Country Profile on AI Governance: Equatorial Guinea

Mean of all 10 indicator scores. Central Africa mean 1.40 · all 54 states mean 1.76.

1. S1.1

   National AI strategy existence

   Score 1 / 4

   No standalone national AI strategy adopted; Digital Agenda for Equatorial Guinea (ADIGE), a World Bank-supported strategic plan, serves as the primary digital governance instrument; National Development Plan 2035 references technology and innovation as a cross-cutting theme; World Bank Digital Economy Country Diagnostic published June 2024 provides a blueprint but has not been formally adopted as a government AI policy

   Note: No standalone national AI strategy; ADIGE and National Development Plan 2035 serve as indirect AI governance instruments; scored 1 as nascent, digital strategy exists but no AI-specific policy

   Sources worldbank.org (opens in a new tab)

2. S1.2

   Strategy adoption date

   Score 0 / 4

   No AI strategy adoption date; ADIGE adopted as a general digital strategy without AI-specific provisions; National Development Plan 2035 references technology broadly; no AI-specific strategy has been formally adopted

   Note: Not applicable until an AI-specific strategy is formally adopted

   Scoring basis Threshold applied. Raw value: none (adoption date). No formally adopted national AI strategy.

3. S1.3

   Political commitment signals

   Score 2 / 4

   Vice President Teodoro Nguema Obiang Mangue personally presided over presentation of the Medusa submarine cable strategic study (April 3 2026); World Bank partnership for ADIGE and Digital Economy Diagnostic signals executive-level commitment; ADIGE endorsed at ministerial level

   Note: Vice-presidential level engagement on digital infrastructure documented; no presidential AI directive; AI-specific commitment not yet formalised; scored 2 as formal institutional actions documented

   Sources trendsnafrica.com (opens in a new tab)

4. S1.4

   Dedicated AI budget allocation

   Score 1 / 4

   No ring-fenced AI budget identified; digital economy activities funded through oil revenues and World Bank support (ADIGE); no multi-year AI allocation confirmed; total ICT spend not publicly disaggregated

   Note: Oil-revenue-dependent public finance; AI budgeting not yet formalised; digital investment through World Bank support channels

5. S1.5

   AU Continental AI Strategy alignment

   Score 1 / 4

   No confirmed alignment with AU Continental AI Strategy; Equatorial Guinea is an AU member; hosted the 2014 AU Summit where the Malabo Convention was adopted but has neither signed nor ratified it; ADIGE aligned with AU Digital Transformation Strategy for Africa through World Bank DE4A initiative

   Note: AU membership and DE4A initiative alignment are passive; no active AU AI alignment process; scored 1 as awareness-level only

   Sources worldbank.org (opens in a new tab)

6. S1.6

   Multi-stakeholder consultation

   Score 2 / 4

   World Bank Digital Economy Country Diagnostic (June 2024) involved multi-stakeholder consultations with government, private sector, and civil society; ADIGE developed through government-World Bank partnership process; formal structured consultation documented

   Note: Formal consultation documented through World Bank diagnostic process; permanent ongoing mechanism not institutionalised; scored 2 as formal consultation with institutional record

   Sources worldbank.org (opens in a new tab)

7. S1.7

   Sector prioritisation

   Score 2 / 4

   ADIGE identifies four priority areas: universalisation of telecommunications access, digitisation of administrative procedures, ICT sector support, and digital skills empowerment; World Bank Diagnostic identifies five foundational pillars; no AI-specific sector roadmaps

   Note: Digital sector prioritisation established through ADIGE and World Bank Diagnostic; AI-specific sector roadmaps not yet published; scored 2 as specific digital sectors named with development targets

   Sources worldbank.org (opens in a new tab)

8. S1.8

   Implementation roadmap

   Score 1 / 4

   ADIGE is a strategic plan without a phased AI-specific implementation roadmap; National Development Plan 2035 provides a general long-term vision; World Bank Diagnostic provides recommendations without a government-adopted implementation timeline

   Note: General digital roadmap exists through ADIGE; AI-specific phased implementation plan absent; scored 1 as general roadmap without AI milestones

   Sources techafricanews.com (opens in a new tab)

9. S1.9

   Monitoring and evaluation framework

   Score 1 / 4

   No AI-specific M&E framework published; World Bank partnership implies periodic review of ADIGE implementation; ARCGEM (national ICT regulator) has limited monitoring capacity; no active AI governance reporting cycle

   Note: General digital strategy monitoring implied by World Bank partnership; AI-specific M&E absent; scored 1 as nascent monitoring through international partnership

10. S1.10

    Strategy review mechanism

    Score 1 / 4

    No formal AI strategy review mechanism; World Bank diagnostic process provides an external review function for digital governance; no gazetted AI review schedule

    Note: External review function via World Bank; no domestic adaptive AI governance mechanism; scored 1

Mean of all 10 indicator scores. Central Africa mean 1.31 · all 54 states mean 1.32.

