This marks the first in a series by Unite.AI exploring the growing connections between international government bodies and AI surveillance. Across the globe, state-driven surveillance programs are rapidly evolving, often underpinned by partnerships with powerful technology exporters such as China, Israel, and Russia. Uganda serves as a compelling case study, revealing how AI surveillance has been deployed, expanded, and justified in the name of national security.
AI surveillance in Uganda has undergone significant expansion, deeply influencing security, governance, and public oversight. There may be cause for concern, especially with the Ugandan government previously using military courts to prosecute civilians.
Uganda has recently implemented an extensive AI-powered surveillance system featuring thousands of closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras equipped with facial recognition capabilities. This initiative – part of a nationwide “Safe City” plan – was rolled out with the help of China’s telecom giant Huawei. Ugandan authorities argue that the high-tech network will bolster public safety and help curb rising crime rates. However, the program has also sparked debate, as critics voice concerns over privacy, potential abuse of the technology, and the broader implications of state surveillance. Uganda’s experience exemplifies a growing global trend of governments adopting AI surveillance in the name of security, raising important questions about how to balance security and civil liberties in the digital age.
Background: Uganda’s Safe City Surveillance Project
The push for CCTV surveillance in Uganda gained momentum after a series of high-profile violent crimes in 2017. Following the assassination of a senior police official, AIGP Andrew Kaweesi in March 2017, President Yoweri Museveni directed security agencies to urgently install “spy cameras” across major towns and highways. This political directive led to the launch of an ambitious Safe City surveillance project in 2018, managed by Huawei. The project came with a price tag of Ugandan Shillings 458 billion (approximately $126 million).
Implementation began in Kampala Metropolitan Area as the first phase. The plan envisioned over 3,200 cameras deployed across greater Kampala, monitored from centralized command centers. While we have no current data, by late 2019, the rollout in the capital was nearly complete – about 85% of the Kampala phase (roughly 2,500 cameras) had been installed. These cameras watch over streets, intersections, and public spaces, feeding video to police control rooms in real time. The system is part of Huawei’s global Safe City initiative which aims to use technology to assist law enforcement in urban areas. Ugandan police officials indicated that after Kampala, the surveillance network would be expanded to all major towns nationwide.
Huawei Ownership
Huawei Technologies is officially a private company that claims to be entirely employee-owned. Its unique ownership structure is highly opaque: roughly 99% of Huawei is held by a trade union committee on behalf of its employees, with founder Ren Zhengfei reportedly owning the remaining 1%.
Employees are granted virtual shares that entitle them to profit-sharing, but external analyses suggest these shares do not confer typical control or voting rights over the company’s governance. This structure – ownership via a company labor union committee – is extremely unusual in China, especially for a firm of Huawei’s size
The lack of transparency about who ultimately controls the trade union committee has fueled questions about whether Huawei’s management or other actors wield true influence over the company.
Huawei insists no outside entity (including the government) holds any shares and that it is an independent, employee-run enterprise.
Despite Huawei’s assertions of independence, its ties to the Chinese state and Communist Party are a point of contention. Huawei’s founder, Ren Zhengfei, is a former engineer for the People’s Liberation Army, and he has been a member of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) since the late 1970s. Like many large Chinese companies, Huawei hosts an internal CCP committee or “party cell” among its employees.
Such party organizations are common in Chinese firms and are meant to ensure the company’s policies align with state and Party objectives
Western officials often point to Ren’s military background and Party membership as signs that Huawei could be influenced by Beijing. U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, for example, alleged in 2019 that Ren was “lying” about Huawei’s lack of government ties.
Official Rationale and Early Impact
The Ugandan government’s stated rationale for investing in AI-powered surveillance is to strengthen public safety and modernize crime fighting. Police and government officials pointed to a surge in violent crime – including assassinations, robberies, and kidnappings – as justification for the CCTV project. The procurement of the Huawei camera system was explicitly presented as an effort “to reduce violent crime” in the country.
Security agencies quickly touted early successes attributed to the new surveillance tools. In early 2019, as cameras were being installed around Kampala, police reported dozens of incidents already solved or aided by the CCTV footage. Officials claimed the cameras helped investigators make progress on over 40 cases within Kampala’s central and surrounding divisions in a short period, including identifying suspects and vehicles involved in crimes. The Uganda Police Force praised the CCTV network as a significant upgrade for policing, noting that features like facial recognition and automatic number plate reading would enhance their ability to identify criminals and respond swiftly.
Privacy and Political Concerns
Despite the promised security benefits, Uganda’s AI surveillance program has faced heavy criticism from opposition leaders, civil society activists, and privacy advocates. Their concerns center on the potential for abuse of these technologies in a country with a long-ruling government and a history of crackdowns on dissent. Opposition politicians have warned that the nationwide camera network could easily be turned into a tool for political surveillance – used to track and identify government critics under the pretext of public security. Notably, Ugandan police acquired the facial recognition camera system just ahead of contentious general elections in 2021, heightening suspicions about its true purpose.
Privacy rights organizations also objected to the lack of adequate legal safeguards and oversight when the surveillance rollout began. The Kampala-based digital rights group Unwanted Witness criticized the government for rushing to deploy “spy cameras” without an enabling law or clear guidelines, warning that this could “endanger more lives” rather than protect them. Activists pointed out that in the absence of privacy legislation and transparency, the vast data collected by CCTV and facial recognition systems could be leveraged to monitor innocent citizens, stifle free expression, or target political opponents.
Comparative Insights: AI Surveillance in Africa
Uganda is not alone in embracing AI-powered surveillance – similar programs have been launched in other nations, raising parallel debates over security and privacy:
- Kenya: Uganda’s neighbor has partnered with Huawei to implement its own Safe City surveillance system, with over 1,800 high-definition cameras installed in Nairobi.
- Zimbabwe: The country entered a controversial agreement with CloudWalk Technology to develop a nationwide facial recognition program.
Conclusion
Uganda’s foray into AI-powered surveillance underscores the double-edged sword that such technology represents. Moving forward, ensuring legal protections and oversight will be crucial. Uganda’s experience highlights the broader global challenge of balancing security needs with privacy rights.
The implications of a fully surveilled population are profound. Citizens may experience self-censorship, limiting their freedom of speech and expression out of fear of government retaliation. A climate of mass surveillance could lead to a chilling effect on political dissent, activism, and public assembly. Additionally, extensive surveillance often erodes trust between the government and the public, as people may feel they are being watched at all times, inhibiting open democratic discourse. Without strict safeguards, these technologies could shift from crime prevention tools to instruments of control.
This is just the beginning of our deep dive into the global rise of AI-driven surveillance and its far-reaching implications. As this series continues, we will explore how governments wield AI as a tool for control, the risks it poses to civil liberties, and the growing concerns over privacy and transparency. From predictive policing to mass data collection, we will examine the real-world impact of AI surveillance and what it means for the future of freedom and governance in an increasingly monitored world.
Leave a comment