Gambiaj.com – (BANJUL, The Gambia) – The debate around Wave and other mobile money operators in The Gambia has moved far beyond fees or convenience. It now touches on a deeper issue: control over financial data and the implications for national sovereignty in a digital economy.
At the center of this discussion is a stark reality: platforms like Wave may hold more detailed, real-time data on Gambians than any domestic institution, perhaps even more than the state itself. Whether overstated or not, this forces a critical conversation about power, governance, and accountability in the digital era.
Private Control of National Financial Metadata
Mobile money is more than a payment tool. Every transaction, savings habit, peer-to-peer transfer, and device identifier contributes to a massive behavioral dataset.
When paired with artificial intelligence, this data allows algorithmic profiling, automated credit scoring, risk segmentation, and eligibility assessment for financial services.
In a country without a formal, nationally governed credit system, this effectively creates a parallel financial intelligence system—private, opaque, and profit-driven.
The anxiety around this is structural: when foreign-controlled fintechs dominate the informal economy, which represents the majority of economic activity, they begin to resemble critical infrastructure. And infrastructure inevitably raises questions of sovereignty.
Digital Sovereignty Is More Than Server Location
Digital sovereignty is not about where servers are located. It is about who controls, audits, and monetizes data. Globally, approaches differ: the United States relies on private firms with fragmented oversight, China centralizes data under state control, and the European Union prioritizes individual rights and regulatory oversight.
The Gambia is still building its framework, including a Personal Data Protection and Privacy Act. But laws alone are insufficient if enforcement, technical auditing, and regulatory independence are weak. The real vulnerability lies in this enforcement gap, which determines whether frameworks are effective or merely symbolic.
Lessons on Innovation Without Governance
Senegal’s data protection authority has, for example, shown assertiveness, even rejecting certain data-processing authorizations. The lesson for The Gambia is clear: legal frameworks matter only if regulators have the expertise and courage to enforce them.
Without audits, transparency requirements, and oversight, compliance risks being declarative rather than substantive.
Wave has undeniably expanded financial inclusion, lowered transaction costs, and made financial services more accessible. For many Gambians, it is a solution, not a threat.
The real problem is structural: the absence of a robust, interoperable national payment system leaves the country dependent on private platforms.
The debate is therefore not innovation versus sovereignty, but innovation without governance versus innovation with governance. Citizens, regulators, and policymakers all have a role in ensuring that digital growth does not outpace accountability.
The Leverage of a Single Platform for Strategic Sovereignty in the Age of Data
When one platform dominates informal-sector transactions, it gains systemic leverage. Even a hypothetical withdrawal could destabilize the economy.
This dynamic complicates regulation, increases the risk of capture, and mirrors tensions between governments and Big Tech worldwide. The concentration of data in the hands of a few powerful platforms poses serious risks to economic stability and regulatory control.
Some argue that “the data horse has already bolted,” with major platforms already possessing deep historical datasets on Gambian users. If so, the policy focus must shift from prevention to strategic management.
The Gambia can build sovereign analytics capacity in public institutions, establish regulated data-sharing frameworks, and develop a government-backed interoperable payment infrastructure. Investments in AI literacy and technical capacity could turn raw data into a national asset, transforming a potential vulnerability into strategic leverage.
Surveillance Capitalism or Development Catalyst and Data as National Infrastructure
Platforms monetize behavioral data, a feature of modern digital capitalism, but the key question is who captures the value. If high-value analytics are produced offshore, the Gambia risks exporting raw data while importing finished services, echoing colonial economic patterns.
With regulation, technical capacity, and entrepreneurial development, however, digital finance can become a lever for development rather than a source of dependency.
The Wave debate highlights urgent needs: technical enforcement, transparency in data practices, interoperable national infrastructure, regional alignment with ECOWAS and AU digital governance strategies, and a national AI strategy that positions the country as an active participant in the digital economy.
This is not about banning Wave or romanticizing state control. It is about governance maturity—ensuring the country can manage and benefit from its digital infrastructure.
Digital finance is deeply embedded in Gambian life. The danger lies not in data collection itself, but in institutional silence. Without resources, oversight, and proactive policy, dependency will solidify quietly.
But with legislative refinement, regulatory strengthening, and strategic planning, the country can assert control over its digital future. Wave is not the story. The story is whether The Gambia is ready to treat data as national infrastructure—and govern it accordingly.