1. G2.1

   AI-specific legislation

   Score 0 / 4

   No AI-specific legislation enacted; no AI law under discussion in any documented public forum; ADIGE provides a general digital governance framework without AI-specific provisions

   Note: Pre-legislative stage on AI; scored 0

2. G2.2

   Data protection law status

   Score 2 / 4

   Law No. 1/2016 on the Protection of Personal Data enacted; creates the Governing Body for the Protection of Personal Data (Organo Rector de Proteccion de Datos Personales) as the data protection authority; law is comprehensive but available only in Spanish; DPA created by law but not yet operational as of 2025

   Note: Law enacted 2016, pre-dates most Central African peers; DPA mandated but not yet operational; scored 2 as enacted with DPA mandated but not operational

   Sources dataprotection.africa (opens in a new tab)

3. G2.3

   DPA AI mandate

   Score 1 / 4

   Law No. 1/2016 mandates the Organo Rector de Proteccion de Datos Personales as DPA; as of 2025 the DPA is confirmed as not yet operational (dataprotection.africa); no AI-specific mandate; Morrison Foerster (2022) confirms Equatorial Guinea among African jurisdictions without established DPA

   Note: DPA mandated in law since 2016 but not yet operationally established as of June 2026; critical nine-year implementation gap; scored 1 as nascent, legal mandate exists without operational body

   Sources dataprotection.africa (opens in a new tab)

4. G2.4

   DPA staffing and budget

   Score 0 / 4

   DPA (Organo Rector) not yet operational; no published staff count, AI competency data, or annual budget; DPA independence structure unknown per dataprotection.africa

   Note: Cannot assess staffing or budget without operational DPA; scored 0

   Scoring basis Fellow score kept; no raw value for the threshold.

   Sources dataprotection.africa (opens in a new tab)

5. G2.5

   AI regulatory body existence

   Score 0 / 4

   No dedicated AI regulatory body or AI advisory council identified; ARCGEM (Agencia de Regulacion de las Comunicaciones de Guinea Ecuatorial) is the ICT regulator without AI mandate; no AI governance institution of any kind

   Note: General ICT regulator exists; no AI-specific governance body; scored 0

6. G2.6

   Institutional design model

   Score 1 / 4

   Minimal institutional design: ARCGEM as ICT regulator; Organo Rector mandated as DPA (not yet operational); ADIGE national digitalisation agency; no AI governance model documented; World Bank Diagnostic identifies strengthening regulatory framework as a priority

   Note: Basic ICT regulatory institution exists; DPA mandated not operational; no AI model; scored 1 as nascent institutional structure

   Sources thedocs.worldbank.org (opens in a new tab)

7. G2.7

   Malabo Convention ratification

   Score 0 / 4

   Equatorial Guinea has neither signed nor ratified the AU Malabo Convention; notable as the 2014 AU Summit where the Convention was adopted was hosted in Malabo, yet Equatorial Guinea has not engaged with the Convention as a signatory

   Note: Not signed, not ratified, the most significant governance gap given that the Convention bears the country's capital city name; scored 0

   Sources en.wikipedia.org (opens in a new tab)

8. G2.8

   Enforcement actions taken

   Score 0 / 4

   No AI-specific or data protection enforcement actions documented; Organo Rector not yet operational; ARCGEM has telecom sector regulatory authority but no data/AI enforcement capacity confirmed

   Note: Law enacted in 2016 with zero confirmed enforcement actions in 9+ years; DPA non-operational is the root cause; scored 0

9. G2.9

   Extraterritorial provisions

   Score 0 / 4

   Law No. 1/2016 scope not confirmed as extraterritorial; Morrison Foerster notes most African data laws apply to in-country processing only; no confirmed extraterritorial AI provisions

   Note: No confirmed extraterritorial provisions; territorial-only scope assumed; scored 0

   Sources mofo.com (opens in a new tab)

10. G2.10

    IP framework for AI

    Score 0 / 4

    No review of IP legislation for AI-generated content identified; OAPI (Organisation Africaine de la Propriete Intellectuelle) covers Equatorial Guinea for intellectual property; no AI IP review initiated

    Note: OAPI provides regional IP framework; domestic AI IP review not initiated; scored 0

Mean of the 9 scored indicators; 1 carries no score. Central Africa mean 1.20 · all 54 states mean 1.51.

