Broadcasting
How Business and Government Can Put Trust at the Centre of Our AI Future
Zuko Mdwaba, Salesforce Area VP / Africa Executive
Generative AI is revolutionising the way we live and work. Across industries, leaders and users alike are experimenting and tapping into the power of these technologies to their advantage.
Photography for SAS in April 2017 by Jeremy Glyn.
Nearly 7 in 10 workers say generative AI will help them better serve customers.
But like any new technology, generative AI is not without risks. Unlike consumer AI, like Apple’s Siri and Amazon Alexa, enterprise customers require higher levels of trust and security, especially in regulated industries.
When working with the world’s leading businesses, it’s critical to explore this technology in an intentional and responsible way so that ethics remain top of mind for customers, addressing concerns around data ethics, privacy and control of their data.
It’s encouraging to see governments begin to take definitive action to ensure trustworthy AI. Businesses are eager for guardrails and guidance and are looking to the government to create policies and standards that will help ensure trustworthy and transparent AI.
Helping users understand when and what AI is recommending, especially for high risk or consequential decisions, is critical to ensuring that end users have access to information about how AI-driven decisions are made.
Creating risk-based frameworks, pushing for commitments to ethical AI design and development, and convening multi-stakeholder groups are just a few key areas where policymakers must help lead the way.
It’s not just about asking more of AI. We need to ask more of each other — our governments, businesses, and civil society — to harness the power of AI in safe, responsible ways.
We don’t have all the answers, but we understand that leading with trust and transparency is the best path forward.
There are numerous ways that business and government can deepen trust in AI, providing us with the technical know-how and muscle memory to handle new risks as they emerge.
Protect people’s privacy
The AI revolution is a data revolution, and we need comprehensive privacy legislation to protect people’s data.
At Salesforce, we believe companies should not use any datasets that fail to respect privacy and consent.
By creating a separation of the data from the Large Language Model (LLM), organisations can be confident that their data is being protected from access via third parties without customer and user consent. When that data is accessed by the LLM, it’s important it is kept safe through a number of methods like secure data retrieval, dynamic grounding, data masking, toxicity detection, and zero retention.
When collecting data to train and evaluate models, it’s important to respect data provenance and ensure that companies have consent to use that data.
For governments, protecting their citizens while encouraging inclusive innovation means creating and giving access to privacy-preserving datasets that are specific to their countries and cultures.
Policy should address AI systems, not just models
A lot of attention is being paid to models, but to address high risk use cases we must take a holistic view: on data, models, and apps. Every entity in the AI value chain must play a role in responsible AI development and use.
A one-size-fits-all approach to regulation may hinder innovation, disrupt healthy competition, and delay the adoption of the technology that consumers and businesses around the world are already using to boost productivity.
Regulation should differentiate the context, control, and uses of the technology and assign guardrails accordingly. Generative AI developers, for instance, should be accountable for how the models are trained and the data they are trained on. At the same time, those deploying the technology and deciding how the tool is being used should establish rules governing that interaction.
When it comes to model sizes, bigger is not always better. Smaller models offer high quality responses and can be better for the planet. Governments should incentivise carbon footprint transparency and help scientists advance carbon efficiency for AI.
Appropriate guardrails will unlock innovation
Trust in AI is as important as functionality. Enterprises increasingly require on-demand availability, highly solid uptime, and reliable security. For example, when companies offer a service, customers expect it to be available most of the time. This powers trust.
Organisations need AI tools that are available, fault-tolerant, secure, and sustainable – this is ultimately how they build trust both within their organisation and with their customers.
Competition and Consumer Protection Tribunal (CCPT) in Abuja has dismissed a class action suit filed by one Uche Diala and 961 other DStv and GOtv subscribers against MultiChoice Nigeria and the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC), citing lack of jurisdiction.
The suit challenged MultiChoice’s subscription price increases in November 2023 and May 2024, which the claimants described as arbitrary, exploitative, and unfair.
Diala and others sought to reverse the hikes and compel the company to adopt a more flexible billing model, such as a pay-as-you-view system used in other countries like South Africa.
They also accused MultiChoice of price discrimination against Nigerian consumers.
MultiChoice, through its counsel, raised a preliminary objection, arguing that pricing decisions do not fall within the tribunal’s remit and that the suit was improperly filed as a class action without first seeking the tribunal’s leave.
In its ruling on Thursday, the tribunal’s three-member panel led by Justice Thomas Okosun held that the core issues raised, which were pricing and tariff regulation, fall under the exclusive purview of the executive branch, particularly the President, as stipulated under the Price Control Act.
“The issue of price regulation is a matter that falls within the exclusive purview of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,” Okosun stated.
While the tribunal acknowledged it holds both original and appellate jurisdiction under the FCCPC Act, it emphasized that such authority does not cover general price control unless abuse of market dominance is established—a point the claimants failed to prove.
