Global Index Score
13.49
Mozambique's index score lands -8.3 against the Africa average (21.8) and -1.4 against Low income peers (14.9). It scores ahead of 11% of the 135 countries and jurisdictions assessed this edition. The profile rests on 9 documented evidence items spanning policy frameworks, government initiatives and civil society activity.
GIRAI evaluates countries across five core dimensions that capture the social, ethical, and institutional impacts of artificial intelligence.
AI Policy
3.18
Avrg. Score
13.69
Enabling Conditions
37.51
Avrg. Score
42.48
Civil Society Engagement
3.30
Avrg. Score
9.31
10.95
Index Score
16.68
Avrg. Dimension score
Mozambique runs -5.7 against the regional average (16.7) on Inclusion and Diversity. Strongest indicators: Cultural and Linguistic Diversity (9.1), Gender Equality (0.0). Weakest: Children's Rights (0.0). This dimension ranks 118th globally — ahead of the country's overall position (120th). 2 evidence items on file, including 2 documented items (documented frameworks and initiatives).
16.16
Index Score
23.38
Avrg. Dimension score
Mozambique runs -7.2 against the regional average (23.4) on Ethics and Sustainability. Strongest indicators: Fairness and Non-discrimination (0.0), Transparency and Explainability (0.0). Weakest: Environmental Impact (0.0), Human Oversight and Determination (0.0). This dimension ranks 107th globally — ahead of the country's overall position (120th). No dimension-specific evidence items are on file.
11.28
Index Score
23.30
Avrg. Dimension score
Mozambique runs -12.0 against the regional average (23.3) on Labour and Skills. Strongest indicators: Reskilling/Upskilling Initiatives (9.1), AI Literacy (9.1). Weakest: Labour Protections (0.0). This dimension ranks 122nd globally — behind the country's overall position (120th). 2 evidence items on file, including "AI Challenges and Opportunities for Mozambique".
19.31
Index Score
26.36
Avrg. Dimension score
Mozambique runs -7.1 against the regional average (26.4) on Trust and Safety. Strongest indicators: AI-facilitated Misinformation and Violence (18.2), Safety and Security (9.1). Weakest: Impact Assessments (0.0), Access to Redress and Remedy (0.0). This dimension ranks 110th globally — ahead of the country's overall position (120th). 5 evidence items on file, including "III Seminar on CybercrimeCombating Organized Crime in the Era of AI" and 2 other documented items.
9.77
Index Score
19.73
Avrg. Dimension score
Mozambique runs -10.0 against the regional average (19.7) on AI Use in Public Service. Strongest indicators: Public Sector Skills Development (0.0), Public Disclosure of Government Algorithmic Systems (0.0). Weakest: Public Procurement (0.0). This dimension ranks 124th globally — behind the country's overall position (120th). No dimension-specific evidence items are on file.
Explore how country performance, scores, and governance indicators have changed between GIRAI editions.
14 indicators
| Indicator | 2024 Edition | 2026 Edition |
|---|---|---|
| Gender Equality | No Framework | No Framework |
| Children's Rights | No Framework | No Framework |
| Cultural and Linguistic Diversity | No Framework | No Framework |
| Fairness and Non-discrimination | No Framework | No Framework |
| Transparency and Explainability | No Framework | No Framework |
| Human Oversight and Determination | No Framework | No Framework |
| Labour Protections | No Framework | No Framework |
| Reskilling/Upskilling Initiatives | No Framework | No Framework |
| Safety and Security | No Framework | No Framework |
| Access to Redress and Remedy | No Framework | No Framework |
| Impact Assessments | No Framework | No Framework |
| Public Sector Skills Development | No Framework | No Framework |
| Public Procurement | No Framework | No Framework |
| Government Mechanisms for CSO Inclusion in AI Policy and Governance | No Framework | No Framework |
Indicator definitions changed between editions; this table compares evidence presence and status, not directly comparable scores. A — indicates the item is not applicable or was not assessed for that edition.
Explore how countries and regions perform across GIRAI's governance dimensions, scores, and structural indicators.
| Indicator | Mozambique | Africa |
|---|---|---|
| Inclusion and Diversity7 | ||
APGender Equality | 0.0 | 8.6 |
APChildren's Rights | 0.0 | 8.5 |
APCultural and Linguistic Diversity | 9.1 | 12.6 |
CSOCivil Society Engagement in Inclusion and Diversity | 7.7 | 7.7 |
ECEgalitarian Democracy | 20.8 | 28.7 |
ECDevice Affordability | 18.0 | 23.5 |
ECGender Gap in Mobile Internet | 44.8 | 47.2 |
| Ethics and Sustainability7 | ||
APFairness and Non-discrimination | 0.0 | 21.5 |
APTransparency and Explainability | 0.0 | 18.1 |
APHuman Oversight and Determination | 0.0 | 24.2 |
APEnvironmental Impact | 0.0 | 7.1 |
CSOCivil Society Engagement in Ethics and Sustainability | 0.0 | 9.9 |
ECLow-Carbon Energy Share | 83.4 | 44.3 |
ECRule of Law | 24.3 | 34.1 |
| Labour and Skills6 | ||
APLabour Protections | 0.0 | 2.8 |
APReskilling/Upskilling Initiatives | 9.1 | 25.4 |
APAI Literacy | 9.1 | 27.8 |
CSOCivil Society Engagement in Labour and Skills | 0.0 | 10.3 |
ECLabour Rights & Compliance | 18.7 | 32.4 |
ECSkills & Literacy | 32.3 | 41.4 |
| Trust and Safety10 | ||
APSafety and Security | 9.1 | 14.2 |
APAccess to Redress and Remedy | 0.0 | 20.7 |
APImpact Assessments | 0.0 | 12.2 |
APAI-facilitated Misinformation and Violence | 18.2 | 6.6 |
CSOCivil Society Engagement in Trust and Safety | 8.8 | 5.2 |
ECData Protection and Privacy | 40.0 | 56.5 |
ECData Sharing and Access | 12.5 | 46.8 |
ECConsumer Protection | 68.6 | 76.1 |
ECCybersecurity | 64.4 | 64.8 |
ECGlobal Peace | 53.4 | 52.2 |
| AI Use in Public Service7 | ||
APPublic Sector Skills Development | 0.0 | 19.7 |
APPublic Disclosure of Government Algorithmic Systems | 0.0 | 0.0 |
APPublic Procurement | 0.0 | 6.5 |
CSOGovernment Mechanisms for CSO Inclusion in AI Policy and Governance | 0.0 | 13.6 |
ECCivil Society Accountability | 50.4 | 57.2 |
ECPublic Service Delivery | 42.0 | 55.7 |
ECAccess to Public Information | 5.3 | 18.6 |
| Score adjustment | ||
URAIUnacceptable Risk AI Systems | No penalty | ×1.00Regional average |
A breakdown of the structural factors shaping this country's score.
National AI strategies, laws, and oversight mechanisms that establish formal governance structures.
Contribution to overall score
14%
Participation of academia, advocacy groups, and non-state actors in shaping governance and ensuring accountability.
Contribution to overall score
2%
Institutional capacity, rule of law, digital readiness, and labour protections that enable effective governance.
Contribution to overall score
83%