No score: 1 context only.

1. I3.1

   Data center count

   Score 0 / 4

   Equatorial Guinea and Nigeria signed agreement for a commercial data centre in Malabo alongside the submarine cable deal (February 2026); GETESA (state telecom) maintains server infrastructure; Medusa cable study (April 2026) references Bata as a proposed landing and data hosting point; no confirmed Tier-rated commercial data centre

   Note: Commercial data centre planned as part of Nigeria-EG bilateral deal; no Tier-rated facility yet confirmed; scored 1 as nascent, plans confirmed without operational Tier facility

   Scoring basis Threshold applied. Raw value: 0 (data centres). Raw value read from the evidence: "no confirmed Tier-rated commercial data centre" [Malabo commercial DC only planned]. Checked against the evidence on 7 October 2026: confirmed.

   Sources incotedivoire.net (opens in a new tab)

2. I3.2

   Data center capacity (MW)

   Score 0 / 4

   No published MW capacity data; planned commercial data centre with Nigeria has not disclosed capacity specifications

   Note: Infrastructure planned; MW capacity not disclosed; scored 0

   Scoring basis Fellow score kept; no raw value for the threshold.

3. I3.3

   Submarine cable landing points

   Score 2 / 4

   ACE (Africa Coast to Europe) submarine cable lands at Malabo providing Atlantic connectivity; Nigeria-Equatorial Guinea bilateral submarine cable agreement signed February 2026 for a new direct link; Medusa subsea cable system (8,700 km, 480 Tbps design capacity) being considered with Bata as landing point (April 2026); WACS cable also provides regional connectivity

   Note: At least 1-2 existing cable connections (ACE, WACS); new Nigeria link planned; Medusa cable under consideration; scored 2 as multiple connections established with expansion underway

   Scoring basis Threshold applied. 3 cable systems (TeleGeography, accessed 2026-10-06).

   Sources ecofinagency.com (opens in a new tab)

4. I3.4

   International bandwidth (Gbps)

   Score 1 / 4

   Internet penetration 60.4% by end of 2025 (DataReportal, 1.18 million subscriptions); however internet speeds remain among the slowest in the region, still measured in Kbit/s; Annobón island has no submarine cable and depends on satellite; high cost of data limits actual usage despite nominal coverage

   Note: Penetration rate (60.4%) is relatively high for Central Africa but actual speed and quality are extremely poor; high cost and poor reliability constrain effective digital access; scored 1 as bandwidth quality very limited despite coverage numbers

   Scoring basis Fellow score kept; no raw value for the threshold.

   Sources ecofinagency.com (opens in a new tab)

5. I3.5

   Hyperscaler presence

   Score 0 / 4

   No confirmed AWS, Azure, Google Cloud, or other hyperscaler local infrastructure in Equatorial Guinea; planned commercial data centre with Nigeria is not a hyperscaler facility

   Note: No hyperscaler has committed to Equatorial Guinea; scored 0

6. I3.6

   GPU/HPC access

   Score 0 / 4

   No national HPC or GPU facility confirmed; Universidad Nacional de Guinea Ecuatorial (UNGE) has very limited computing resources; no academic AI computing infrastructure identified

   Note: Computing infrastructure severely constrained; electricity reliability itself a challenge outside Malabo and Bata; scored 0

7. I3.7

   Data localisation provisions

   Score 1 / 4

   Law No. 1/2016 includes data transfer provisions; no comprehensive data localisation mandate confirmed; planned commercial data centre with Nigeria is partly motivated by digital sovereignty objectives

   Note: Data law has transfer provisions in principle; localisation framework not confirmed as operational; scored 1 as nascent legal basis

   Sources dataprotection.africa (opens in a new tab)

