Owning the future: Why AI risk belongs in the African boardroom
Artificial intelligence is no longer an experiment on the fringes of innovation. It now shapes how African businesses operate, how governments deliver services, and how societies make decisions. Yet as organisations integrate AI into their systems, a critical governance question emerges: who truly owns AI risk?
For many organisations, that answer remains blurred. Too often, AI risk is viewed as a problem for data scientists or chief technology officers – a technical matter rather than a governance one. This thinking is dangerously outdated. AI, like cybersecurity before it, is a business risk. Its ownership does not lie with those who build models, but with those who decide how and where those models are used. Boards and executives, not technologists, carry the ultimate accountability for how AI impacts trust, reputation, and enterprise value.
The board’s new accountability
Across Africa, boards now face a fiduciary and ethical duty to ensure AI is governed responsibly. This is not about signing off on “innovation” budgets or celebrating digital achievements; it is about asking the difficult, strategic questions that determine whether AI strengthens or undermines the business. What risks are we accepting? What ethical trade-offs are being made? How transparent are our AI-driven decisions? And what is the real cost if things go wrong?
Read also: Can Artificial Intelligence ever truly write Literature?
AI systems evolve continuously. They learn, adapt, and sometimes behave in unexpected ways. The risks they create – bias, misinformation, regulatory breaches, discrimination, or erosion of consumer trust – can be systemic and enduring. When these outcomes occur, the blame rarely rests with the technical team that wrote the code. Accountability sits squarely with the leadership that failed to ensure governance was fit for purpose.
“Building ownership begins with literacy. Directors must understand the capabilities and limits of AI, stay informed about emerging laws, and require management to maintain registers of AI use cases, risk assessments, and assurance reports.”
Owning AI risk, therefore, demands more than technical literacy; it requires risk literacy. Boards must treat AI with the same seriousness they apply to financial, operational, or reputational risk. They must ensure clear governance frameworks, well-defined responsibilities, and transparent reporting lines. This is not about understanding every algorithm; it’s about understanding the organisational decisions made because of those algorithms.
Lessons from cyber-risk
The trajectory feels familiar. Only a few years ago, cybersecurity was misunderstood as an IT issue until boards recognised that the fallout from a breach (regulatory fines, market losses, reputational damage) landed on their desks, not the CISO’s. The same awakening is now necessary for AI.
Technical teams can flag vulnerabilities and recommend safeguards, but it is the board and C-suite who must decide: are we willing to take this risk, or do we pay to reduce it? That decision is an exercise in judgement, not coding. The board defines the boundaries between innovation and integrity, between efficiency and ethics.
If African boards fail to grasp this, the consequences will extend far beyond compliance failures. They risk eroding public trust and forfeiting the continent’s growing reputation for responsible digital transformation. But those who rise to the challenge will lead in governance and in influence, shaping how Africa defines trust in the age of intelligent systems.
The African leadership moment
AI governance may well become Africa’s most defining leadership differentiator. The boards that take ownership will inspire investor confidence, attract ethical innovation, and set the tone for sustainable transformation.
Read also: Artificial Intelligence is a contradiction in terms
Building ownership begins with literacy. Directors must understand the capabilities and limits of AI, stay informed about emerging laws, and require management to maintain registers of AI use cases, risk assessments, and assurance reports. Some may even establish AI governance committees parallel to audit or risk committees, as a signal that AI has become integral to enterprise oversight.
Ultimately, the question “Who owns AI risk?” has only one right answer: the board and executive leadership. AI may run on algorithms, but its consequences run on human judgement. And that judgement and the courage to govern with foresight, integrity, and accountability start at the very top.
About the author:
Amaka Ibeji is a Boardroom Certified Qualified Technology Expert and a Digital Trust Visionary. She is the founder of PALS Hub, a digital trust and assurance company, Amaka coaches and consults with individuals and companies navigating careers or practices in privacy and AI governance. Connect with her on linkedin: amakai or email [email protected]
