South Africa’s Minister of Communications and Digital Technologies has withdrawn a draft AI policy after discovering that parts of its reference list contained fabricated citations, highlighting the growing risks of AI-generated misinformation in government procedures.
South Africa’s Communications and Digital Technologies Minister Solly Malatsi has withdrawn the draft National Artificial Intelligence Policy after allegations that parts of its reference list were fabricated, underscoring the credibility risks now shadowing public-sector use of AI. Reports from News24, ITWeb and Citizen said the document contained citations that were either non-existent or not traceable to recognised academic journals, prompting questions about how the policy was compiled and checked.
According to ITWeb, Malatsi said internal questions were raised after irregularities were flagged and that the draft contained “various fictitious sources” in its bibliography. He also said the most likely explanation was that AI-generated citations had been inserted without proper verification, adding that this should not have happened. SABC News reported that the minister acknowledged the lapse had damaged the draft’s integrity and said the episode reinforced the need for vigilant human oversight when AI tools are used in official work.
The controversy has also drawn parliamentary scrutiny. TimesLIVE reported that Khusela Diko, chairperson of Parliament’s portfolio committee on communications and digital technologies, urged Malatsi to pull the draft and subject it to a stricter review, warning against relying on AI systems in the writing of national policy. Her comments added to a growing sense that the document’s problems go beyond a simple drafting error and touch on the standards expected in government policymaking.
Citizen and MyBroadband reported that the minister now faces pressure to identify who was responsible for the flawed references, with an investigation and possible consequence management under discussion. Malatsi has said the matter will be examined to determine whether anyone acted improperly in compiling the research. The episode is likely to sharpen debate over how governments adopt AI: not as a shortcut to expertise, but as a tool that still requires careful human checking at every stage.
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:
10
Notes:
The article reports on a recent event, with the earliest known publication date being April 26, 2026. No evidence of recycled or outdated content was found. The narrative appears original and timely.
Quotes check
Score:
8
Notes:
Direct quotes from Minister Solly Malatsi and other sources are present. However, the exact wording of these quotes cannot be independently verified through the provided sources. This raises concerns about the accuracy and authenticity of the quotes.
Source reliability
Score:
7
Notes:
The article cites multiple reputable South African news outlets, including ITWeb, News24, and The Citizen. However, the Let’s Data Science website is a niche publication with limited reach, which may affect the overall reliability of the information presented.
Plausibility check
Score:
9
Notes:
The claims about fictitious references in the draft AI policy are plausible and align with reports from other reputable sources. The narrative is consistent with known events and does not present any implausible information.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): FAIL
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): MEDIUM
Summary:
The article reports on the withdrawal of South Africa’s draft AI policy due to fictitious references. While the event is plausible and aligns with reports from other reputable sources, the inability to independently verify direct quotes and the reliance on a niche publication for verification sources raise concerns about the article’s overall reliability and independence. These issues necessitate further verification before publication.