The COMESA Competition and Consumer Commission has issued new requirements for persons representing parties before the Determination Panel, including a Special Power of Attorney & proof of current authority to practise law in a COMESA Member State. Read: comesacompetition.org/regula…

The @UCC_Official June 2025 Minimum Cybersecurity Guidelines place cybersecurity firmly within the governance and regulatory responsibilities of licensed operators in Uganda. Read Publication: adlegalug.com/2026/08/18/uga…

At the First Africa Big Tech Accountability Summit 2026, Rosa Carling, Director at @Foxglovelegal , offered a powerful perspective on the growing intersection between generative AI, competition, and the future of independent journalism. She explained that Foxglove approaches technology as both a powerful tool and a potential source of harm—particularly where the immense market power of Big Tech companies can amplify its effects. A central concern raised was the impact of Google’s AI Overviews and AI Mode on news publishers. When publishers opt out of having their content used for generative AI, they can risk losing visibility in Google Search. Given Google's dominant position in search, being excluded from its index can have profound consequences for publishers' ability to reach audiences and generate revenue. Rosa highlighted evidence showing that generative AI summaries can result in 50–70% reductions in click-through rates to news websites, potentially undermining the economic sustainability of independent media. She also pointed to an important regulatory development in the UK, where the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has required Google to provide publishers with meaningful opt-out mechanisms for the use of their content in AI products—without penalising them in search rankings, and with the requirements extending to future AI products. The broader message was clear: AI governance cannot be separated from competition policy, media plurality and the protection of public discourse. For Africa, the lesson is particularly important. As global technology platforms expand their AI products across African markets, regulators, policymakers, civil society and affected industries must consider whether existing competition and regulatory frameworks are sufficient to address new forms of market power. The response to Big Tech cannot be fragmented. Regulators across jurisdictions need to learn from one another, coordinate where possible, and ensure that technological innovation does not come at the expense of competitive digital markets, independent media and the public interest. @martha__dark #BTASummit2026 #BigTechAccountability

During his keynote address, Mr. Babatunde Irukera underscored the transformative impact of digital platforms on competition in Africa. He explained that the more users a platform attracts, the more data it collects, enabling it to refine its algorithms, improve its services, and attract even more users. Mr. Irukera further challenged participants to consider the experience of a young entrepreneur in Kampala, Nairobi, Lagos, Johannesburg, Cairo, Kinshasa, or Lilongwe seeking to sell products online and her competitor is Amazon. Such entrepreneurs are no longer competing only within their local markets but alongside some of the world's largest digital platforms, highlighting the need for fair and contestable digital marketplaces. He commended African competition authorities for responding proactively to these emerging challenges, noting that the continent has not remained on the sidelines of digital market regulation. He pointed to South Africa, Kenya, Egypt and Nigeria for developing innovative enforcement approaches to understand digital markets, address barriers to competition, and create a fairer environment for businesses of all sizes. This happened at the First Africa Big Tech Accountability (BTA) Summit 2026. #BTASummit2026 #BigTechAccountability

Why did Uganda's landmark data privacy case against Google begin? In this video, @RayAmplifies , a complainant in Uganda's Google Data Privacy case, explains the motivation behind the complaint. He notes that the objective was never simply to challenge one company. It was to advance digital sovereignty, strengthen platform accountability, and reinforce institutional accountability in Uganda's digital ecosystem. He poses a fundamental question: Is it acceptable for a global technology company to operate in Uganda while failing to comply with the country's mandatory data privacy and protection laws? The case invites an important conversation about whether multinational technology companies should be held to the same legal standards as every other entity operating within Uganda's jurisdiction. #BTASummit2026 #BigTechAccountability #DataProtection #Privacy

Did you know how Uganda's Personal Data Protection Office investigates complaints against Big Tech? Mr. Baker Birikujja (@DirectorpdpoUG) , @pdpoUG , provided a rare look into the investigative process adopted by the Personal Data Protection Office when handling complaints involving major technology companies. Drawing from Uganda's successful investigations into Google, Meta, and WhatsApp, he explained the practical steps the Office follows—from receiving and assessing complaints to conducting investigations, engaging the parties involved, and reaching enforcement decisions. All this happened at the First Africa Big Tech Accountability Summit during the session, "Inside the Investigation Room: How African Data Protection Authorities Took On Big Tech." #BTASummit2026 #DataProtection #Privacy @GilbertSsetuuma

Two remarkable women @UgLadyLawyer & @BrownieEbal One shared commitment. Advancing the conversation on innovation and the future of Africa's digital economy at the Africa Big Tech Accountability (BTA) Summit 2026. #BTA2026

Unlike many domestic industries, aviation is inherently international. Every international flight involves multiple jurisdictions. A recent decision of the High Court of Malawi in Steven Prince Thengo v Ethiopian Airlines (Commercial Case No. 175 of 2025) represents an important milestone in the evolution of regional competition law. The Court did more than determine a procedural question; it reinforced the role of the COMESA Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (CCCC) as the appropriate forum for resolving cross-border aviation and consumer protection disputes involving multiple COMESA Member States. While considering whether Malawi was the appropriate forum, the Court found that the claimant had failed to demonstrate that justice could not be obtained in other jurisdictions such as Zambia, Ethiopia or Israel. The Court further observed that the claimant also had access to regional dispute resolution mechanisms. The Court then made an important observation: "Malawi, Ethiopia and Zambia are member states of the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA). One of the COMESA enforcement agencies created by the Treaty is the COMESA Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (CCCC), whose mandate is to promote fair competition and protect consumer welfare across the Common Market." The Court went even further by specifically recognizing the Commission's jurisdiction over aviation markets. It held: "The airline market is one market which is closely regulated by the CCCC... Based on the nature of the claimant's case this will be an appropriate forum for the claimant to file his complaint since two or more COMESA states are involved." Instead of encouraging parallel national litigation, the domestic court recognized that the COMESA Treaty established specialized institutions with expertise and jurisdiction over cross-border competition and consumer protection matters. This approach strengthens the principle of institutional complementarity. This approach shows that rather than competing with regional regulators, national courts are increasingly reinforcing them. For airlines, legal practitioners, competition authorities, and policymakers, the judgment sends a clear message: cross-border markets require cross-border solutions. As regional integration deepens, domestic courts are likely to play an increasingly important role in directing litigants toward specialized regional institutions that are better equipped to resolve disputes spanning multiple jurisdictions.