Amid growing concerns over Africa’s economic future, the Economic Commission for Africa (ECA) has called for the strengthening of sub-regional multilateral development banks (MDBs) to boost their ability to mobilize long-term resources and provide affordable financing for African economies.

ECA’s Chief Economist and Deputy Executive Secretary, Hanan Morsy, made this call in a statement published on the commission’s website on Sunday, according to the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN).

Speaking at a high-level panel during the 57th Session of the ECA Conference of African Ministers of Finance, Planning, and Economic Development (COM2025) in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Morsy warned that Africa’s economic growth remains constrained by structural barriers. She highlighted that limited access to financing is threatening the continent’s ability to fund critical infrastructure and development projects, emphasizing the urgent need to reinforce Africa’s MDBs.

“Adequately capitalized and efficiently structured MDBs can play a pivotal role in bridging Africa’s financing gap, mobilizing resources, attracting private investments, and supporting regional economic transformation,” Morsy said.

Africa’s Lack of Effective Development Banks, A Major Barrier to AfCFTA

One of the most pressing challenges facing the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) is the lack of effective development banks at both the regional and sub-regional levels. Economists have warned that without functional development banks, Africa’s ability to finance its own economic growth will remain severely limited, leaving the continent dependent on external funding. This dependence, experts warn, will allow foreign lenders to exercise significant economic control over African nations, undermining their financial sovereignty and long-term development ambitions.

Unlike other regions that have strong development finance institutions—such as the European Investment Bank (EIB) in Europe or the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) in Asia—Africa’s regional economic blocs either lack development banks or have ineffective ones.

The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), for instance, does not have a fully operational development bank that can adequately fund infrastructure and industrial projects across the region. The Southern African Development Community (SADC) has the Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA), but its reach is limited beyond South Africa, and it lacks the financial firepower to drive large-scale economic development across the region. The East African Development Bank (EADB), which was created to serve the East African Community (EAC), has also struggled with capitalization issues, limiting its ability to provide the much-needed financing for regional economic integration projects.

With AfCFTA aiming to create the world’s largest free trade area by connecting 54 nations and over 1.4 billion people, the absence of strong development banks is a glaring weakness. AfCFTA’s success depends on Africa’s ability to finance critical trade-enabling infrastructure, including roads, railways, and energy projects. However, according to Morsy, without a robust financial architecture led by effective MDBs, these projects remain underfunded.

Due to the weakness or absence of regional development banks, African economies have increasingly relied on external lenders, including multilateral institutions such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF), as well as bilateral loans from countries like China, the United States, and European nations. While these external lenders provide much-needed capital, their financing often comes with conditions that limit African nations’ policy autonomy.

Experts have warned that dependence on foreign financing not only exposes Africa to debt vulnerabilities but also risks ceding economic control to non-African nations. Many African countries have already found themselves burdened by unsustainable debt levels, with some struggling to repay loans taken from international lenders. Countries like Zambia and Ghana have been forced into debt restructuring negotiations, with stringent conditions imposed by creditors.

The growing influence of China, which has emerged as Africa’s largest bilateral lender, has also sparked debates about Africa’s financial sovereignty. While Chinese loans have funded major infrastructure projects across the continent, concerns about debt sustainability and transparency in loan agreements have raised questions about whether these financial arrangements truly serve Africa’s long-term interests.

Panelists at the ECA conference emphasized that without strengthening Africa’s own financial institutions, the continent will remain vulnerable to external economic pressures, limiting its ability to pursue independent and sustainable development strategies.

Strengthening Africa’s Financial Institutions: The Key to Economic Independence

To address these challenges, panelists at the ECA conference explored strategies to empower MDBs, enhance resource mobilization, and scale up investment in trade and infrastructure, particularly under AfCFTA.

Admassu Tadesse, President and CEO of the Trade and Development Bank, stressed the need for increased investment in trade-enabling infrastructure. He pointed out that inadequate logistics and transportation networks continue to stifle Africa’s trade potential, and without strong development banks to finance these projects, intra-African trade will remain limited.

Fatima Elsheikh, Secretary-General of the Arab Bank for Economic Development in Africa (BADEA), identified several constraints that have limited the effectiveness of African MDBs. She noted that many of these banks are overly reliant on contributions from low-income shareholders, have limited callable capital, and face high borrowing costs, making it difficult for them to provide affordable financing for development projects.

Experts note that a well-funded African Development Bank (AfDB), coupled with strong regional development banks, could serve as a powerful engine for financing critical projects without reliance on foreign lenders.

Reforming the Global Financial System to Support Africa’s Development Banks

Beyond strengthening Africa’s own financial institutions, the conference also addressed the need for reforms in the global financial system to provide better support for African MDBs. Experts suggested reallocating Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) from the IMF to regional development banks, allowing them to expand concessional lending and finance long-term development initiatives.

There were also calls for MDBs to align their strategies with Africa’s long-term development goals, including the African Union’s Agenda 2063 and the United Nations’ 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Panelists stressed that development banks must move beyond short-term project financing and focus on structural reforms that promote economic self-sufficiency.

