Sovereign cloud needs proof
Sovereign cloud has moved from a technical preference to a board-level conversation in South Africa. Much of the debate focuses on where the data is hosted. While important, the discussion must go further than that. A local data centre can reduce risk, improve latency, and simplify parts of the compliance conversation. But it does not automatically give an organisation sovereign control. Real control depends on the architecture beneath the claim, including who manages the keys, who administers the service, where the control plane sits, who can access the data, what happens under lawful-access pressure, and whether the customer can leave on its own terms. Sovereignty is not what a supplier claims, but what the customer can prove under scrutiny. Residency is not control I think this distinction is important because the market is starting to conflate data residency with sovereign cloud. Residency says where data is stored. Sovereignty asks who governs it. A workload can sit in South...
