Speaking in Cairo
Rahim is speaking in Cairo. If you would like him to speak to your organisation while he is in the region, get in touch.
Every keynote is tailored after a briefing call, and the larger engagements start before the day rather than on it: a diagnostic of the client's own people, so the room hears its own evidence rather than somebody else's. What the room leaves with is written down.
What that has looked like: a survey of fifty of a client's own people run BEFORE the session, to find where judgement had already been handed to tools they had built themselves, read back to the executive team in their own words, then a workshop in which they named four or five of their own processes and rebuilt them; and about 1,500 people joining a session run hybrid from central London at short notice, for a technology business changing AI tools faster than its people could absorb, which became executive coaching for the transformation lead.
Six of the seven engagements published on this site produced further work after the session rather than at it. The seven are set out in full at case studies, each with a line saying what it does not show.
How to read these examples. They are published to show how the work is put together, not as a client list for Cairo. Most engagements are covered by confidentiality and are described without naming anyone; where a client is named anywhere on this site, it is with their agreement.
Egypt asked for two checks, not one
The Guide to Egypt’s National AI Governance Framework, published on 15 March 2026 and catalogued by the OECD AI Policy Observatory, sets out a risk-based model with defined tiers and a dual-check compliance process for high-risk systems: an ethical impact assessment and a technical audit. Policy bodies and sectoral regulators are given distinct roles.
The interesting word is dual. Most frameworks ask for review. This one concedes that one competent reviewer is not enough, because the person who can audit the model is rarely the person who can judge what it does to the people it lands on, and asking one human to do both produces a signature rather than a judgement.
Two reviewers only help if both can still do the work
Splitting the check is the right design and it inherits the same problem twice. An ethical impact assessment is only worth the time of somebody who can still recognise a bad outcome, and a technical audit is only worth the time of somebody who can still read the system unaided. Both skills are built by doing the work, and both are among the first things an organisation hands to the tools.
That is the subject of the session: what capability debt does to a review process over three years, and how to design the work so the people who sign the checks are still capable of failing them. The evidence is published at what we actually know, graded, with what each study does not establish.
What the framework is, and what it is not
It is not statute. The OECD catalogue records the guide as non-binding guidance, alongside Egypt’s National Guidelines for Trustworthy and Responsible AI and its National Generative AI Guidelines, both also 2026, and the Egyptian Charter for Responsible AI from 2023. That is an entire governance stack assembled inside four years and none of it carries a penalty.
Which makes Egypt a useful room rather than a cautionary one. A framework without enforcement is adopted by organisations that decide to adopt it, so the question in front of an Egyptian leadership team is the design question rather than the compliance question. This page has not read the guide itself, only the OECD record of it and the primary URL it publishes, so the detail above is that record’s characterisation rather than a reading of the document.
The three keynotes a Cairo room can book
Keynotes run 30 to 90 minutes, in person or virtual. A 30-minute main-stage version of each talk is available for conferences; the full argument needs 40 or more. The sector examples change for the room; the argument does not. All three, with the showreel, are at keynotes, and the programme copy is at the speaker pack.
Drift versus Design
Drift versus Design: why most organisations hand their judgement to AI without deciding to, and how to design your way through instead.
Most organisations are adopting AI by drift: a thousand reasonable decisions that add up to judgement nobody chose to give away. Rahim Hirji, author of SuperSkills, shows leaders which mode they are running, where AI sharpens judgement and where it weakens it, and hands them the controls.
We Are Superheroes
We Are Superheroes: AI is the suit. The human decides.
AI makes everyone faster, stronger and more capable. It does not decide; people do. Through a family story across four generations and three continents, Rahim Hirji hands the audience the seven human skills that grow more valuable as the tools spread. They arrive thinking AI is the story and leave knowing they are.
WTH (What the Human)
WTH (What the Human): a live test of a board's own judgement.
Business is being rewired as AI arrives, and human judgement is leaving with it. In three acts, Rahim Hirji shows a board what AI is changing in how organisations run, then ends with a live test of the board's own judgement, in the room and in real time. Nobody forgets the result.