We’re all selfish in this world: “Google has thrown its weight behind OpenAI in the intensifying battle, reinforcing the argument that strict copyright enforcement threatens the future of artificial intelligence. Both companies, facing mounting legal challenges, have called on the US government for regulatory changes that would allow AI firms to train on publicly available data, including copyrighted material, without facing legal uncertainty.”

The artificial intelligence industry, already grappling with sky-high costs and a rocky path to profitability, is now embroiled in a high-stakes legal and policy battle over copyright. AI companies like OpenAI and Google find themselves at the center of lawsuits that could define the limits of AI training and reshape the industry’s future. At the heart of the conflict lies a fundamental question: should AI models have unrestricted access to copyrighted material for training purposes?

Just imagine that because it is AI, the small money they pay me for my books will not be paid, because one AI company has the rights to use the books as it wants. “O di egwu” [truly mystical] on how money can make humans lose sense of logic.

Think of this: if they can find money to buy Nvidia chips at $billions, why can’t they find $millions to pay copyright owners? I just hope no judge approves their prayers.

The beauty of America is that property rights exist. The money I get yearly from the US Government on my patent is valuable. Since they sought part licensing rights and I approved, the money has been flowing. If because of AI, from copyrights to patents, everything is destroyed, can we have a future? AI companies: find money and pay copyright owners! Between AI and property rights, we vote property rights,

AI’s Copyright Crisis: Google Supports OpenAI’s  Push For US To Codify AI Training As Fair Use

The artificial intelligence industry, already grappling with sky-high costs and a rocky path to profitability, is now embroiled in a high-stakes legal and policy battle over copyright. AI companies like OpenAI and Google find themselves at the center of lawsuits that could define the limits of AI training and reshape the industry’s future. At the heart of the conflict lies a fundamental question: should AI models have unrestricted access to copyrighted material for training purposes?

Google has thrown its weight behind OpenAI in the intensifying battle, reinforcing the argument that strict copyright enforcement threatens the future of artificial intelligence. Both companies, facing mounting legal challenges, have called on the US government for regulatory changes that would allow AI firms to train on publicly available data, including copyrighted material, without facing legal uncertainty.

Their position has sparked fierce opposition from content creators and media organizations, most notably the New York Times, whose lawsuit against OpenAI could reshape the legal landscape for AI development.

The New York Times, argues that the company improperly used its copyrighted content to train ChatGPT. Google, another major AI player, is also under fire, fending off multiple lawsuits accusing it of scraping copyrighted material without permission. These cases could set legal precedents that force AI companies to pay hefty licensing fees or severely limit the datasets available for training.

The Copyright Conundrum

For AI companies, training data is everything. The more data their models consume, the better they perform. But a growing number of content creators, news organizations, and artists argue that AI firms are profiting from their work without permission or compensation.

OpenAI, in its response to the Times lawsuit, has painted stringent copyright enforcement as an existential threat to AI innovation. Google has echoed this sentiment, calling for “balanced copyright rules” that would allow AI firms to use copyrighted data without being bogged down by complex negotiations.

Yet, many believe that Google’s definition of “balance” is heavily skewed in favor of tech companies. The search giant’s latest AI policy proposal suggests that publicly available data—whether copyrighted or not—should be fair game for training. Google insists that AI training does not significantly impact rightsholders, but content creators see it differently, pointing out that AI-generated content could ultimately replace human creators.

The Government’s Role in AI Development vs. Copyright Protection

Amid the ongoing legal battles, the U.S. government is stepping into the fray. The Trump administration has called for a National AI Action Plan to shape the future of the industry, a move that AI companies have seized upon to push for regulatory changes that favor their interests.

Google’s proposal calls for government backing in multiple ways:

• Funding AI Development: Google wants the federal government to subsidize AI research and provide financial incentives for startups.
• Infrastructure Overhaul: The company argues that AI progress requires a modernization of America’s energy grid, citing estimates that global data center power demand will surge by 40 gigawatts between 2024 and 2026.
• Federal AI Adoption: Google urges the government to set an example by integrating AI into public services, advocating for open datasets to be made available for AI training.

AI firms are also pushing for a unified national policy that would override restrictive state laws. California’s recent AI safety bill, SB-1047, which sought to impose stricter regulations on AI developers, was vetoed. But the fear of a fragmented regulatory landscape remains a major concern for companies like Google and OpenAI, which would prefer a more lenient federal framework.

Another contentious issue in the debate is liability. AI companies do not want to be held responsible for the actions of their users. Google, in particular, has strongly opposed any attempt to impose liability on AI developers, arguing that their products are inherently unpredictable.

“In many instances, the original developer of an AI model has little to no visibility or control over how it is being used by a deployer and may not interact with end users,” Google states in its policy document, effectively shifting responsibility to those who deploy or interact with AI models. This stance mirrors that of OpenAI, which has consistently resisted calls for greater accountability.

The EU’s AI Act, which proposes mandatory transparency requirements—including disclosures of training data sources—is seen as a looming threat. Google has warned that such measures could force companies to reveal trade secrets, potentially giving foreign competitors an advantage. The company is now lobbying the U.S. government to oppose stringent AI regulations at the international level and instead promote a “light-touch” approach that aligns with American business interests.