ARTIFICIAL intelligence (AI) is no longer the stuff of science fiction. It is here, woven into the fabric of our daily lives, from the algorithms that recommend what we watch on television to the systems that increasingly guide decisions in healthcare, banking, and even governance.
Yet as we hand over critical choices to intelligent machines, we must pause and ask: where does responsibility lie when AI makes consequential decisions?
This is not a theoretical puzzle for philosophers alone. Around the world, we are witnessing real cases where the lines between human and machine decision-making blur.
A self-driving car causes an accident. A medical diagnostic system misclassifies a patient’s condition. A recruitment algorithm filters out candidates based on biased data.
In each case, the question of accountability becomes urgent. Is it the programmer, the company, the regulator, or the machine itself that bears responsibility?
Zimbabwe cannot afford to treat this as a distant debate. As our nation embraces digital transformation, from e-government platforms to AI-driven broadcasting, we are entering the same ethical terrain.
The choices we make now will determine whether AI enhances human agency or diminishes it. And the stakes are high: justice, dignity and sovereignty are all on the line.
Zimbabwe’s journey with technology is unique. We are a society deeply rooted in communal traditions, guided by values such as Ubuntu, the philosophy that “I am because we are”.
- Harvest hay to prevent veldfires: Ema
- Public relations: How artificial intelligence is changing the face of PR
- Queen Lozikeyi singer preaches peace
- Public relations: How artificial intelligence is changing the face of PR
Keep Reading
This worldview emphasises responsibility, reciprocity and collective well-being. Yet AI systems are often designed in contexts far removed from our cultural realities, imported wholesale from Silicon Valley or Shenzhen.
Consider broadcasting, a sector central to our democracy and cultural identity. AI is already being explored to automate content curation, monitor compliance, and even generate synthetic voices.
But who decides what is “appropriate” content? If an AI system flags a programme as politically sensitive, is that a neutral technical decision or a form of censorship? And if citizens feel their voices are silenced, who is accountable: the broadcaster, the regulator, or the algorithm?
This is why Zimbabwe must craft its own ethical guardrails. We cannot simply adopt Western or Chinese models of AI governance. Our frameworks must reflect our values, our history, and our aspirations.
Accountability in AI must be contextualised to Zimbabwean society, ensuring that technology serves the public interest rather than underme it.
Let us imagine a dialogue. A policymaker argues that responsibility lies with the state: “If AI systems are deployed in healthcare or transport, the government must regulate them strictly. Citizens must be protected”.
A technologist counters: “But innovation thrives on freedom. If we over-regulate, we will stifle creativity and investment. Responsibility should lie with developers and companies who design these systems”.
A philosopher interjects: “Neither view is sufficient. Responsibility must be shared. AI systems are socio-technical constructs; they involve programmers, corporations, regulators, and users. Accountability must be distributed across this ecosystem”.
This dialogue is not mere rhetoric. It reflects the reality that AI ethics cannot be solved by one actor alone. Zimbabwe needs a national conversation that brings together government, industry, academia, civil society and ordinary citizens.
Only through dialogue can we define the ethical guardrails that balance innovation with responsibility.
Healthcare is perhaps the most sensitive domain where AI is being introduced. Imagine an AI diagnostic tool deployed in a rural clinic in Matabeleland. It analyses patient data and recommends treatment. If the system errs, the consequences could be fatal. Who is responsible? The nurse who trusted the machine? The company that built the algorithm?
The ministry of Health and Child Care approved its use? Or the AI itself?
Zimbabwe must resist the temptation to treat AI as infallible.
Machines are only as good as the data they are trained on. If that data reflects biases, for example, underrepresentation of African populations in global medical datasets, then the AI will reproduce those biases.
Accountability frameworks must, therefore, ensure transparency: citizens should know how decisions are made, what data is used, and who can be held to account when things go wrong.
The global debate on self-driving cars may seem far removed from Zimbabwe, but it is not. As our cities modernise and as regional integration brings new technologies to our roads, autonomous systems will eventually arrive. Picture a driverless bus in Harare. It swerves to avoid a pedestrian but collides with another vehicle. Who is responsible, is it the manufacturer, the software engineer or the municipal authority that licensed the bus?
These scenarios may sound futuristic, but they highlight the urgency of establishing clear liability frameworks. Zimbabwe’s legal system must evolve to address questions of machine agency. Our courts must be prepared to adjudicate cases where human and machine responsibility intersect.
The intersection of technology, ethics and law is one of the most crucial challenges of our time. Zimbabwe has already taken steps, such as the Cyber and Data Protection Act of 2021, which seeks to balance security with rights. But this is only the beginning.
We need comprehensive AI legislation that addresses:
Transparency: Citizens must understand how AI systems make decisions;
Accountability: Clear lines of responsibility must be drawn between developers, companies, regulators, and users;
Justice: AI must not reproduce or amplify social inequalities;
Cultural sovereignty: AI governance must reflect Zimbabwean values, not imported models.
This is not about stifling innovation. On the contrary, ethical guardrails will build trust, encouraging citizens to embrace AI rather than fear it.
Here lies the opportunity. By proactively addressing these moral and legal frameworks now, Zimbabwe can shape an AI future that enhances rather than diminishes human agency.
We can build systems where accountability is clear, justice is served, and innovation thrives within ethical boundaries.
Imagine an AI-powered broadcasting sector that amplifies diverse voices while safeguarding editorial independence. Imagine healthcare systems where AI supports doctors without replacing human judgment. Imagine transport systems where safety is paramount, and liability is transparent. These are not utopian dreams. They are achievable outcomes if we act now.
Balancing innovation with responsibility is not easy. It requires courage, foresight, and dialogue. But it is essential. Without accountability, AI risks becoming a tool of injustice, eroding trust and undermining human dignity. With accountability, AI can become a force for good, empowering citizens and strengthening our democracy. The choice is ours. And the time to act is now.
- Sagomba is a chartered marketer, policy researcher, AI governance and policy consultant, ethics of war and peace research consultant. — Email: [email protected]. LinkedIn: @Dr. Evans Sagomba Dr. Evans Sagomba (MSc Marketing)(FCIM )(MPhil) (PhD) X: @esagomba.