8. I3.8

   Cross-border data flow framework

   Score 1 / 4

   Law No. 1/2016 includes cross-border data transfer provisions; CEMAC regional framework provides a multilateral baseline; no bilateral AI-specific data flow agreements confirmed

   Note: Data law provides cross-border transfer framework; CEMAC regional instrument applies by membership; scored 1 as nascent legal framework without operational DPA enforcement

   Sources dataprotection.africa (opens in a new tab)

9. I3.9

   Foreign AI surveillance spending

   ○Context only: Context flag outside the score

   No documented government spending on foreign AI surveillance systems; CIPESA documents tight government control of digital communications and internet blocking historically; no AI surveillance procurement evidence found

   Note: No procurement evidence; government censorship/control of internet documented by CIPESA but not through AI surveillance systems specifically; scored 0

   Scoring basis Context flag; outside the score. Raw value read from the evidence: "No documented government spending on foreign AI surveillance systems".

   Sources cipesa.org (opens in a new tab)

10. I3.10

    Sovereign cloud initiatives

    Score 1 / 4

    Planned commercial data centre in Malabo (part of Nigeria-EG bilateral deal, February 2026) is framed as a digital sovereignty initiative; Medusa cable study references domestic data hosting objectives; no operational sovereign cloud

    Note: Sovereign cloud/hosting initiative planned but not yet operational; scored 1 as nascent, plan confirmed with bilateral backing

    Sources ecofinagency.com (opens in a new tab)

Mean of all 10 indicator scores. Central Africa mean 0.69 · all 54 states mean 1.20.

1. H4.1

   AI researchers per million

   Score 0 / 4

   No AI researchers affiliated with Equatorial Guinea institutions identified; Universidad Nacional de Guinea Ecuatorial (UNGE) has very limited STEM capacity; population of approximately 1.9 million makes per-million researcher count effectively zero; World Bank Diagnostic identifies digital skills as a major gap

   Note: No AI researchers identifiable; UNGE has limited capacity; scored 0

   Scoring basis Threshold applied. Raw value: 0 (AI researchers per million). Raw value read from the evidence: "makes per-million researcher count effectively zero" [no AI researchers identified]. Checked against the evidence on 7 October 2026: confirmed.

   Sources worldbank.org (opens in a new tab)

2. H4.2

   DPA staff with AI competency

   Score 0 / 4

   DPA (Organo Rector) not yet operational; no data on AI-competent regulatory staff in any institution

   Note: Cannot assess; DPA non-operational; scored 0

   Scoring basis Fellow score kept; no raw value for the threshold.

3. H4.3

   University AI programs

   Score 0 / 4

   Universidad Nacional de Guinea Ecuatorial (UNGE) offers science and technology programmes; no confirmed AI or ML degree programme; World Bank Diagnostic identifies digital skills as a critical gap requiring curriculum reform; no AI-specific university course confirmed

   Note: General university STEM programmes exist; dedicated AI/ML programme not confirmed; scored 1 as nascent, university infrastructure exists without AI curriculum

   Scoring basis Threshold applied. Raw value: 0 (universities). Raw value read from the evidence: "no confirmed AI or ML degree programme". Checked against the evidence on 7 October 2026: confirmed.

   Sources worldbank.org (opens in a new tab)

4. H4.4

   African-authored AI publications

   Score 1 / 4

   No AI-related academic publications from Equatorial Guinea-affiliated authors identified; no active AI research group documented at UNGE or any other institution

   Note: No AI research output identifiable; scored 0

   Scoring basis Threshold applied. 1.0 papers/yr ÷ 1.89m people = 0.53 per million (floors applied). Raw value read from the evidence: "No AI-related academic publications from Equatorial Guinea-affiliated authors identified" [source used: not named]. Checked against the evidence on 7 October 2026: confirmed.

5. H4.5

   AI patents filed

   Score 0 / 4

   No AI-related patents filed by Equatorial Guinea-affiliated inventors identified; OAPI covers Equatorial Guinea for IP registration

   Note: OAPI provides regional IP framework; AI patent activity absent; scored 0

   Scoring basis Threshold applied. Raw value: 0 (AI patent applications/year). Raw value read from the evidence: "No AI-related patents filed by Equatorial Guinea-affiliated inventors identified". Checked against the evidence on 7 October 2026: confirmed.

