Fronteiras Éticas da Inteligência Artificial no Poder Judicial Angolano: Governação Privada, Protecção de Dados e Responsabilidade numa Perspectiva Comparada

This article argues that the debate on artificial intelligence (AI) in the Angolan judiciary cannot be adequately framed in terms of abstract technological ethics alone. In a constitutional order where adjudication is defined as a sovereign function aimed at the rotection of rights, the legitimacy of AI depends on its translation into legally enforceable duties of transparency, contestability, security, and accountability. Adopting a doctrinal and comparative approach, the study conceptualizes the integration of AI into the judiciary as a multi-layered legal problem situated at the intersection of constitutional law, data protection, public procurement, and civil liability. It distinguishes between administrative AI applications and systems capable of influencing adjudication, emphasizing that the latter raise structural concerns regarding judicial independence, due process, and the intelligibility of reasoning. The analysis engages with key elements of the Angolan legal framework – including Law No. 22/11 on personal data protection, Law No. 30/22 on State liability, and the 2025 draft AI Act – while drawing comparative insights from the European AI Act, Brazilian judicial regulation, UK judicial guidance, and relevant case law on automated decision-making. The central thesis is that AI in the judiciary must be governed as a high-impact institutional technology. Its lawful integration requires a “governance-by-design” strategy grounded in robust contractual architecture, strict data governance, effective human oversight, and a liability regime that preserves the State as the primary guarantor vis-à-vis litigants, without excluding recourse against private developers and suppliers. Ultimately, the legitimacy of AI-assisted adjudication depends not on efficiency gains alone, but on preserving the core legal conditions that render judicial decision-making accountable, contestable, and normatively intelligible.