The internet is often described as a decentralised network, yet questions persist about who actually controls it. Globally, no single entity governs the internet; instead, a complex web of stakeholders – governments, big tech companies, civil society, and technical bodies – share power and influence. Barlow, in his famous Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace, envisaged a space open to anyone with none of the familiar restrictions or rules of everyday life, and free from government interference. Nowhere is this dynamic more pronounced than in Africa, where rapid digital growth intersects with debates over sovereignty, infrastructure, and governance. This article examines global internet governance and Africa-specific control dynamics, analysing the role of governments, big tech, civil society, and emerging decentralised models. It also explores Africa’s policy frameworks – from African Union initiatives to national regulations and regional blocs like ECOWAS, SADC, and EAC – and explores internet infrastructure and domain governance. 

Global Internet Governance: A Multi-Stakeholder Balance

The Internet has been governed through a multi-stakeholder model rather than a centralised authority since its inception. This approach involving governments, the private sector, technical experts, academia, and civil society has kept the Internet open, secure, and interoperable for decades​. Key institutions exemplify this collaborative governance: the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) oversees the global Domain Name System through bottom-up consensus, regional Internet registries allocate IP addresses, and bodies like the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) develop technical standards. The decentralised infrastructure of the Internet means control is distributed; no single government or company can unilaterally dictate how the entire system functions.

Government vs. Multi-Stakeholder Influence

While the multi-stakeholder model prevails, governments have long sought to assert influence. The United States historically stewarded critical internet resources (like ICANN’s precursor) but transitioned oversight to a global multi-stakeholder community in 2016, reinforcing the principle that the internet is a shared global resource. Meanwhile, other governments advocate greater state control through venues like the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), reflecting concerns about national sovereignty in cyberspace. Still, the prevailing wisdom is that the consensus-driven, community-based approach to Internet governance best preserves stability and openness​. This balance is evident in forums such as the UN-facilitated Internet Governance Forum (IGF), where diverse stakeholders meet as equals to discuss policies without binding decisions. Overall, global governance of the internet is an evolving equilibrium – neither anarchy nor unitary control, but a constant negotiation among interested parties.

Government Control and Regulation

Governments wield significant control over how the Internet operates within their borders. They regulate internet service providers (ISPs), set telecom licensing rules, enact digital laws, and even censor or shut down access in extreme cases. Authoritarian regimes like China have built extensive controls (“Great Firewall”) to filter content and restrict global platforms, demonstrating one model of tight government grip. Even democratic states impose content moderation laws or surveillance in the name of security. The Arab Spring showed both the empowering and threatening sides of the internet – activists used social media to mobilise, while some governments responded with censorship and even complete network shutdowns. For example, during Egypt’s 2011 uprising, the government shut down internet access for a few days in an attempt to stifle communication​. This pattern has echoed elsewhere: across Africa and the world, internet shutdowns have become a tool for governments facing dissent or unrest. In 2024 alone, authorities shut down the internet in 35 countries worldwide (a record high), and in Africa, 13 countries imposed shutdowns twenty-one times (down from shutdowns across 7 countries the previous year)​. Such actions underscore the power governments have over physical networks and gateways, often at odds with citizens’ rights and economic interests.

Beyond outright shutdowns, African governments exert control through laws and regulations. Many countries require SIM card registration, monitor social media, or demand data localisation for certain information. Several have passed cybercrime or media laws that critics say can be used to suppress online speech. A vivid example was Nigeria’s 2021 ban on Twitter: after the platform removed a tweet by the President, the government blocked access to Twitter for over seven months​. The ban was lifted only after Twitter agreed to establish a local office and comply with national regulations, illustrating how state power can pressure even tech giants​. Such incidents highlight a core tension in internet governance, governments claim the right to enforce laws and protect sovereignty online, but heavy-handed interventions can clash with the internet’s borderless nature and economic freedoms.