6. H4.6

   K-12 CS education

   Score 1 / 4

   ADIGE includes digital skills as one of its four strategic pillars, empowering citizens to use digital tools; World Bank Diagnostic recommends K-12 digital literacy curriculum reform; no mandatory CS curriculum confirmed as implemented

   Note: Digital skills identified as ADIGE priority; World Bank recommends curriculum reform; implementation not confirmed; scored 1 as nascent, priority identified without confirmed implementation

   Sources worldbank.org (opens in a new tab)

7. H4.7

   AI workforce training programs

   Score 1 / 4

   ADIGE includes digital skills empowerment as a strategic pillar; World Bank Diagnostic recommends reskilling programmes; no government-funded AI-specific reskilling or workforce training programme confirmed at any scale

   Note: Digital skills training referenced in ADIGE; no AI-specific workforce programme; scored 1 as nascent, digital skills pillar without AI programme

   Sources techafricanews.com (opens in a new tab)

8. H4.8

   Labour transition policy

   Score 0 / 4

   No government framework for AI and labour market transition; labour market is small (approximately 300,000 workers, heavily oil-sector dependent); no assessment commissioned

   Note: Not yet on policy agenda; oil sector dominance makes AI labour displacement less acute but no assessment exists; scored 0

9. H4.9

   Informal economy AI assessment

   Score 0 / 4

   No government assessment of AI's impact on the informal economy; informal sector present but smaller than other Central African countries given oil economy dominance

   Note: Informal economy exists but smaller than regional peers; no AI impact assessment; scored 0

10. H4.10

    African language NLP coverage

    Score 0 / 4

    Spanish and French are official languages with NLP coverage through global models (Spanish is one of the best-covered languages in LLMs); Fang, Bubi, and other Bantu languages spoken domestically have minimal NLP coverage; no domestic LLM or NLP tool development confirmed

    Note: Spanish language coverage through global models benefits Equatorial Guinea; domestic Bantu languages (Fang, Bubi) minimally covered; scored 1 as one official language (Spanish) has meaningful NLP support globally

    Scoring basis Threshold applied. Raw value: 0 of 1 (languages supported / major languages), normalised 0. 0% of major domestic languages. Raw value read from the evidence: "Fang, Bubi, and other Bantu languages spoken domestically have minimal NLP coverage" [denominator (set by the editors, not taken from the profile text): Fang (B. Checked against the evidence on 7 October 2026: confirmed.

Mean of all 10 indicator scores. Central Africa mean 0.67 · all 54 states mean 1.05.

1. N5.1

   AI companies count

   Score 0 / 4

   No AI companies confirmed operating in Equatorial Guinea; very nascent tech ecosystem; World Bank Diagnostic identifies digital businesses as a weak pillar; oil sector dominance limits private sector diversification; no tech company registry exists

   Note: Effectively zero AI company presence; World Bank confirms digital businesses as a critical gap; scored 0

   Scoring basis Threshold applied. Raw value: 0 (companies). Raw value read from the evidence: "No AI companies confirmed operating in Equatorial Guinea" [directory used: none]. Checked against the evidence on 7 October 2026: confirmed.

   Sources worldbank.org (opens in a new tab)

2. N5.2

   Private AI investment (USD)

   Score 0 / 4

   No private AI investment documented; very limited FDI outside oil sector; World Bank Diagnostic identifies investment climate constraints and limited private sector as major challenges

   Note: Investment climate constrained by oil-sector dominance and governance context; no AI investment identified; scored 0

   Scoring basis Threshold applied. Raw value: 0 (USD/year). Raw value read from the evidence: "No private AI investment documented". Checked against the evidence on 7 October 2026: confirmed.

3. N5.3

   AI incubators/accelerators

   Score 0 / 4

   No AI incubators or technology accelerators confirmed in Equatorial Guinea; no general tech hub documented in Malabo or Bata; World Bank Diagnostic recommends establishing digital business support infrastructure

   Note: Innovation support infrastructure does not exist at measurable scale; scored 0

   Scoring basis Threshold applied. Raw value: 0 (incubators/accelerators). Raw value read from the evidence: "No AI incubators or technology accelerators confirmed in Equatorial Guinea". Checked against the evidence on 7 October 2026: confirmed.

