The increasing deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) in public-sector environments creates a complex governance challenge in which cybersecurity, national security, data privacy, and ethical accountability must be addressed simultaneously. Government agencies increasingly depend on data-intensive decision systems, making policy frameworks essential for controlling security exposure and maintaining public trust. This research and review paper examines AI governance and cybersecurity policy from a public-sector perspective, with particular emphasis on the balance between national-security objectives, privacy protection, organizational knowledge, stakeholder attitudes, and ethical risk. The study adopts a structured qualitative review and conceptual synthesis of the references supplied for this research. Ahmed (2024) provides the principal conceptual foundation for examining cybersecurity policy frameworks for AI in government, while the remaining studies are critically interpreted for their evidence concerning knowledge, attitudes, stakeholder support, counseling, perception, and technology acceptance. Although several supplied references originate from healthcare and contraceptive-service research rather than AI governance, their findings provide transferable insights into how knowledge, communication, stakeholder perceptions, and institutional support can influence policy implementation. The analysis indicates that effective public-sector AI governance requires more than technical security controls. It requires coordinated policy mechanisms, transparent decision processes, privacy-conscious data management, stakeholder education, accountability structures, and continuous risk assessment. The paper proposes an integrated conceptual governance model linking AI cybersecurity controls with privacy safeguards, ethical oversight, stakeholder capacity, and institutional accountability. The findings further indicate that policy effectiveness depends on the ability of public institutions to reconcile security imperatives with individual rights rather than treating them as independent objectives.