At the same time, many African governments are actively developing policies to leverage the Internet for development. They recognise that a thriving digital economy requires a degree of openness and cooperation. Balancing security and openness is a central challenge. Some countries have set up dedicated Internet governance forums or multi-stakeholder panels to engage the public in policy discourse. In essence, African government control over its internet is a double-edged sword, it can provide necessary oversight and security, but if misused, it risks stifling the very benefits of connectivity.

Big Tech’s Influence on the Internet

The rise of big technology companies, platforms, content providers, and infrastructure firms, has added another layer to the question of who controls the internet. Corporations like Google, Meta (Facebook), Amazon, and Microsoft command enormous influence over both the technical infrastructure and the online content ecosystem. In Africa, where a handful of foreign platforms dominate social media, search, and cloud services, big tech’s role looms large. These firms effectively control much of what users see and do online through algorithms and content moderation policies. For many new internet users, Facebook or WhatsApp is the internet, raising concerns that private companies are acting as gatekeepers. Indeed, Facebook’s controversial Free Basics program offering a limited free internet bundle was criticised for “pre-selecting services” and acting as a gatekeeper of the internet, with a Western-centric bias that could sideline local startups​. This led to debates on net neutrality and digital colonialism, eventually forcing Facebook to open up the platform to more services. The broader point remains: when a few corporations control major gateways, app stores, or social networks, they gain outsised power over online information flows.

Big tech’s influence extends to physical infrastructure as well. It is increasingly common to see tech giants investing in submarine cables, data centres, and satellite networks, including across Africa. For example, Google has laid the Equiano subsea cable connecting Africa to Europe and is backing a new “Umojia” cable from Africa to Asia, as part of its push to improve connectivity​. Similarly, Meta (Facebook) and partners are behind the massive “2Africa” undersea cable circling the continent. As one researcher noted, companies that are already gatekeepers of online content are now becoming “caretakers of [the internet’s] backbone infrastructure,” raising questions about transparency, accountability, and concentration of power. On one hand, these investments bring much-needed bandwidth and cloud services to Africa; on the other, they deepen dependency on foreign corporations. Outages or policy changes by a major provider can have a sweeping impact. For instance, when big platforms adjust their algorithms or terms of service, entire African businesses (media outlets, e-commerce vendors, etc.) can be affected.

Civil Society and Decentralised Governance Models

Civil society including non-profits, academia, activists, and the technical community all play a crucial role in championing an open and rights-respecting internet. Around the world and in Africa, civil society organisations have fought against internet shutdowns, surveillance abuse, and restrictive laws. They advocate for human rights online, net neutrality, and affordable access, often providing the counterweight to state and corporate power. Notably, in Africa a coalition of organisations launched the African Declaration on Internet Rights and Freedoms in 2014, a landmark document promoting human rights and openness in internet policy​. This declaration has informed digital rights campaigns and offers a blueprint for civil society engagement with governments and businesses. Likewise, civil society groups run national and regional Internet Governance Forum (IGF) initiatives, ensuring that diverse voices including youth, women, and rural communities – contribute to shaping Internet governance agendas.

The multi-stakeholder model itself is a form of decentralised governance: it distributes decision-making across various stakeholders rather than centralising it. Africa has largely embraced this model. In fact, African internet institutions and forums have proliferated at continental, regional, and national levels, embodying the inclusive approach. The African Internet Governance Forum (AfIGF) brings stakeholders together annually, and many countries have local IGFs. This inclusive governance ethos is seen as essential for sustainable policy solutions. “Africa has embraced the multistakeholder model of Internet governance which enables policymakers to draw from the expertise of relevant stakeholders to develop sustainable public policy approaches”​. This approach has been credited with helping Africa’s internet growth by fostering partnerships between governments, tech companies, and civil society​. In practice, that means telecom operators, regulators, academics, and activists might collaborate on issues like expanding rural connectivity or drafting data protection laws, rather than the government acting alone.