4. N5.4

   Regulatory sandbox (AI)

   Score 0 / 4

   No AI regulatory sandbox identified; no fintech sandbox despite mobile money sector; World Bank Diagnostic does not reference sandbox mechanism

   Note: Sandbox model not applicable at current development stage; scored 0

5. N5.5

   Government AI procurement

   Score 1 / 4

   Government procurement of digital infrastructure active through GETESA (state telecom) and oil sector ICT; ad hoc government digital procurement documented; no formal domestic AI procurement preference policy confirmed

   Note: General government ICT procurement exists through state telecom and oil sector; no AI-specific framework; scored 1 as ad hoc procurement documented

6. N5.6

   AI safety evaluation capacity

   Score 0 / 4

   No AI safety testing or evaluation facility; ARCGEM has no AI safety mandate; no academic AI research capability that could serve a safety testing function

   Note: Pre-condition for AI safety evaluation (functional AI ecosystem) does not exist; scored 0

7. N5.7

   ISO/IEC 42001 adoption

   Score 0 / 4

   No evidence of ISO/IEC 42001 adoption; national standards body capacity extremely limited

   Note: Standards ecosystem for AI not developed; scored 0

8. N5.8

   Standards body AI competency

   Score 0 / 4

   National standards body exists in principle; no confirmed AI-specific technical committee or working group; limited institutional capacity

   Note: Standards institution exists nominally; AI technical capacity absent; scored 0

9. N5.9

   AI risk assessment frameworks

   Score 0 / 4

   No sector-specific or cross-sector AI risk assessment frameworks; Law No. 1/2016 has data protection provisions in principle but DPA non-operational; no AI risk assessment activity documented

   Note: No AI risk assessment activity; scored 0

10. N5.10

    University-industry AI partnerships

    Score 0 / 4

    No formal or informal university-industry AI partnerships; UNGE has no documented private sector AI research collaboration; oil companies (Noble Energy, Marathon) have no documented AI governance partnerships with university

    Note: University-industry collaboration in any tech field is minimal; AI-specific partnerships not documented; scored 0

Mean of all 10 indicator scores. Central Africa mean 1.16 · all 54 states mean 1.26.

1. E6.1

   Algorithmic impact assessment

   Score 0 / 4

   No algorithmic impact assessment requirement; Law No. 1/2016 does not include DPIA or AIA provisions; no AIA mechanism established

   Note: Pre-governance stage; scored 0

2. E6.2

   Bias audit requirements

   Score 0 / 4

   No bias audit requirements for any sector; no regulatory guidance on AI bias

   Note: Pre-governance stage; scored 0

3. E6.3

   Transparency obligations

   Score 1 / 4

   Law No. 1/2016 includes data subject rights in principle; no confirmed operational transparency mechanism as DPA is not functional; no AI-specific transparency obligation

   Note: Data law transparency provisions exist in text; DPA non-operational makes them unenforceable; scored 1 as nascent legal basis

   Sources dataprotection.africa (opens in a new tab)

4. E6.4

   Citizen redress mechanism

   Score 1 / 4

   Law No. 1/2016 mandates the Organo Rector as a complaint mechanism in principle; DPA not yet operational; no functioning citizen redress mechanism for data or AI decisions confirmed

   Note: Legal pathway for redress exists in text since 2016; operational delivery absent due to non-functional DPA; scored 1 as nascent legal pathway

   Sources dataprotection.africa (opens in a new tab)

5. E6.5

   Judicial AI remedy

   Score 0 / 4

   No AI-specific judicial precedent documented; courts exist but severely constrained by executive control; Freedom House and RSF document suppression of judicial independence

   Note: Judicial independence concerns compound the absence of AI-specific remedy; scored 0

6. E6.6

   AI advisory body diversity

   Score 0 / 4

   No national AI advisory body of any kind; no AI governance institution exists

   Note: Pre-institutional stage; scored 0

7. E6.7

   Global AI governance participation

   Score 1 / 4

   AU member and CEMAC member; World Bank DE4A initiative aligns Equatorial Guinea with global digital governance frameworks; no confirmed participation in GPAI, UNESCO AI ethics processes, or OECD AI Policy Observatory

   Note: Passive global alignment through World Bank/AU membership; no active AI governance forum participation; scored 1 as observer-level

   Sources worldbank.org (opens in a new tab)

8. E6.8

   Civil society AI engagement

   Score 0 / 4

   No formal civil society AI engagement mechanism; civil society space extremely constrained under President Obiang (in power since 1979); CIPESA documents ongoing restrictions on digital rights and freedom of expression

