Capital, surveillance, and who AI leaves behind

Naspers, one of South Africa's largest technology investment companies, has spent R1.64 billion on artificial intelligence as it shifts its strategy from holding stakes in other companies to building its own AI platforms, according to Business Day. The move signals a significant change in how the group intends to generate value, with implications for the local technology sector and for how South African capital is being deployed in AI development.

Writing in Business Day, South African corporate governance commentator Michael Judin argues that company directors who admit they do not understand AI and cybersecurity are better positioned to govern responsibly than those who bluff their way through board discussions. As AI reshapes how organisations operate, Judin contends that the knowledge gap at senior leadership level is one of the more pressing governance challenges facing South African companies. The piece is a prompt for boards to ask harder questions and seek genuine understanding rather than defer to confident-sounding but untested assumptions.

South Africa deployed more than 33,000 CCTV cameras, drones, helicopters and 13,000 law enforcement officers across Gauteng ahead of anti-migrant protests on 30 June, in a R600 million security operation that TechCabal reports is the clearest sign yet of the country building a technology-driven surveillance network. The operation draws on infrastructure owned by municipalities and private firms, including companies such as Vumacam, with the state and private security sector sharing access to camera networks and pooling technology resources. The deployment raises questions about how AI-assisted surveillance is being integrated into public-order policing in South Africa, and what that means for civil liberties and migrant communities, though the article does not detail which specific AI systems are in use or how they function.

A researcher writing in The Conversation Africa argues that the spread of generative AI (software that produces human-like text, such as chatbots and digital assistants) risks creating what he calls 'relational apartheid': a pattern in which access to genuine human engagement becomes unequally distributed, with wealthier or more powerful users reaching real people while others are routed to automated systems. Drawing on the ubuntu philosophy, which holds that personhood is formed through mutual relationships rather than individual experience alone, the piece contends that AI-simulated care is not the same as human recognition, and that in a society the World Bank ranks among the world's most unequal, existing gaps in income, language, and institutional access could reappear in new digital forms. The author calls for AI to be presented clearly as a tool rather than a companion, and for it to support human professionals in sensitive settings such as healthcare and education rather than replace them.

The Institute of Information Technology Professionals South Africa (IITPSA), the country's professional body for ICT practitioners, is hosting an event to examine how AI is affecting jobs in the technology sector, according to ITWeb. The gathering brings together local professionals to discuss what the shift means for employment, skills, and the future of ICT work in South Africa.

Writing in Business Day, Rufaro Mafinyani argues that South African universities should treat AI tools as part of the learning environment rather than a threat to academic integrity, on the grounds that employers increasingly expect graduates to be comfortable working alongside such tools. The piece calls on institutions to move away from blanket restrictions and instead build what Mafinyani terms 'augmented fluency' – the ability to use AI tools critically and effectively alongside traditional skills.