Beyond the multi-stakeholder processes, decentralised technologies are emerging that could influence internet control in the future. For instance, blockchain-based domain name systems, community mesh networks, and open-source platforms are often touted as ways to reduce reliance on big centralised actors. In Africa, community networks have provided internet access in remote areas on a cooperative model, and there is growing interest in open internet standards. While these innovations are nascent, they represent a trend toward distributed control – keeping the internet’s core infrastructure and content platforms as neutral, accessible commons rather than monopolised systems. Civil society often drives these efforts, guided by the principle that the internet should remain a public good.

Africa’s Internet Governance Landscape

Africa’s internet governance is shaped by the continent’s unique political and development context. With internet penetration still growing (around 43% in 2022) and vast digital divides to bridge, African leaders view the digital domain as both an opportunity and a strategic domain to safeguard. The African Union (AU) has taken an active role in articulating a vision for Africa’s internet. The AU’s Agenda 2063 identifies digital transformation as a key driver for development​, and the union has backed principles of an open, safe, and inclusive internet. In 2022, the AU adopted a Data Policy Framework aimed at harmonising data governance across member states, balancing data protection with the free flow of information for innovation​. Additionally, the AU has drafted an African Declaration on Internet Governance (2021) outlining common positions – committing to a global Internet governance framework based on openness, freedom of expression, privacy, universal access, and cultural diversity​. This declaration also emphasises that African states should move from just consultative roles to more active participation in managing critical internet resources, in order to improve equity and effectiveness in global governance​

Continental policy is backed by legal frameworks. The AU Convention on Cyber Security and Personal Data Protection (known as the Malabo Convention) was adopted in 2014 to set baseline rules on cybersecurity, cybercrime, and data privacy across Africa. However, progress was slow – the convention only entered into force in June 2023 after finally achieving the required 15 ratifications (out of 55 countries), highlighting limited uptake and credibility challenges​. Many countries were hesitant to bind themselves to international cyber norms, reflecting varying priorities and capacities. Now that it’s in force, the Malabo Convention could spur more countries to enact national cybersecurity and data protection laws and enable better cross-border cooperation. Already, more than half of African nations have some form of data protection legislation, and a growing number are drafting cybersecurity strategies – but gaps remain.

Regional economic blocs provide another governance layer. Organisations like ECOWAS in West Africa, SADC in Southern Africa, and the EAC in East Africa have developed regional ICT policies and model laws to harmonise approaches. For example, ECOWAS adopted a regional Data Protection Act and Cybercrime Directive to guide its members in enacting aligned laws. SADC has a model law on data protection and model cybersecurity frameworks, aiming to ensure that as people and data flow across borders, rules remain consistent. These regional efforts help smaller or less-resourced countries leapfrog by using ready-made legal templates and they promote regulatory interoperability which is vital for things like cross-border e-commerce and digital services. They also reflect a shared understanding that African countries are stronger in negotiating as a bloc in global digital policy discussions. By speaking with one voice at forums like ICANN or UN cyber dialogues, regional coalitions can enhance Africa’s influence over how the internet is run globally.

At the national level, there is a patchwork of regulatory approaches across Africa. Some countries have liberalised telecom markets and embraced internet freedom, while others maintain state-owned telecom monopolies or strict information controls. South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, and Ghana, for instance, have relatively open internet ecosystems with vibrant tech sectors and active civil societies that check government overreach. On the other hand, countries like Ethiopia or Cameroon have at times tightly controlled internet access or delayed liberalisation, which has slowed progress. Nevertheless, the overall trend is that African nations are updating their laws to deal with modern internet issues – from cybercrime and hate speech to digital taxation and fintech regulations. The diversity of national approaches means there is no single African model of internet control; instead, there’s a spectrum from open to closed, with most countries navigating a middle path of enabling digital growth while asserting some sovereign controls.

