This marks the first in a series of unite.ai exploring the growing connection between international government agencies and AI surveillance. Globally, state-driven surveillance programs are developing rapidly, often by partnerships with powerful technology exporters such as China, Israel and Russia. Uganda is a compelling case study that reveals how to deploy, scale and rationally AI surveillance in the name of national security.
AI surveillance in Uganda has undergone significant expansions, with far-reaching impacts on security, governance and public supervision. It may attract attention, especially the reasons why the Ugandan government used military courts to prosecute civilians.
Uganda recently implemented a wide range of AI-driven surveillance systems with thousands of CCTV (CCTV) cameras equipped with facial recognition capabilities. The initiative is part of the nation’s “Safe Cities” program – launched with the help of Chinese telecom giant Huawei. Ugandan authorities believe that high-tech networks will strengthen public safety and help curb rising crime rates. However, the plan also sparked debate as critics focus on privacy, potential abuse of technology, and the broader implications of state surveillance. Uganda’s experience reflects the global trend of government adopting AI surveillance in the name of security, which raises important questions about how to balance security and civil liberties in the digital age.
Background: Uganda’s safe city surveillance project
Uganda’s CCTV surveillance gained momentum after a series of dramatic violent crimes in 2017. President Yoweri Museveni directed the security agency to urgently install the “Spy Cameras” security agency in major towns and on highways after a senior police officer AIGP Andrew Kaweesi was assassinated in March 2017. This political directive led to an ambitious 2018 security city surveillance project managed by Huawei. The project price is Ugandan shillings of 458 billion (about US$126 million).
The implementation began in the first phase of the Kampala metropolitan area. The plan envisions over 3,200 cameras deployed from Greater Kampala, monitored by a centralized command center. Although we don’t have current data, by the end of 2019, the launch of the capital was almost completed – around 85% of the Kampala stage Already installed (about 2500 cameras). These cameras are viewed at streets, intersections and public places, feeding videos to police control rooms in real time. The system is part of Huawei’s Global Security Cities Initiative, which aims to use technology to assist in law enforcement in the city. Ugandan police officials said the surveillance network will expand to all major towns and towns in the country after Kampala.
Huawei ownership
Huawei Technologies is officially a private company that claims to be entirely owned by employees. Its unique ownership structure is highly opaque: approximately 99% of Huawei is held by a trade union committee on behalf of its employees, and founder Ren Zhengfei reportedly owns the remaining 1%.
Employees are granted virtual shares that give them profit sharing, but external analysis shows that these shares do not give typical control or voting rights to corporate governance. This structure – ownership through the company’s trade union committee is very unusual in China, especially for companies of Huawei-sized
The lack of transparency for those who ultimately control the union committee has raised questions about the real influence of Huawei management or other players on the company.
Huawei insists that there is no external entity (including the government) holding any shares and is an independent employee-run enterprise.
Despite Huawei’s claim to independence, its ties with the Chinese state and the Communist Party are the point of debate. Huawei’s founder Ren Zhengfei is a former engineer of the People’s Liberation Army and has been a member of the Communist Party of China (CCP) since the late 1970s. Like many large Chinese companies, Huawei chairs internal CCP committees or “parties” among its employees.
Such party organizations are common in Chinese companies and aim to ensure that the company’s policies are aligned with state and party goals
Western officials often point out Ren’s military background and party membership, indicating that Huawei may be affected by Beijing. For example, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo pointed out in 2019 that Rhodes “lied” about Huawei’s lack of government ties.
Official reasons and early influences
The Ugandan government’s citation investment in AI-driven surveillance is citing enhanced public safety and modernized crime. Police and government officials noted that the surge in violent crimes – including assassination, robbery and kidnapping – was justified by the CCTV program. The procurement of Huawei camera systems has been explicitly proposed as an effort to “reduce violent crimes in the country”.
Safety agencies quickly praise success Attributable to new monitoring tools. In early 2019, police reported that CCTV videotapes had resolved or helped dozens of incidents due to cameras installed around Kampala. Officials claim the cameras helped investigators make progress in more than 40 cases in the central and surrounding departments of Kampala in a short period of time, including identifying suspects and vehicles involved in the crime. The Ugandan police force praised the CCTV network as a major policing upgrade, noting that features such as facial recognition and automatic digital board reading will enhance its ability to identify criminals and respond quickly.
Privacy and political concerns
Despite the promised security benefits, Uganda’s AI surveillance program faces harsh criticism from opposition leaders, civil society activists and privacy advocates. Their concerns are centered on the potential of a country with a long-term government to abuse these technologies, and the history of repression of dissent. Opposition politicians warn that a nationwide network of cameras can easily become a tool for political surveillance – used to track and identify government critics under the pretext of public safety. It is worth noting that Ugandan police obtained a facial recognition camera system ahead of the controversial 2021 election, which increased doubts about its true purpose.
Privacy groups also object to the lack of adequate legal safeguards and oversight at the start of surveillance rollouts. Kampala-based digital rights group does not need witnesses criticizing the government for its rush to deploy “spy cameras” without enabling laws or clear guidelines, warning that this could “harm more lives” rather than protecting them. Activists point out that in the absence of privacy legislation and transparency, large amounts of data collected by CCTV and facial recognition systems can be used to monitor innocent citizens and kill free expression or target political opponents.
Comparative Insights: AI Surveillance in Africa
Uganda is not alone in AI-driven surveillance – other countries have launched similar programs, sparking parallel debates about security and privacy:
- Kenya: Uganda’s neighbors have partnered with Huawei to implement their own safe city surveillance system, with more than 1,800 HD cameras installed in Nairobi.
- Zimbabwe: The country has reached a controversial agreement with Cloud-Walk Technology to develop a nationwide facial recognition program.
in conclusion
Uganda’s intrusion into AI-driven surveillance emphasizes the double-edged sword that this technology represents. Moving forward and ensuring legal protection and oversight is crucial. Uganda’s experience highlights the broader global challenges of balancing security needs with privacy rights.
The meaning of a fully monitored population is profound. Citizens may experience self-censorship, limiting their freedom of expression and freedom of expression out of fear of government retaliation. The atmosphere of mass surveillance could lead to cold effects on political dissent, activism and public gatherings. Furthermore, extensive surveillance often erodes trust between the government and the public because people may always feel like they are watching, thereby suppressing open democratic discourse. Without strict safeguards, these technologies can be transferred from crime prevention tools to control tools.
This is just the beginning of our in-depth study of AI-driven surveillance and its far-reaching implications. As the series continues, we will explore how governments use AI as a control tool, risks to civil liberties, and growing concerns about privacy and transparency. From predictive policing to mass data collection, we will look at the real impact of AI surveillance and what it means for the future of freedom and governance in an increasingly monitored world.
