The meeting between INEC Chairman Prof. Joash Ojo Amupitan and Google’s Global Lead for Civic Responsibility, David J. Lopez, in Ottawa should be welcomed — but it should also provoke a much bigger conversation about foreign corporate power inside Nigeria’s democracy.
The meeting took place on the sidelines of the Global Conference on Responsible AI and Elections, where election-management bodies, technology companies and other stakeholders are discussing how artificial intelligence is changing elections. The conference itself is focused on AI governance, election administration, information integrity and cybersecurity.
There is nothing inherently wrong with INEC talking to Google.
In fact, it is necessary.
But Nigerians must understand the distinction between foreign technology companies helping Nigeria protect its elections and foreign companies becoming indispensable actors in deciding how Nigeria's elections are conducted, communicated or understood.
Those are two very different things.
Google has a role. It should not have sovereignty.
This is the principle Nigeria should take into the AI era:
Foreign companies can provide technology. They cannot become custodians of Nigerian democracy.
Google is enormously powerful.
Its search engine determines what millions of people see when they search for information.
YouTube influences what Nigerians watch.
Google's AI products increasingly influence how people obtain answers.
Its advertising ecosystem can influence political communication.
That means a company like Google can have an enormous indirect influence on democratic discourse without ever appearing on a ballot paper.
And that is precisely why Nigeria needs to engage companies like Google — while simultaneously being extremely careful about how much power it gives them.
Europe already understands this problem
This is where the European example becomes particularly revealing.
The European Union does not simply invite Google and other technology companies to sit around a table and hope they behave responsibly.
It is building rules around them.
The EU's Digital Services Act establishes obligations for very large platforms and search engines concerning systemic risks to elections. The European Commission has specifically identified risks involving AI-generated content, deepfakes, coordinated manipulation and false information about electoral processes.
During the 2024 European elections, the EU also worked with major platforms including Google, Meta, Microsoft and TikTok on measures to combat disinformation and AI-related election risks.
The European Commission has gone further.
It has requested information from Google Search and other major platforms about how they were mitigating generative-AI risks to elections, including deepfakes and automated manipulation that could mislead voters.
That is the difference.
Europe talks to Big Tech — but Europe also regulates Big Tech.
Nigeria must learn that lesson.
The mistake would be to confuse partnership with dependence
There is a legitimate reason INEC should speak to Google.
AI creates enormous opportunities for election administration.
INEC has reportedly begun deploying AI tools to identify discrepancies in election-result records ahead of the 2027 elections.
AI could help identify suspicious patterns, detect manipulated documents, analyse enormous quantities of election data and help election officials respond to misinformation.
Google has also previously supported Nigerian fact-checkers using AI tools developed by Full Fact to combat election misinformation.
These are useful collaborations.
But the relationship must stop there.
Nigeria should not outsource the architecture of its democracy to Silicon Valley.
Who controls the data?
This is the question that should be sitting at the centre of every conversation between INEC and foreign technology companies.
What happens to Nigerian electoral data?
Where is it stored?
Who can access it?
Who processes it?
Can it be transferred outside Nigeria?
Can foreign contractors use it to train artificial-intelligence systems?
What happens to metadata?
Who owns the analytical models developed from Nigerian electoral information?
Can Nigerian authorities independently audit the technology?
And, perhaps most importantly:
Can Nigeria continue operating its electoral systems if the foreign technology company suddenly withdraws its services?
These questions are not anti-Google.
They are basic questions of national sovereignty.
Elections are not another technology market
Nigeria has spent decades importing technology for critical sectors.
Banking.
Telecommunications.
Security.
Energy.
Transportation.
Digital payments.
Now artificial intelligence is entering elections.
There is a danger that Nigeria could repeat the same pattern: import the technology, depend on the foreign provider, accept the provider's standards and only later discover that critical national infrastructure has become dependent on a company headquartered thousands of kilometres away.
That is not technological development.
That is technological dependency.
Nigeria should be building domestic capacity alongside every international partnership.
If Google provides an AI tool, Nigerian engineers should understand how it works.
If Google assists with misinformation detection, Nigerian institutions should develop their own capability.
If foreign companies provide cybersecurity support, Nigeria should simultaneously train and equip its own cybersecurity teams.
If international companies help analyse election information, Nigeria should retain ownership and sovereign control over the underlying data.
The objective should be:
Learn from them. Build with them. But do not become dependent on them.
And this is where Africa needs to think differently
There is a broader African problem here.
The continent has repeatedly become the testing ground for technologies developed elsewhere.
Our data becomes valuable.
Our markets become valuable.
Our users become valuable.
Our elections become valuable.
But the infrastructure, intellectual property and strategic decision-making often remain elsewhere.
That model cannot continue indefinitely.
Africa cannot talk seriously about digital sovereignty while allowing foreign companies to control the technological infrastructure through which Africans increasingly communicate, transact, consume information and participate in politics.
Nigeria, as Africa's largest democracy by population, has a particular responsibility here.
Google should come to Nigeria — but Nigeria must remain in charge
There is nothing wrong with INEC sitting across the table from Google.
Actually, INEC should be sitting across the table from Google.
It should also be talking to Microsoft, Meta, YouTube, cybersecurity companies, Nigerian universities, Nigerian AI developers and African technology companies.
But the conversation should not be:
“How can Google help Nigeria run its elections?”
It should be:
“How can global technology companies support Nigeria's electoral institutions while Nigeria retains full control of its democracy, data and electoral infrastructure?”
That is a much healthier relationship.
And Nigeria should negotiate from strength.
Demand transparency.
Demand local capacity-building.
Demand data protection.
Demand auditability.
Demand technology transfer.
Demand Nigerian participation in the development of systems used on Nigerian elections.
And ensure that critical electoral infrastructure has a credible Nigerian alternative.
Because ultimately, Google does not vote in Nigeria. Nigerians do.
Google does not elect Nigeria's president.
Nigerians do.
Google does not own Nigeria's democracy.
Nigerians do.
The meeting in Ottawa can therefore be a good thing — provided Nigeria remembers what the relationship is supposed to be.
Foreign technology should strengthen Nigerian sovereignty, not quietly replace it.
And if Europe can invite Big Tech to the table while simultaneously building laws capable of restraining it, Nigeria should be asking why it cannot do the same.
That is the real lesson from the INEC–Google meeting.
Comments
Post a Comment