Internet Infrastructure and Domain Governance in Africa

Control of the internet also comes down to who owns and operates the infrastructure, and the physical and logical architecture of the network. In Africa, internet infrastructure has historically been underdeveloped, with heavy reliance on international gateways. This is changing rapidly. The continent is now crisscrossed by undersea fibre optic cables (many funded by consortia of African telecom operators, global carriers, and tech companies), and terrestrial fibre links and Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) are spreading connectivity inland. The question of control arises in terms of ownership and access. A significant portion of Africa’s international bandwidth comes through cables owned by foreign companies or joint ventures. For example, as noted, Google and Meta are key investors in new high-capacity cables​. Meanwhile, China’s Huawei and other firms have built much of the telecom backbone and national data centres. This external dominance can be a double-edged sword: it brings expertise and capital but can lead to dependency on foreign infrastructure and technologies. Recognising this, African policymakers increasingly call for treating critical infrastructure (like fibre cables and data centres) as strategic assets that need protection and local empowerment​.

Local telecom companies (such as MTN, Vodacom, Safaricom, and Sonatel) and state-owned operators still control the last-mile networks and ISPs that deliver internet to users. They are regulated by national authorities, which means governments can indirectly influence internet access through licensing conditions and by pressuring these operators. For example, in times of political crisis, authorities often order telecoms to block certain services or websites. The robustness of Africa’s internet infrastructure is improving, but gaps in coverage and quality persist rural areas remain under-served and internet blackouts can occur if single points of failure (like a submarine cable landing station) are disrupted. Building redundancy and local interconnectivity (more IXPs to route African traffic within Africa) is a key goal in reducing reliance on overseas networks.

On the logical layer, domain name governance is a vital aspect of control. ICANN coordinates top-level domains (TLDs) globally, including country-code TLDs (ccTLDs) for each nation (like .ng for Nigeria, .za for South Africa) and the newer regional .africa domain. Most African ccTLDs are administered by national entities – sometimes the government ICT agency, sometimes multi-stakeholder nonprofit registries. These entities decide policies for domain registration under their ccTLD (which can have implications for censorship or control, if say a government can seize domains). The launch of .africa in 2017, an AU-backed continental domain name, was a symbolic milestone: it created a digital space managed by Africans for Africa​. The .africa registry is run by the ZA Central Registry and has the backing of the AU, reflecting an effort to assert a continental digital identity. African stakeholders also participate in ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee and other constituencies to voice regional interests in global domain policy (for instance, on issues like multilingual domain names or affordable access to domain registrations).

Another aspect is the allocation of IP addresses, which in Africa is handled by AFRINIC (the African Network Information Centre). AFRINIC, as the region’s RIR, manages the distribution of IP address blocks to ISPs and organisations. Historically, Africa received a very small share of IPv4 addresses, at one point only about 2% of global IPv4 space was allocated to Africa​, reflecting the late growth of the internet on the continent. This scarcity has accelerated IPv6 adoption in Africa, and AFRINIC works with network operators to transition to the newer protocol with its vastly larger address space. Control of IP addressing is not usually a political issue, but AFRINIC’s governance has faced challenges (including legal disputes over address misuse), underscoring that even technical coordination bodies must be transparent and secure to prevent misappropriation of critical resources.

In summary, the internet’s infrastructure and logical resources in Africa are co-governed by global and local actors. The key to empowering Africa in this domain lies in increasing local ownership (more African-run data centres, internet exchanges, content hosting) and active participation in global governance fora so that Africa’s needs – affordable access, multilingual internet, infrastructure security – are prioritised.

Conclusion

The question of “who controls the internet” has no single answer – control is diffuse and constantly negotiated. Globally, the internet’s governance has been a story of collaboration and sometimes contention between governments, companies, and civil society. In Africa, this story is unfolding with unique twists: the continent is asserting itself with visionary policies and home-grown initiatives even as it grapples with external influences and internal challenges. Africa’s internet governance landscape is at a pivotal moment – decisions made now about control, openness, and security will shape the continent’s digital future and its role in the global digital order.

