A draft of South Africa’s artificial intelligence policy has caused political controversy after it was revealed to contain fictitious references, exposing vulnerabilities in government use of generative AI and sparking calls for tighter oversight and verification.
South Africa’s draft artificial intelligence policy has become a political embarrassment after reports that it included references to papers and journals that do not appear to exist. News24 said the false citations point to either an AI tool generating fabricated material or a human drafter inventing sources, and in both cases the mistake was not caught before the document was released for public comment by Communications Minister Solly Malatsi on 10 April 2026.
The minister has since ordered an investigation and said anyone responsible for wrongdoing should face action. That response triggered a sharp rebuke from Khusela Diko, chairperson of the parliamentary portfolio committee on communications, who called for the draft to be withdrawn and redrafted without what she mocked as "ChatGPT". The exchange quickly turned into a broader political row between Diko, an ANC MP, and Malatsi and Dean Macpherson, both Democratic Alliance ministers serving in the Government of National Unity.
Beyond the immediate politics, the episode has sharpened concern about how government departments use generative AI. Digital governance expert Advocate Zanyiwe Nthatisi Asare told the SABC that AI can be useful for summarising information and spotting global trends, but stressed that it cannot be treated as a source of truth. She said policy work depends on human oversight, transparency about AI use and clear accountability for the final document, warning that the incident suggests gaps in verification.
The controversy also echoes wider warnings about fabricated AI output in professional settings. The OECD AI Policy Observatory has recorded a South African legal matter in which an AI tool generated false case citations that later drew judicial scrutiny, while recent academic and media commentary has highlighted similar risks in legal, scientific and policy work. Researchers writing in Energy Research & Social Science have argued that hallucinated citations threaten scholarly integrity, reinforcing the view that AI may assist drafting, but human validation must remain central.
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 events from 10 April 2026. The earliest known publication date of similar content is 24 April 2026, indicating a freshness of approximately two days. 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 article includes updated data without recycling older material. Overall, the freshness score is high.
Quotes check
Score:
7
Notes:
The article includes direct quotes from Communications Minister Solly Malatsi and Khusela Diko. The earliest known usage of these quotes is in the News24 report dated 24 April 2026. No identical quotes appear in earlier material, suggesting originality. However, the quotes cannot be independently verified, as no online matches were found. Unverifiable quotes should not receive high scores.
Source reliability
Score:
6
Notes:
The article originates from MyBroadband, a South African technology news website. While it is a reputable source within its niche, it is not a major news organisation like the BBC or Reuters. The lead source is not summarising, rewriting, or aggregating content from another publication. However, the source's reach is limited compared to larger news outlets. A source being 'reputable within its niche' is not sufficient for a high score.
Plausibility check
Score:
7
Notes:
The article reports on the discovery of fictitious references in South Africa's draft AI policy, leading to political controversy. This claim is covered elsewhere, including a News24 report dated 24 April 2026. The report includes specific factual anchors, such as names, institutions, and dates. The language and tone are consistent with the region and topic. No excessive or off-topic detail is present. The tone is formal and appropriate for the subject matter. Overall, the plausibility score is high.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): PASS
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): MEDIUM
Summary:
The article reports on the discovery of fictitious references in South Africa's draft AI policy, leading to political controversy. While the freshness and plausibility scores are high, concerns about the independence of verification sources and the unverifiability of quotes reduce the overall confidence. Therefore, the content passes the fact-check with medium confidence.
