Across Africa, governments are increasingly replacing paperwork, cash payments and long queues with digital platforms that allow citizens and businesses to pay taxes, apply for licences and access public services online.
The promise is attractive, particularly for countries struggling with revenue leakages, weak administrative systems and inefficient public institutions, where digital technology can improve accountability and reduce opportunities for manipulation.
Yet the movement towards digital government raises an equally important question about transparency, particularly when private technology companies are contracted to develop and manage platforms handling public revenue.
How can citizens establish whether these systems are working as promised, whether the correct amounts reach government accounts and whether the fees charged by service providers are justified?
The answer should not depend entirely on statements from government officials or the technology companies operating the systems, particularly when disagreements arise over performance, contracts or revenue collection.
Keep Reading
African governments should introduce a simple monthly public performance scorecard for major digital service platforms, allowing citizens, auditors, financial institutions and policymakers to examine their operations using consistent, independently reviewable figures.
Such a system would move the public conversation beyond competing claims of success or failure and towards measurable evidence about how technology is improving government services.
Beyond collecting money
The first responsibility of a digital government platform is to provide the service for which it was established, something that can easily be overlooked when attention concentrates on revenue collection.
A platform may successfully process payments but still disappoint users through repeated system failures, delayed approvals, missing records or difficulties obtaining licences and certificates after payment.
Governments should publish monthly figures showing how often each service was available, how many transactions were completed and how frequently users encountered interruptions or technical failures.
These figures should distinguish services and locations, since a platform performing reliably in a capital city may face repeated connectivity and electricity problems at remote border crossings or regional government offices.
There should also be clear procedures for maintaining essential public services during internet outages, payment failures and power interruptions, with proper records maintained when transactions are completed later.
Equally important is the experience of the citizen, including how long applications take, how many payments are reversed and whether complaints are resolved within reasonable periods.
A government system cannot reasonably be described as successful simply because it collects more money when citizens continue struggling to obtain the services they have already paid for.
Following public money
Perhaps the most important requirement is transparency throughout the payment process, beginning when a citizen makes a payment and ending when the responsible government institution records the revenue.
A payment receipt confirms that a transaction took place, but it does not necessarily establish when the money reached the designated public account or whether the amount was reconciled correctly.
Modern payment systems can generate transaction references linking applications, payment processors, bank settlements and government accounting records, making it possible to identify discrepancies without exposing individual citizens' financial information.
A monthly public report should show total collections, successful payments, failed transactions, refunds, amounts settled into government accounts and any outstanding differences requiring reconciliation.
It should also identify the charges collected from citizens, distinguishing statutory taxes and government levies from bank processing fees, platform charges and other authorised service costs.
These distinctions become particularly important when private companies are compensated through contractual service fees or revenue-sharing arrangements that may be difficult for ordinary citizens to understand.
Publishing the applicable fee formulas, their legal or contractual basis and the amounts involved would allow the public to establish what belongs to government and what constitutes legitimate compensation for technology services.
The objective should be to make financial accountability a routine part of operating digital infrastructure rather than an exercise undertaken only after accusations of wrongdoing emerge.
South Sudan provides an important example
The debate surrounding digital revenue collection in South Sudan offers a useful example of both the opportunities presented by electronic government systems and the importance of independently verifiable performance records.
A World Bank digital economy assessment described how South Sudan had introduced electronic tax and public service platforms through partnerships involving private technology providers, including Crawford Capital.
The assessment documented the introduction of an electronic tax portal in 2021 through a public-private partnership involving Crawford Capital, allowing businesses and individuals to register for tax identification numbers, file returns and make payments.
It also examined digital customs systems and other electronic government services, highlighting the opportunities for improved administration while identifying weaknesses involving institutional capacity, system integration and public accountability.
The World Bank raised concerns about limited information on service usage, insufficient user feedback and the risks of depending on private contractors without adequate plans for transferring systems to government control.
These observations remain relevant because introducing technology is only one part of modernising public administration, with effective oversight and institutional independence equally important to long-term success.
In May 2026, South Sudan's Ministry of Information, Communication Technology and Postal Services publicly confirmed its engagement with Crawford Capital in supporting the research and development of electronic government services.
The South Sudan Revenue Authority separately credited digital revenue systems with improvements in monitoring, reconciliation and collection efficiency, reporting substantial increases in revenue generated through the country's tax administration.
