On the first of March, the new Law on Artificial Intelligence came into effect in Vietnam.
At first glance, this may seem like a distant development in Southeast Asia. But in truth, it is a moment that should ring loudly in Harare, particularly within the corridors of our Ministry of ICT, Postal and Courier Services.
Vietnam, a country not often counted among the world’s AI superpowers, has just passed one of the most comprehensive AI laws anywhere. And it did so with a clear eye on both protecting its citizens and attracting global investment. Zimbabwe, having only recently launched its National AI Strategy, should take careful note.
What makes Vietnam’s law remarkable is not simply its existence, but its design. It borrows heavily from the European Union’s AI Act, adopting a risk-based approach that classifies AI systems according to the level of potential harm they pose.High-risk applications, such as those in healthcare, finance, justice and education, face strict requirements including human oversight, conformity assessments and national registration. Medium-risk systems must meet transparency obligations. And crucially, the law applies extraterritorially.
If your AI system touches Vietnamese users, you are in scope, no matter where your headquarters are. This is what commentators have called the “Brussels Effect”, the ripple of European regulatory standards across the globe. Vietnam has embraced it, and in doing so has positioned itself as a serious player in the governance of emerging technologies.
Now, why should Zimbabwe care? We should care because we, too, have ambitions to harness AI for national development. Our National AI Strategy, launched with much fanfare, sets out a vision for how AI can transform sectors from agriculture to health, from education to mining. But a strategy without a legal backbone risks being little more than aspiration. Investors, innovators and citizens alike need clarity.
They need to know the rules of the game. They need assurance that Zimbabwe is not only open to AI but is ready to govern it responsibly. Vietnam has shown that even countries outside the traditional centres of technological power can lead by crafting laws that balance flexibility with seriousness. Zimbabwe should follow suit.
Consider the deliberate flexibility built into Vietnam’s law. The Prime Minister can update the list of high-risk systems in real time, ensuring that regulation keeps pace with technological change. Sandbox testing is available for sensitive applications, allowing innovation to flourish under controlled conditions.
- Time running out for SA-based Zimbos
- Sally Mugabe renal unit disappears
- Epworth eyes town status
- Commodity price boom buoys GB
Keep Reading
And there are no hard caps on penalties, meaning enforcement can be tailored to the gravity of violations. This is not a regulation designed to stifle. It is a regulation designed to attract. It signals to the world: “We are serious about AI, but we are also open for business.” Zimbabwe, too, must send such a signal. Otherwise, we risk being seen as a country with lofty strategies but no teeth.
Let us be frank. Zimbabwe’s digital economy is still in its infancy compared to regional peers. Yet this is precisely why we must act boldly. Singapore has a voluntary model framework. Malaysia and Indonesia are still drafting theirs. Vietnam has leapt ahead.
If Zimbabwe were to craft a comprehensive AI law now, we would not only support our national strategy but also position ourselves as a continental leader. Imagine the message it would send: that Zimbabwe is not waiting for others to dictate the terms of AI governance, but is shaping them, and we are ready to protect our citizens from harm while inviting responsible innovation. And that we are serious about building trust in technology.
There is also a matter of sovereignty. AI systems developed abroad are already impacting Zimbabwean users. Social media algorithms, financial scoring tools, health diagnostics — these are not confined by borders. Without a law, we have little leverage to demand accountability from foreign providers.
Vietnam’s extra-territorial scope is a masterstroke. It ensures that any company whose systems touch Vietnamese users must comply. Zimbabwe should adopt the same principle. Why should our citizens be treated as second-class users, subject to whatever standards foreign companies choose to apply? A law would give us the authority to insist on fairness, transparency and safety.
Of course, some will argue that Zimbabwe should not rush into regulation. That we should wait, observe, and learn from others. But waiting carries risks. It risks leaving our citizens unprotected. It risks discouraging serious investors who seek regulatory certainty. And it risks undermining our own national strategy. The truth is that regulation need not be heavy-handed.
Vietnam’s example shows that it can be flexible, adaptive, and even attractive to business. What matters is the signal it sends: that Zimbabwe is ready to govern AI with seriousness and foresight.
Let us picture the possibilities. A Zimbabwean AI law could establish clear categories of risk, ensuring that high-stakes applications in justice or healthcare are subject to human oversight. It could create sandboxes where innovators can test new ideas under supervision.
It could empower regulators to update rules as technology evolves. And it could extend its reach beyond our borders, insisting that any system impacting Zimbabwean users meets our standards. Such a law would not only protect citizens but also encourage responsible investment. It would align perfectly with our National AI Strategy, giving it the legal muscle it needs to succeed.
There is also a broader continental dimension. Africa is often portrayed as a passive recipient of technology, rather than a shaper of its governance. But this need not be the case. If Zimbabwe were to pass a comprehensive AI law, we could inspire others across the region. We could contribute to a uniquely African voice in global debates on AI.
We could show that governance is not the preserve of the wealthy or the technologically dominant, but of any nation willing to act with vision. Vietnam has done it. Why not Zimbabwe?
The Ministry of ICT, Postal and Courier Services now faces a choice. It can treat the National AI Strategy as a stand-alone vision, hoping that voluntary guidelines and piecemeal policies will suffice. Or it can seize the moment, drafting a law that gives the strategy real force. The latter path is harder, yes. It requires consultation, drafting, and political will. But it is also the path that will secure Zimbabwe’s place in the global AI landscape. It is the path that will protect our citizens, attract investment, and demonstrate leadership.
Vietnam’s law is not perfect. No law ever is. But it is bold, comprehensive, and flexible. It is a clear statement that Vietnam intends to be taken seriously in the governance of AI. Zimbabwe should take inspiration.
We should not wait for others to dictate the terms of engagement. We should craft our own law, tailored to our realities, aligned with our strategy, and ambitious in its scope. The world is watching. Investors are watching. Our citizens are watching. Let us not be left behind.
In the end, the question is simple: do we want Zimbabwe to be a passive consumer of AI, subject to the rules of others? Or do we want Zimbabwe to be an active shaper of AI governance, protecting our people and attracting responsible innovation? Vietnam has answered that question with clarity. It is time for Zimbabwe to do the same.
Dr Evans Sagomba is a Doctor of Philosophy and Chartered Marketer (CMktr, FCIM) with an MPhil and PhD in Philosophy. He specialises in AI, Ethics, and Policy Research, and is an AI Governance and Policy Consultant. Master's and PhD supervisor. AI Ethics and Governance Lecturer. [email protected] Social media handles; LinkedIn; @ Dr. Evans Sagomba (MSc Marketing) (FCIM)(MPhil) (PhD);X: @esagomba