   Note: Civil society space severely restricted; no AI governance consultation mechanism; Freedom House rates Equatorial Guinea as Not Free; scored 0

   Sources cipesa.org (opens in a new tab)

9. E6.9

   African ethical framework reference

   Score 0 / 4

   No reference to African ethical principles (Ubuntu, etc.) in any governance document; ADIGE is technically framed without philosophical grounding

   Note: Pre-strategy stage; scored 0

10. E6.10

    Youth participation

    Score 0 / 4

    No formal mechanism for youth participation in AI governance; youth population is significant (median age 20.9 years, DataReportal 2026) but no AI governance channel

    Note: Young population; no formal AI governance youth channel; scored 0

Mean of all 10 indicator scores. Central Africa mean 1.34 · all 54 states mean 1.55.

1. R7.1

   AU AI Strategy alignment

   Score 1 / 4

   AU member; ADIGE aligned with AU Digital Transformation Strategy for Africa through World Bank DE4A initiative; no formal AU AI alignment process documented; Equatorial Guinea neither signed nor ratified the Malabo Convention despite hosting its adoption in 2014

   Note: Passive AU alignment through World Bank/DE4A; no active AU AI alignment process; scored 1 as awareness-level

   Sources worldbank.org (opens in a new tab)

2. R7.2

   Kigali Declaration endorsement

   Score 3 / 4

   No confirmed endorsement of the Kigali Declaration on AI Governance found for Equatorial Guinea

   Note: No evidence of consideration or endorsement; scored 0

   Scoring basis Official signatory list applied. Signatory of the Africa Declaration on AI (Kigali, 4 April 2025), C4IR list: "Endorsed" = 3.

   Sources c4ir.rw (opens in a new tab)

3. R7.3

   REC AI governance coordination

   Score 2 / 4

   ECCAS member; CEMAC member; Nigeria-Equatorial Guinea submarine cable and data centre bilateral agreement signed February 2026 represents significant regional digital cooperation; no confirmed AI-specific ECCAS governance coordination

   Note: Active ECCAS and CEMAC membership; Nigeria bilateral digital deal is significant regional cooperation; AI governance coordination not confirmed; scored 2 as active regional participant with confirmed bilateral deal

   Sources ecofinagency.com (opens in a new tab)

4. R7.4

   Cross-border AI agreements

   Score 2 / 4

   Nigeria-Equatorial Guinea bilateral agreement (February 2026) for submarine cable and commercial data centre is a signed bilateral digital cooperation agreement; Nigeria-EG cybersecurity cooperation referenced in the agreement; CEMAC digital framework applies by membership

   Note: Signed bilateral digital agreement with Nigeria confirmed; CEMAC framework applies; not AI-specific but covers digital governance; scored 2 as signed cooperation agreement operational

   Sources ecofinagency.com (opens in a new tab)

5. R7.5

   Election integrity AI provisions

   Score 0 / 4

   No specific legal or institutional provisions addressing AI use in elections found; elections under President Obiang (in power since 1979) are not competitive; no AI elections framework

   Note: Non-competitive electoral context; no AI elections governance; scored 0

6. R7.6

   Disinformation response framework

   Score 0 / 4

   No formal government framework for AI-generated disinformation; CIPESA documents government control of online information rather than addressing disinformation from non-state actors

   Note: Government censorship documented; no AI disinformation framework from governance perspective; scored 0

7. R7.7

   AI election incidents documented

   Score 0 / 4

   No publicly documented AI-related election interference incidents

   Note: Non-competitive electoral context; no AI election incidents; scored 0

   Scoring basis Threshold applied. Scored on documented institutional response, not incident count. Raw value read from the evidence: "No formal government framework for AI-generated disinformation" [incidents: 0; R7.5/R7.6 show no response capacity (censorship only)]. Checked against the evidence on 7 October 2026: confirmed.