Those were significant statements from the institutions responsible for the services, but independently reviewed monthly performance figures would provide a stronger basis for establishing the extent and sustainability of the improvements.
The discussion continued in September 2026, when the South Sudan Broadcasting Corporation reported that a ministerial economic reform committee had reviewed payment systems with the Revenue Authority and Crawford-Capital Pay.
According to the state broadcaster, the committee welcomed reported improvements in revenue collection and encouraged the institutions involved to maintain their progress, following discussions about the operation of the payment systems.
Such developments demonstrate why public performance reporting should continue regardless of changes in political leadership, administrative priorities or disagreements concerning the companies providing essential government technology.
Crawford Capital has maintained that its contractual responsibility concerns the provision and maintenance of technology rather than the exercise of government authority over taxation or public spending.
In a statement reported by Eye Radio, the company said transactions processed through its systems could be traced using banking records, platform logs and financial reconciliation documents.
Those claims, like the allegations and questions raised about its operations, would benefit from the publication of independently reviewable records authorised by the responsible government institutions.
A public scorecard would allow government authorities to demonstrate what they collect, technology providers to establish what they deliver and citizens to examine the evidence without depending entirely on competing public statements.
The same standard should apply to all private contractors operating essential digital government platforms, whether they are domestic technology firms, multinational service providers, banks or payment processors.
Government accountability cannot be outsourced
The growing involvement of private technology companies in public administration makes it necessary to distinguish government responsibilities from the contractual obligations of service providers.
Governments remain responsible for establishing lawful taxes and charges, approving public services, managing public revenue and determining the rules governing access to official information.
Technology providers, depending on their contracts, may be responsible for developing platforms, maintaining infrastructure, protecting systems, supporting users and producing operational records for government review.
Banks and payment processors may have separate obligations concerning transaction processing, settlement, regulated accounts and the controls required under applicable financial laws.
A public reporting system should explain these responsibilities clearly so that citizens can identify which institution should answer questions about a particular payment, service failure or administrative decision.
This separation would also help prevent policy decisions made by public authorities from being confused with the activities of contractors responsible for implementing the technology.
Procurement, security and continuity
Performance reporting should extend beyond payment figures to include the contractual arrangements governing major digital platforms, particularly where public institutions become heavily dependent on a single service provider.
Citizens should be able to establish which institution approved a contract, what services are covered, how charges are calculated and what arrangements exist when the agreement ends.
Where competitive procurement was not used, the responsible authority should explain the legal basis for the alternative procedure and make relevant approvals available for appropriate public scrutiny.
Governments should also disclose whether platforms undergo independent security assessments, maintain tested recovery systems and provide arrangements for transferring public data if the technology provider changes.
Such reporting need not expose sensitive security information, individual user records or confidential system configurations, since accountability can be demonstrated through aggregated performance figures and independent assurance.
Clear contractual responsibilities and continuity arrangements would protect governments from excessive dependence on any single supplier while giving responsible technology companies an opportunity to demonstrate compliance with their obligations.
A simple scorecard could make the difference
A practical monthly scorecard need not become another expensive government reporting exercise, particularly when modern digital platforms already generate much of the information needed for operational monitoring.
It could present service availability, transaction volumes, successful applications, failed payments, refunds, gross collections, government settlements, authorised service charges and outstanding reconciliation issues.
The same document could report complaints, system interruptions, independently reviewed security controls and progress in resolving previously identified operational problems.
The responsible government institution should approve the published figures, with financial totals reconciled against bank and accounting records and periodic independent audits examining the reliability of the reporting process.
Suppliers should provide the necessary system records and technical explanations, but responsibility for the accuracy and public release of government revenue information must remain with the appropriate public authority.
This approach would benefit citizens seeking accountability, governments trying to improve service delivery and technology companies whose performance deserves to be judged on evidence rather than political statements or public relations campaigns.
Africa's digital transformation should ultimately be measured not simply by how many government services have moved online, but by whether those services have become more reliable, accessible and accountable.
The strongest evidence that a digital government platform is working should not be the confidence expressed by its operators or the praise offered by public officials.
It should be the information that citizens can independently examine, showing how the system performs, how public money is handled and whether the promises made about digital government are being fulfilled.