In Africa today, a paradox is unfolding. On the one hand, emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence are revolutionizing healthcare. From mobile apps that support maternal health to AI-driven diagnostics promising early detection of cancer, we are witnessing this transformation. On the other hand, patent protections and global trade rules continue to restrict access to essential medicines, leaving millions struggling to afford life-saving treatments.

Over the years, intellectual property law, designed to reward innovation, often collides with the urgent realities of public health. Trade agreements hold the promise of collective bargaining power, yet too often reinforce inequalities between developed and developing nations.

At this fraught intersection of technology, patents, pills, and people, the future of health and innovation in Africa is being contested. This was the focus of the fourth Strathmore University Knowledge Café, held on Tuesday, September 23, 2025.

Themed “Emerging Technology, Patents, Pills, and People: IP and Health in Developing Countries”, the session brought together experts to reflect on how Africa can navigate the competing demands of innovation, trade, and equity. Co-hosted by Strathmore Law School (SLS) and the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Technology Law (CIPIT), the session featured Claude Kamau, Janet Njambi, and Dorcas Chebet and was moderated by Dr. Melissa Muindi.

From top left: Dr. Melissa Muindi, Claude Kamau, Janet Njambi, and Dorcas Chebet

The conversation began with an exploration of what intellectual property means in practice. Kamau described IP as both necessary and dangerous: “Intellectual property is a monopoly right. It incentivizes innovation, but by its very nature, it can also deny millions access to the treatments they desperately need.”

He reminded the audience of the painful lessons of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. In the 1990s, life-saving antiretroviral drugs were patented and prohibitively expensive, leading to countless preventable deaths in Africa. Only when South Africa invoked compulsory licensing and parallel importation, through legal flexibilities under international agreements, did affordable generics become widely available. “It was a stark reminder that patents can save lives, but they can also cost lives,” Kamau noted.

Turning to trade, Janet  Njambi explained the significance of the TRIPS Agreement, which governs trade-related aspects of IP under the World Trade Organization (WTO). TRIPS establishes global minimum standards for IP protection, but it also provides “flexibilities” that governments can use during emergencies.

Njambi was clear-eyed about the limitations. “The TRIPS Agreement was meant to strike a balance between innovation and access, but in practice, affordability remains elusive for many developing countries,” she said.

She pointed to the Doha Declaration of 2001, which clarified that TRIPS should not prevent countries from protecting public health, and the COVID-19 TRIPS Waiver, which temporarily eased restrictions for vaccines.

Yet the problem, Njambi argued, is not only international. “The real challenge is not just what is negotiated in Geneva, but whether our domestic systems are strong enough to exploit these flexibilities. If our national laws and institutions are weak, the tools available under TRIPS will not work for us.”

The discussion then shifted to the future, where AI is rapidly changing healthcare delivery. Dorcas Chebet noted that AI is no longer abstract and is already at work in Africa. From maternal health SMS platforms to AI-assisted cancer screening, innovation is emerging within Kenyan hospitals and startups.

But these advances raise new legal questions. “Our IP frameworks were built for human inventors. When AI creates, who owns the output? And if health data from African communities is used to train these systems, how do we ensure they also share in the benefits?” Chebet asked.

She warned against the uncritical adoption of Western legal models. “Smarter IP means building systems that enable innovation while safeguarding equity. It is not enough to protect patents. We must also protect communities, data, and the right to affordable health.”

As the discussion deepened, the rallying call was that Africa must take ownership of its health and innovation agenda. Panelists agreed that relying solely on external interventions perpetuates cycles of dependency.

Kamau was emphatic in his words. “We cannot continue to rely on external interventions. Building our own capacity and shaping our own priorities is the only path to sustainable, people-centered solutions.”

Njambi added that regional integration could be transformative. “The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) creates opportunities to pool resources, harmonize laws, and use trade policy to strengthen our bargaining power.”

For Chebet, the priority is forward-looking. “We must craft IP laws that are context-sensitive and future-proof. If we only copy frameworks from elsewhere, we risk locking ourselves out of the very innovations we need most.”

As the 4^th session of the Knowledge Café drew to a close, Dr. Muindi reminded participants that this debate is ultimately about human lives. “This is not merely about law or trade. It is about people, dignity, and justice,” she said.

The conversation highlighted that intellectual property can either be a barrier or a bridge. With smarter frameworks, stronger institutions, and regional cooperation, Africa can transform the balance of power, ensuring that patents protect both profits and people.

Article written by Stephen Wakhu.