The most dangerous question a board can ask about artificial intelligence in 2026 is, “Are we in compliance?”
Compliance is a destination. Leadership is a choice.
AI is no longer an emerging technology. It is inherent, operational and consequential. It approves credit, filters candidates, flags fraud, personalizes pricing, and acts rapidly without direct human instruction. When the system makes decisions on a large scale, the consequences are also large-scale. A single flawed credit model can quietly exclude thousands of people from financial access before anyone even realizes – unless journalists, regulators or litigants do it. Yet many boards still treat AI governance as a downstream technology exercise rather than an upstream leadership responsibility. That gap is becoming a liability.
Recent figures make this clear. IBM's 2024 Global AI Adoption Index found that while more than 80% of organizations are deploying or experimenting with AI, less than 30% have mature AI governance and risk management structures. McKinsey reports that the companies deriving the most value from AI are not those that adopt the fastest, but rather those with clear governance, accountability, and oversight built into the strategy. The signal is consistent: price follows confidence, not momentum.
AI concentrates power in systems that are opaque, probabilistic, and able to act faster than traditional surveillance mechanisms. When those systems fail due to bias, misuse, data leakage, or unsafe automation, the loss does not fall on AI models. It depends on the organization's credibility, regulatory status and social license to operate. At that moment, regulators, courts, investors, and the public did not ask whether the company complied with the minimum standard. They ask who was responsible.
This is where Vivek enters the boardroom.
A regime that relies only on compliance asks, “Is this allowed?”
Governance based on conscience asks, “Is this acceptable, and are we prepared to defend it?”
This difference matters most in Africa, where digital adoption is accelerating faster than regulatory maturity. Boards cannot outsource decisions to regulators who are still working, nor to vendors whose incentives are commercial, not fiduciary. When AI systems shape access to jobs, finance, healthcare or public services, neutrality is an illusion. Each deployment reflects values either consciously chosen or passively inherited.
“When AI systems shape access to jobs, finance, health care, or public services, neutrality is an illusion. Each deployment reflects values either consciously chosen or passively inherited.”
The most effective boards in 2026 will recognize this: AI risk is not a technology risk; This is a leadership risk. Just as cybersecurity evolved from an IT issue to a board-level concern, AI governance is following the same trajectory, only with faster and broader societal impact.
Therefore responsible AI governance at the board level requires a change in approach. Inspection should move from retrospective reporting to proactive management. Boards should also expect clarity on not only where AI is used, but why it is used, what data it relies on, who is accountable for the results, and how harm is detected and addressed if the system fails. Silence on these questions is not neutrality; This is negligence.
Global regulatory signals reinforce this shift. The EU AI Act and the OECD AI Principles all agree on the same expectations: organizations should demonstrate accountability, transparency, and human oversight. Even where local laws are silent, global capital and trade are not. Trust is becoming a prerequisite for participation in the digital economy.
But governance is not strengthened by frameworks alone. It becomes stronger with practice. Boards that treat AI governance as a permanent strategic agenda rather than an annual compliance update send a clear message internally and externally: innovation is welcome, but irresponsibility is not.
In 2026, the question for boards is no longer whether they are ready for AI or not. AI is already here. The real question is whether the leadership is prepared to govern with decision, courage and moral clarity.
Compliance keeps you legal. Sanity keeps you valid.
And legitimacy, once lost, is more difficult to regain than any regulatory approval.
Amaka Ibeji is a Boardroom Certified Qualified Technology Expert and a Digital Trust Visionary. She is the founder of PALS Hub, a digital trust and assurance company. Amaka trains and consults with individuals and companies navigating careers or practices in privacy and AI governance. Connect with him on LinkedIn: Amakai or email [email protected]
