MoU is real – Google

American tech giant Google has confirmed that it engaged government in discussions that led to the now controversial memorandum of understanding (MoU), responding to suggestions that the agreement may not have involved the global technology company at all.

The confirmation, provided to this publication by Google South Africa Communications and Public Affairs Manager Siya Madikane, comes amid an already fraught and highly public dispute within Cabinet over the legitimacy and value of the MoU, exposing divisions at the highest levels of government.

Prime Minister Russell Mmiso Dlamini told senators that the country should exercise caution in discussing the deal, raising concerns that the agreement ‘might not even have been signed by Google’.

Madikane, however, stated that Google had indeed been part of the engagement process with government, but did not provide further details on the substance of the agreement when asked to elaborate on its specific benefits to the nation or to respond to concerns raised by independent experts about data sovereignty and feasibility.

Addressing senators following a question from Senator Princess Ncengencenge on the value of the deal, particularly claims by Minister of Information, Communication and Technology (ICT) Savannah Maziya that it would enable payment for local content creators, the premier revealed that the agreement was signed while both he and Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Pholile Shakantu were out of the country.

He said upon his return, he reviewed the MoU but was left with more questions than answers.

READ MORE | We signed Google agreement – Commerce Minister

He subsequently consulted international experts who indicated that the document lacked substance and could expose the country to significant risks.

More pointedly, he questioned whether Google itself was a direct party to the agreement.

“There is a lot of misinformation, and we advise the media not to report things as fact when they are not verified,” he told legislators.

He further warned against what he described as a growing trend of ministers signing agreements without proper authorisation or adherence to established government processes, calling such actions illegal and a threat to governance.

The prime minister’s remarks triggered a widespread public debate, with questions centring on whether the MoU had Cabinet approval, what it contained, and what it could realistically deliver.

A few days later, Attorney General Sifiso Khumalo provided clarity in Parliament, stating that the agreement had been vetted by his office.

Minister of Commerce, Industry and Trade Manqoba Khumalo also publicly backed the deal, describing it as a strategic milestone and maintaining that it had been presented to and approved by Cabinet. He argued that even a non-binding MoU with a company of Google’s scale represents a significant step in building investor confidence.

These positions stand in direct contrast to the premier’s account, raising concerns over both the process followed and the substance of the agreement.

Minister Maziya, who facilitated the agreement, has also defended the engagement with Google as part of efforts to position the country within the global digital economy and attract investment.

Speaking at a parliamentary workshop this past week, she cautioned that Google was closely monitoring public discourse and could reconsider its involvement if relations deteriorate.

ALSO READ | Google deal exposes country to high risk – PM

She further warned that negative commentary about global technology firms could damage the country’s reputation and discourage potential partners.

The MoU itself has not been made public, and the ministry of ICT has yet to provide a detailed, unified explanation of its contents, implications, or expected outcomes.

However, a cybersecurity expert who has reviewed the MoU told this publication that, while it outlines areas of cooperation, it raises serious concerns about national data control.

The expert described the agreement as broadly framed, with provisions that could potentially centralise large volumes of government data within systems controlled by a foreign private entity.

Key areas of cooperation, they said, include the use of Google Workspace in the public sector, e-government solutions, cloud computing, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity and the development of digital infrastructure such as data centres. According to the expert, these elements, while common in digital transformation partnerships, carry inherent risks if not tightly governed.

“The main concern is data sovereignty: the principle that data generated within a country should be subject to its own laws and control mechanisms,” they said, warning that migrating public sector systems onto external platforms could expose sensitive government data to foreign jurisdictions.

“These concerns are not theoretical; just look at recent cases involving the company in the EU and United States,” the expert added.

In recent years, Google has faced multiple legal challenges from governments over its handling of user data.

In the United States alone, several states have secured major settlements over allegations of unlawful data collection and misleading privacy practices, including a historic US$1.375 billion (approximately E25.6 billion) settlement with Texas over the tracking of user location and biometric data.

RELATED | Google deal was vetted, cleared for Cabinet – AG

A coalition of 40 states previously reached a US$391 million (about E7.3 billion) settlement over similar issues, while California secured a separate US$93 million (around E1.7 billion) agreement related to location tracking.

In Europe, regulators have imposed billions in fines under strict data protection laws, further underscoring global scrutiny over how large technology firms manage personal and institutional data.

While these cases relate primarily to consumer protection, the expert said they illustrate the broader risks associated with entrusting large-scale data systems to private multinational corporations.

Beyond data concerns, the expert also challenged some of the perceived benefits of the MoU, particularly claims that it could enable locals to earn income through digital content platforms.

The idea that the agreement would unlock monetisation opportunities for local creators has featured prominently in public discourse, particularly following remarks by the ICT minister.

However, the expert said such outcomes are not determined by MoUs, but by platform policies, market size, advertising ecosystems, and payment infrastructure.

He pointed out that YouTube monetisation, for example, depends on eligibility criteria, advertiser demand and regional market viability — factors not directly altered by government-to-company agreements.

Similarly, proposals around digital payments and start-up development were described as vague, with no clear implementation mechanisms outlined.

“An MoU is not a contract. It signals intent, but it does not guarantee delivery. To tell young people that this could be their way out of poverty is misleading,” the expert said.