Boards must lead the AI revolution

By Richard Ndebele

 

Zimbabwe’s recent launch of the National Artificial Intelligence Strategy (2026–2030) marked more than another policy announcement.

 

It signalled the country’s determination to embrace the Fourth Industrial Revolution and harness artificial intelligence to transform key sectors, including agriculture, mining, healthcare, education, financial services and public administration.

 

It is an exciting vision. Yet as organisations rush to adopt AI, one question deserves far greater attention than it is currently receiving.

 

Who is governing artificial intelligence?

 

That question may well define the future of corporate leadership.

 

History teaches us that technology almost always advances faster than governance. The Industrial Revolution transformed economies before labour laws evolved to protect workers. The internet revolution connected the world before governments understood how to deal with cybercrime, misinformation and digital privacy. Financial innovation expanded access to capital, but inadequate oversight contributed to the global financial crisis.

 

Artificial intelligence presents us with the same challenge.

 

The greatest risk facing organisations is not adopting AI too slowly. It is adopting it faster than they develop the governance needed to use it responsibly.

 

This is why boards—not technology departments—must lead the AI revolution.

 

Across Zimbabwe, organisations are already beginning to integrate AI into their operations. Banks are exploring AI-powered customer service and fraud detection. Professional firms are using AI to analyse large volumes of financial information. Businesses are automating routine processes to improve efficiency and decision-making.

 

These developments should be welcomed.

 

Artificial intelligence has the potential to improve productivity, reduce operational costs and unlock entirely new ways of creating value. However, technology alone has never guaranteed good decisions.

 

Only good governance can do that.

 

Consider a commercial bank introducing an AI system to assess loan applications. Within seconds, the system analyses thousands of data points and recommends whether an applicant qualifies for credit. The technology may be remarkably efficient, but what if it unintentionally disadvantages small businesses, women entrepreneurs or rural applicants because historical data reflects long-standing inequalities in access to finance?

 

The software cannot answer for that outcome.

 

Management cannot avoid responsibility by blaming the algorithm.

 

Ultimately, accountability rests with the board.

 

The same principle applies within the public sector.

 

 

 

Imagine ZIMRA deploying artificial intelligence to detect suspicious tax patterns, identify VAT fraud and prioritise audit cases. Such technology could significantly strengthen revenue collection while allowing tax officials to focus on the highest-risk cases.

 

However, what happens when a compliant taxpayer is incorrectly flagged by the system? How is that decision explained? What mechanisms exist to challenge an automated outcome?

 

Efficiency may improve public administration.

 

Only governance builds public trust.

 

The opportunities are equally significant in public procurement. Artificial intelligence could analyse thousands of procurement transactions within minutes, identify unusual pricing patterns, detect possible conflicts of interest and flag suspicious supplier relationships long before conventional audits uncover them. The potential savings to taxpayers would be enormous.

 

Yet without proper oversight, the same technology could simply automate poor decisions or create the false impression that computer-generated outcomes are always objective and beyond question.

 

Technology should strengthen accountability—not replace it.

 

This is precisely where boards must demonstrate leadership.

 

For too long, artificial intelligence has been viewed primarily as an IT issue. Responsibility has often been delegated to technology specialists or innovation teams. While technical experts play a vital role, they cannot answer the governance questions that ultimately determine whether AI creates sustainable value or unacceptable risk.

 

Boards should now be asking different questions.

 

How does AI align with our organisational strategy? Are AI-related risks incorporated into enterprise risk management? Do we have appropriate safeguards for data privacy and cybersecurity? Are there ethical principles governing how AI is used? Who remains accountable when AI influences critical business decisions?

 

These are not technology questions.

 

They are governance questions.

 

Consequently, the responsibilities of directors are expanding. Just as boards have had to strengthen their oversight of cybersecurity, climate-related risks and financial reporting over the past decade, they must now develop sufficient understanding of artificial intelligence to provide effective strategic oversight.

 

Directors do not need to become programmers or data scientists. They do, however, need enough knowledge to challenge management, ask the right questions and ensure that technology always serves the interests of the organisation and its stakeholders.

 

Around the world, leading organisations are already responding. Many have adopted AI governance frameworks, integrated AI into enterprise risk management and established ethical principles to guide the responsible use of artificial intelligence. Increasingly, regulators expect boards to demonstrate meaningful oversight rather than assuming that technology risks belong exclusively to management.

 

Zimbabwe has the opportunity to learn from these experiences rather than repeating the mistakes of others.

 

As our National Artificial Intelligence Strategy moves from policy to implementation, governance must become the foundation upon which innovation is built. Artificial intelligence should never be viewed as a substitute for leadership, judgement or accountability. Rather, it should be regarded as a powerful tool that enables leaders to make better-informed decisions.

 

Artificial intelligence can analyse millions of data points within seconds.

 

It can identify patterns invisible to the human eye.

 

It can automate complex processes with remarkable speed.

 

But it cannot exercise integrity.

 

It cannot demonstrate ethical judgement.

 

It cannot accept accountability.

 

Those responsibilities remain uniquely human.

 

The organisations that will thrive in the AI era will not necessarily be those with the most sophisticated algorithms. They will be those whose boards provide the strongest leadership, the clearest oversight and the highest ethical standards.

 

The AI revolution has already begun.

 

The question is no longer whether organisations should embrace artificial intelligence.

 

The real question is whether their boards are prepared to govern it.

 

About the Author

 

Richard Ndebele is Manager: Technical, Research and Quality Assurance at the Chartered Governance and Accountancy Institute in Zimbabwe (CGI Zimbabwe) and serves as Country Champion for the Pan African Federation of Accountants (PAFA) Sustainability Centre of Excellence. He writes on governance, sustainability and public financial management, with a focus on strengthening decision-making and institutional performance in African economies. Can be contacted on rndebele@cgizim.org