The Institute for Social Accountability (TISA) Executive Director and governance advocate Diana Gichengo has cautioned Kenya against expediting legislation on artificial intelligence before the country fully comprehends the rapidly evolving technology, warning that premature regulation could inadvertently stifle innovation and create unnecessary bureaucratic duplication.
Speaking on the third day of the Law Society of Kenya Annual Conference in Diani, Gichengo said the deliberations had provided an illuminating platform for examining the transformative influence of artificial intelligence on Kenya’s legal, electoral, economic and governance landscape.
She observed that AI was no longer a peripheral technological phenomenon, but an increasingly consequential instrument capable of reshaping public administration, commercial enterprise, legal practice and democratic processes.
Gichengo said the conference had demonstrated that Kenya possesses a growing pool of professionals with specialised expertise in artificial intelligence, creating an opportunity for the country to cultivate indigenous technological solutions and establish itself as a continental centre of AI innovation.
She nevertheless expressed reservations about the Artificial Intelligence Bill currently before Parliament, describing the proposed legislative framework as problematic and warning that lawmakers could be attempting to regulate a technological ecosystem whose trajectory remains fluid and unpredictable.
Her principal concern, she explained, is the possibility of creating overlapping institutional mandates, particularly because AI is intrinsically intertwined with data and data governance.
Gichengo questioned the rationale of establishing additional regulatory structures when the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner, established in 2019, already possesses a substantial mandate concerning the collection, processing and protection of personal data.
“We are legislating on something that we do not know,” she cautioned, arguing that Kenya should first allow AI technologies to evolve and gain sufficient practical understanding before imposing an elaborate statutory regime.
She drew parallels with the development of Kenya’s mobile-money ecosystem, noting that innovation was initially allowed to mature before comprehensive regulatory guardrails were developed around it.
According to Gichengo, Kenya should similarly create sufficient regulatory breathing space for artificial intelligence to develop while simultaneously establishing safeguards against abuse, rather than introducing rigid legislation that could constrain technological experimentation.
She said the country should instead invest substantially in research, innovation and the development of indigenous AI systems, arguing that Kenya has the potential to emerge as a leading African jurisdiction in responsible technological innovation.
Gichengo also raised significant concerns over the intersection between artificial intelligence and electoral integrity, maintaining that the national conversation must transcend the conventional debate surrounding the credibility of the voters’ register.
She warned that AI could potentially be deployed in sophisticated ways to influence electoral outcomes, manipulate information, facilitate micro-targeting and exploit vulnerabilities within digital infrastructure.
The governance advocate said civil society actors had already engaged the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) on questions surrounding technology and the transmission of election results, with the electoral body indicating that further engagement and regulatory measures would be undertaken.
She insisted that citizens must remain central to electoral processes, arguing that voters have a legitimate constitutional interest in understanding how their ballots are recorded, transmitted, aggregated and ultimately translated into electoral outcomes.
Gichengo consequently urged Kenyans to strengthen election observation and monitoring mechanisms ahead of the next electoral cycle, contending that an informed citizenry remains an indispensable bulwark against electoral malpractice.
Beyond AI and elections, she mounted a robust defence of public participation, describing it as a constitutional entitlement rather than an administrative formality.
She criticised any attempt to dilute mechanisms requiring government and Parliament to meaningfully respond to citizens’ submissions during legislative processes.
“If you have taken away the feedback clause, then you have killed the public participation spirit and intent of the Constitution,” she said.
Gichengo maintained that citizens, as the sovereign holders of state power under the Constitution, must be accorded meaningful opportunities to scrutinise legislation and public policy and receive substantive feedback on their contributions.
She further called for fidelity to the existing constitutional order, cautioning against prioritising constitutional amendments while the country continues to grapple with fundamental challenges surrounding governance, accountability, media freedom, public finance and ethical leadership.
The TISA executive director urged political actors to concentrate on implementing the Constitution before embarking on another cycle of constitutional engineering, arguing that any significant reform conversation should preferably be undertaken outside the heightened political temperatures of an electoral period.
Returning to the question of AI regulation, Gichengo reiterated that Kenya requires a deliberate, evidence-based and proportionate regulatory framework rather than legislation conceived in haste.
She warned that the proliferation of new commissions, authorities and task forces could impose an unnecessary fiscal burden on taxpayers while simultaneously generating jurisdictional overlaps and institutional confusion.
In her view, the regulatory architecture should be streamlined, with existing institutions strengthened and equipped to address emerging technological challenges rather than establishing parallel bureaucracies.
Gichengo’s intervention has added momentum to the increasingly consequential national conversation on AI governance, highlighting the delicate equilibrium Kenya must strike between technological innovation, constitutional safeguards, data protection, democratic accountability and institutional efficiency.
She argued that Kenya’s ultimate objective should be to develop an AI ecosystem that protects citizens from technological exploitation while simultaneously creating an enabling environment in which innovation, enterprise and democratic participation can flourish.
Discover more from Newsroom Kenya
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