On the procedural matter of filing a class action without prior approval, the tribunal noted that although it is ideal to obtain leave, failure to do so was not fatal in this instance since the claimants demonstrated a shared grievance and common interest.
Nonetheless, the tribunal upheld MultiChoice’s objection, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.
“The preliminary objection of the first defendant succeeds,” the panel held. “This suit is accordingly struck out for want of jurisdiction.”
This ruling follows a similar outcome on May 8, when a Federal High Court in Abuja upheld MultiChoice’s price increases after the company sued the FCCPC.
In that judgment, Justice James Omotoso declared that the FCCPC lacked the authority to fix or suspend subscription rates.
MultiChoice Nigeria has slashed the price of its DStv decoder from N20,000 to N10,000, representing a 50 percent drop, in a aim at attracting attract more customers and curb declining subscriptions.
The campaign, titled “We’ve Got You,” was launched on June 16 and will continue until July 31.
Also, as part of its efforts to ease economic pressure on households and improve access to digital TV services, the campaign offers a free upgrade for both active and returning customers.
Speaking on the campaign, John Ugbe, chief executive officer (CEO) of MultiChoice Nigeria, said the initiative reflects the company’s commitment to rewarding loyalty and enhancing daily viewing experiences.
“We want to ensure our customers feel appreciated and have access to the best entertainment every day,” Ugbe said.
“The ‘We’veGot You’ campaign is about making premium content more accessible and showing that DStv offers something for everyone, not just football fans.
“By repositioning itself as a platform for daily value, DStv aims to encourage content discovery across a wider array of genres, including movies, drama, kids’ programming, and news.
“This means more channels, more shows, and more reasons to tune in every day.”
The development comes amid MultiChoice Nigeria’s legal battle with the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) over price hike.
Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) will, on Oct. 7, arraigned the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Qatar Airways, Mr Temi Birdzell, alongside the company and its top officers, over allegations bordering on breach of FCCPC Act, 2018.
The defendants will be arraigned before Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja.
Others to be arraigned with Birdzell are Stella Ihediwa, the Account Manager of the airline; Kennedy Chirchir, the Country Manager and Eva Ojeje, who is the Sales Manager of the company.
Although the arraignment was scheduled for Tuesday, the matter could not proceed.
Upon resumed hearing, none of the defendants was in court.
When the matter was called on Tuesday, none of the defendants was in court due to improper service of the court documents, including the hearing notice, on them.
FCCPC.’s lawyer, Chizenum Nsitem, told the court of their inability to serve four of the defendants, although the company was served.
Nsitem then sought an adjournment to enable them do the needful and the judge adjourned the matter until Oct. 7 for the defendants to take their plea.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the commission, in the charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/200/2025, dragged Qatar Airways, Birdzell, Ihediwa, Chirchir and Ojeje to court as 1st to 5th defendants respectively.
FCCPC, in the application dated May 26 but filed May 27, had preferred a two-count charge against the defendants.
The defendants were alleged to have failed to appear before FCCPC in compliance with a lawful summons of the commission dated Sept. 6, 2024, and thereby committed an offence contrary to and punishable under Section 33 (3) of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection (FCCPC) Act, 2018.
They were also accused to have on Sept. 18, 2024, intentionally withheld the production of documents in compliance wth a lawful summons of the commission, thereby committed an offence contrary to and punishable under Section 111 of FCCP Act, 2018.
In count three, they were alleged to have on Sept. 18, 2024, engaged in the contravention of the consumer rights, thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 124(1) and punishable under Section 155 of the same Act.
INTERPOL Report Shows Cybercrime is West, East African Most Dominant Security Concern
Nigeria’s BNPL Market is Projected to Value @ $2.6B by 2030
NIA Puts Industry Written Premium @ N1.5trn in 2024
V-Malaysia 2025: QNET Strengthens Global Network with Landmark 5-Day Event
Instagram Safety Tools Every Parent Should Know About
E-Business2 days agoAfCFTA Positions Africa to Tap into $712bn Digital Trade Market by 2035
E-Financial2 days agoFidelity Bank Clears the Air: MD Not Linked to Woobs Case
General News2 days agoSEC Advocates for Advanced Financial Inclusion by 2030
E-Business2 days agoNFIU Credits AML/CFT Reforms behind Nigeria’s Nears Exit from FATF Greylist
General News1 day agoAfDB Cuts Nigeria’s Growth Projection to 3.2%
Broadcasting2 days agoMultiChoice Nigeria Slashes Decoder Price by 50 Percent, Offers Free Upgrades
E-Financial1 day agoFlutterwave Named in 2025 TIME100 Most Influential Companies List
E-Financial2 days agoKeystone Bank, Enterprise Devt Centre Sign MoU To Empower SMEs ln Nigeria