaps largely unaddressed.
AI as a Double-Edged Sword
AI paradoxically enables both defence and attack. Nigerian financial institutions deploy AI for real-time fraud detection and pattern recognition. Conversely, cybercriminals exploit generative AI for deepfake creation, automated credential stuffing, and convincing phishing tailored to Nigerian English and Pidgin. The same technology that powers fraud detection systems can be weaponised to evade them. Take justice delivery as an example, the Evidence Act 2011 (as amended 2023) admits computer-generated evidence under Section 84, but remains silent on AI’s capacity to seamlessly generate or alter electronic records, creating “doctored AI-generated evidence”. These and many more issues await Nigeria’s digital space in the coming years.
The Legal Gaps
There are multiple critical gaps that undermine AI governance. For this article, three are considered. First, no framework attributes criminal liability when an autonomous AI commits an offence. The question of whether the developer, user, or owner should bear criminal responsibility for the acts of an autonomous system remains entirely unanswered under Nigerian law, leaving prosecutors without a clear legal theory of culpability.
Second, Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011 governs computer-generated evidence but does not address AI-generated outputs. The Act’s definition of “computer” excludes AI’s cognitive processing capabilities, creating a statutory blind spot where evidence produced by generative or autonomous systems falls outside the existing admissibility framework.
Third, Nigeria lacks any framework for mandatory AI-generated content labelling, impeding deepfake traceability. Computer-generated evidence under Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011 remains admissible if unchallenged at trial, a dangerous precedent for AI evidence, as opposing parties may lack the technical capacity to mount any challenge at all.
Comparative Jurisdictions: Rich Laws, Tangible Results
Jurisdictions with advanced AI laws demonstrate clear outcomes. The EU AI Act (Regulation 2024/1689) mandates transparency obligations, requiring synthetic content labelling and informing individuals when interacting with AI systems; non-compliance triggers significant penalties. The US Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2023 is a proposed Act that will require impact assessments for high-risk AI systems in housing, credit, and employment, with FTC enforcement and a public repository. China implemented mandatory measures for the Identification of AI-generated (Synthetic) content. These rules, mandated by the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) and others, require explicit (visible labels) and implicit (watermarks/metadata) identification for all AI-generated text, images, audio, video, and virtual scenes to ensure transparency, traceability, and combat disinformation. These laws contribute to measurable results: forensic traceability, expedited prosecution of deepfake fraud, and clear liability chains. Nigeria has none of these.
Hope or Illusion?
Without legislative intervention, AI’s promise against cybercrime remains an illusion. Nigeria requires the following to boost its hope:
- Amendment of the Cybercrimes Act to include AI-specific offences and mandatory content provenance standards;
- Revision of Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011 to address AI-generated evidence credibility, not merely admissibility;
- Investment in digital forensic capabilities is currently hampered by inadequate enforcement, weak forensic capabilities, and a lack of specialised personnel; and
- A risk-based framework drawing from EU and US models.
- Review of both secondary and tertiary education curricula to address the knowledge gap in AI and prepare the next generation for the AI-driven future.
Conclusion
AI can help curb cybercrime in Nigeria, but only if legal capacity catches up with technical capability. The Cybercrimes Act 2024 amendments were a step forward, but they did not address AI accountability, algorithmic transparency, or evidentiary credibility. The pending National Artificial Intelligence Commission Bill, 2025, signals legislative awareness, but without substantive provisions on liability, evidence, and enforcement, it cannot fill the existing gaps. The effectiveness of existing frameworks remains a question. An optimistic but cautious path exists, but until Nigeria enacts AI-specific legislation, whether through amending the Cybercrimes Act, revising the Evidence Act, or strengthening the pending Bill, weak laws will remain unable to support strong technology.
Nafisat Damisa is a Legal Research Associate in Olives and Candles – Legal Practitioners. For further information, enquiries, or clarification, please contact Nafisat via: [email protected] or [email protected]
-
Feature/OPED6 years agoDavos was Different this year
-
Travel/Tourism10 years ago
Lagos Seals Western Lodge Hotel In Ikorodu
-
Showbiz3 years agoEstranged Lover Releases Videos of Empress Njamah Bathing
-
Banking8 years agoSort Codes of GTBank Branches in Nigeria
-
Economy3 years agoSubsidy Removal: CNG at N130 Per Litre Cheaper Than Petrol—IPMAN
-
Banking3 years agoSort Codes of UBA Branches in Nigeria
-
Banking3 years agoFirst Bank Announces Planned Downtime
-
Sports3 years agoHighest Paid Nigerian Footballer – How Much Do Nigerian Footballers Earn