A key takeaway is that shared governance is the optimal path. No one actor can or should have absolute control. African governments, working with regional bodies and stakeholders, can ensure the Internet remains an open platform for innovation and expression while protecting national interests. Big tech must be part of the solution, investing responsibly and adhering to local norms. Civil society will continue to be the conscience of the digital space, reminding all parties of the need to uphold human rights and public interest. And emerging decentralised technologies may further empower users at the edges of the network.

For policymakers and business leaders alike, the imperative is to stay informed, collaborative, and forward-thinking. Technology Policy Advisory will continue to provide insights at this frontier, helping to ensure that Africa’s digital transformation is built on sound governance and inclusive growth so that the internet remains a force for empowerment under the stewardship of all its users.

Sources:

1. Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) – "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace" https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence

2. ICANN – "WSIS+10: Celebrating a Decade of the Multistakeholder Model" https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/government-engagement-ge/wsis-fact-sheet-achievements-multistakeholder-model-internet-governance-21-10-2024-en.pdf

3. ICANN – "ICANN's Transition to the Global Community" https://archive.icann.org/tr/english-text.html

4. APNIC – "History of the Regional Internet Registries"
   https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/organization/history-of-apnic/history-of-the-regional-internet-registries/

5. IETF – "The Internet Standards Process" https://www.ietf.org/process/

6. MIT Sloan School of Management – "Some Exploratory Research on the Information Content of Financial Statements" http://ccs.mit.edu/papers/ccswp197/ccswp197.html

7. ICANN – "ICANN and the US Government" https://www.icann.org/en/history/icann-usg

8. NETmundial – "NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement"
   https://netmundial.br/pdf/IGPP-NETMUNDIAL2014.pdf

9. United Nations Public Administration Network (UNPAN) – "Internet Governance Forum (IGF)" https://unpan.un.org/capacity-development/development-cooperation-projects/UNPAN-global/IGF

10. Columbia Global Freedom of Expression – "The Case of Communications Suspension and Internet Shutdown During the 2011 Egyptian Revolution"
    https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/communications-suspension-and-internet-shutdown-case-during-the-2011-egyptian-revolution/

11. University of Nebraska-Lincoln – "Twitter Ban in Nigeria: Implications on Economy, Freedom of Speech and Information Sharing" by Wisdom Okereke Anyim https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/5975/

12. Stanford University – "Access granted: Facebook’s free basics in Africa" by Toussaint Nothias https://pacscenter.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/ToussaintPaper.pdf

13. Business Insider Africa – "Google wants to connect Africa to Australia with Umoja cable"
    https://africa.businessinsider.com/local/markets/google-wants-to-connect-africa-to-australia-with-umoja-cable/pw7w60d

14. 2Africa Cable – "Home | 2Africa Cable" https://www.2africacable.net/

15. African Declaration on Internet Rights and Freedoms – "African Declaration on Internet Rights and Freedoms" https://africaninternetrights.org/sites/default/files/African-Declaration-English-FINAL.pdf

16. African Union – "Agenda 2063: The Africa We Want" https://au.int/sites/default/files/documents/36204-doc-agenda2063_popular_version_en.pdf

17. African Union – "AU Data Policy Framework"
    https://au.int/sites/default/files/documents/42078-doc-AU-DATA-POLICY-FRAMEWORK-ENG1.pdf

18. African Union – "African Union Convention on Cyber Security and Personal Data Protection" https://au.int/sites/default/files/treaties/29560-treaty-0048_-_african_union_convention_on_cyber_security_and_personal_data_protection_e.pdf

19. East African Communications Organization (EACO) – "EAC Model ICT Policy"
    https://eaco.int/admin/docs/publications/EAC_MODEL_ICT_POLICY.pdf

20. ECOWAS – "Fighting Cybercrime: ECOWAS Directive on Fighting Cybercrime"
    https://ccdcoe.org/uploads/2018/10/ECOWAS-110819-FightingCybercrime.pdf