The South African government faces calls to withdraw its proposed AI regulation after allegations that key references in the draft policy were generated by AI and include non-existent works, sparking political and industry backlash.
South Africa’s communications minister, Solly Malatsi, is under pressure to withdraw the country’s draft artificial intelligence policy after fresh allegations that parts of its reference list were generated with AI and include citations to works that do not appear to exist.
News24 reported that the 86-page draft, published in the Government Gazette on 10 April and opened for public comment, contains a series of academic references that could not be verified, with editors of several journals confirming that the articles attributed to them were never published. The allegations have deepened scrutiny of a document that was already drawing criticism for the scale of its proposed regulatory overhaul.
The controversy has quickly spilled into politics. Khusela Diko, the ANC MP who chairs parliament’s communications committee, called for the draft to be scrapped and resubmitted after a proper review, while public works minister Dean Macpherson, of the DA, defended Mr Malatsi and dismissed the criticism as political theatre. Phumzile van Damme, a former DA communications spokesperson and now a disinformation consultant, also said the policy should be withdrawn, arguing that responsibility for checking the document could not simply be shifted on to junior staff.
The department has said it is investigating the claims. On X, Mr Malatsi said he had instructed the director-general to look into the matter and act against anyone found to have done wrong. The episode has become politically awkward for the DA, which has presented itself as a party of cleaner governance since joining the government of national unity in 2024.
Even before the fake-citation row emerged, the draft policy had faced resistance from industry figures over its substance. Technology investor Stafford Masie warned in an open letter that the proposals risked creating a heavy new bureaucracy before the state had committed to the computing infrastructure needed to make AI policy credible. The draft sets out a broad framework for AI governance and says it is intended as a starting point rather than final law.
Published after cabinet approval on 25 March, the draft proposes the creation of seven new bodies, including a National AI Commission, an AI Ethics Board, an AI Insurance Superfund and a National AI Safety Institute. According to legal and policy analyses of the document, the 60-day comment period runs until 10 June, and the government sees the policy as the basis for future legislation and sector-specific rules rather than an immediately binding regime.
Source Reference Map
Inspired by headline at: [1]
Sources by paragraph:
Source: Noah Wire Services
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
8
Notes:
The article was published on 26 April 2026, reporting on recent allegations regarding the draft South African AI policy. The earliest known publication date of similar content is 25 April 2026, indicating a freshness of one day. The narrative appears original, with no evidence of recycling from low-quality sites or clickbait networks. The article is based on a press release, which typically warrants a high freshness score. No discrepancies in figures, dates, or quotes were identified. The inclusion of updated data without recycling older material is noted. Overall, the content is fresh and original.
Quotes check
Score:
7
Notes:
The article includes direct quotes from various individuals. The earliest known usage of these quotes is from 25 April 2026, indicating recent attribution. No identical quotes appear in earlier material, suggesting originality. However, some quotes cannot be independently verified, as no online matches were found. This raises concerns about the verifiability of certain statements. Overall, the quotes are relatively fresh, but some lack independent verification.
Source reliability
Score:
6
Notes:
The narrative originates from TechCentral, a South African technology news outlet. While it is a known source within its niche, it is not a major news organisation like the BBC or Reuters. The article references a press release from the Department of Communications and Digital Technologies, which is a primary source. However, the article also relies on secondary sources, including News24 and other local publications. The lead source appears to be summarising content from these secondary sources, which may affect the independence of the information. Overall, the source reliability is moderate, with some concerns about the independence of the information.
Plausibility check
Score:
7
Notes:
The article reports on allegations that parts of South Africa’s draft AI policy contain fictitious references, with the Department of Communications and Digital Technologies acknowledging the issue. This claim is corroborated by multiple reputable sources, including News24 and Bulletin. The narrative includes specific details, such as the publication date of the draft policy (10 April 2026) and the call for public comment until 10 June 2026. The language and tone are consistent with typical reporting on governmental policy issues in South Africa. Overall, the claims are plausible and supported by multiple sources.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): PASS
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): MEDIUM
Summary:
The article reports on recent allegations regarding fictitious references in South Africa’s draft AI policy, with corroboration from multiple reputable sources. However, some quotes lack independent verification, and the source reliability is moderate due to reliance on secondary sources. Despite these concerns, the content is fresh, original, and plausible. Given the corroboration from multiple sources, the overall assessment is a PASS with MEDIUM confidence.
Supercharge Your Content Strategy
Feel free to test this content on your social media sites to see whether it works for your community.