8. R7.8

   Platform content moderation

   Score 0 / 4

   No formal government engagement with social media platforms on AI content moderation; CIPESA documents government-initiated internet blocking rather than platform governance engagement

   Note: Government blocks internet rather than engaging platforms on content governance; scored 0

   Sources cipesa.org (opens in a new tab)

9. R7.9

   Geneva Dialogue participation

   Score 0 / 4

   No confirmed Equatorial Guinea delegation to UN Global Dialogue on AI Governance (July 2026); diplomatic resources limited; Trump administration proclamation (June 2025) barring Equatoguinean nationals from entering the US adds diplomatic constraints

   Note: Capacity and diplomatic constraints prevent multilateral AI governance participation; scored 0

10. R7.10

    G20/multilateral AI engagement

    Score 1 / 4

    Not a G20 or BRICS member; Nigeria bilateral deal signals regional economic cooperation; World Bank engagement provides multilateral digital governance link; no active multilateral AI initiative participation

    Note: Bilateral regional cooperation (Nigeria) and World Bank engagement are primary multilateral channels; no AI governance multilateral role; scored 1

    Sources ecofinagency.com (opens in a new tab)

Mean of all 10 indicator scores. Central Africa mean 0.60 · all 54 states mean 0.78.

1. M8.1

   AI governance budget disbursed

   Score 0 / 4

   No AI governance budget disbursed; ADIGE implementation budget not publicly disclosed; World Bank support for Digital Economy Diagnostic is technical assistance not capital disbursement; no AI budget line

   Note: Digital investment through oil revenues and World Bank technical assistance; no AI governance budget; scored 0

   Scoring basis Threshold applied. Raw value: 0 (USD).

2. M8.2

   Health AI regulation

   Score 0 / 4

   No health AI regulation; no AI-specific provisions in health sector legislation; ADIGE does not reference health AI governance

   Note: Pre-regulatory stage for health AI; scored 0

3. M8.3

   Health AI devices approved

   Score 0 / 4

   No AI health devices or tools formally approved; no regulatory approval mechanism for health AI exists

   Note: Health regulatory infrastructure does not support AI device approval; scored 0

   Scoring basis Threshold applied. Raw value: 0 (authorised devices).

4. M8.4

   Government AI system registry

   Score 0 / 4

   No government registry of AI systems in use; SIREC digital civil registry pilot (Ministry of Justice, 2018) is a digital public platform but not an AI registry

   Note: Government digitalisation nascent; AI registry not applicable; scored 0

5. M8.5

   AI governance M&E reports

   Score 0 / 4

   No published M&E reports on AI governance implementation; World Bank Digital Economy Diagnostic (June 2024) is an assessment not a government M&E report; no AI governance activity to monitor

   Note: World Bank Diagnostic is an external assessment; no government AI M&E report; scored 0

   Scoring basis Threshold applied. Raw value: 0 (reports).

   Sources worldbank.org (opens in a new tab)

6. M8.6

   Agriculture AI governance

   Score 0 / 4

   No AI governance provisions specific to agriculture; agricultural sector is small (oil dominates); no AI agricultural deployment documented

   Note: Oil economy dominance means agriculture is a minor sector; AI governance for agriculture not relevant; scored 0

7. M8.7

   Financial services AI governance

   Score 1 / 4

   BGFI Bank (regional bank with Equatorial Guinea operations) and other financial institutions operate without AI governance framework; mobile money emerging (Orange Money EG); no central bank AI guidance

   Note: Mobile financial services growing; no AI governance framework; BEAC (regional central bank for CEMAC) has no AI guidance; scored 1 as nascent, fintech growth creates implicit governance pressure

8. M8.8

   Education AI governance

   Score 1 / 4

   ADIGE digital skills pillar references citizen digital empowerment including education; World Bank Diagnostic recommends digital skills curriculum reform in education; no formal AI education policy adopted

   Note: Digital education referenced in ADIGE and World Bank Diagnostic; AI-specific education policy absent; scored 1 as nascent discussion

   Sources worldbank.org (opens in a new tab)

9. M8.9

   Measurable governance outcomes

   Score 0 / 4

   No measurable AI governance outcomes; Law No. 1/2016 has not been enforced; ADIGE implementation progress not publicly reported; SIREC civil registry pilot is the only documented digital governance outcome

   Note: Pre-implementation stage; SIREC pilot is most advanced digital governance outcome but is not AI-related; scored 0

10. M8.10

    WHO AI health guidance adoption

    Score 0 / 4

    No formal adoption of WHO Ethics and Governance of AI for Health guidance; WHO operates health programmes in Equatorial Guinea but no AI health governance alignment confirmed

    Note: WHO active in Equatorial Guinea; AI health governance alignment not on agenda; scored 0