<\/p>\n
South Africa has withdrawn its first draft national AI policy after officials uncovered invented academic references, highlighting risks of relying on AI in policy-making and damaging the country’s credibility in the tech sector.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
South Africa has withdrawn its first draft national artificial intelligence policy after officials discovered that parts of its reference list contained invented academic sources, an error Communications and Digital Technologies Minister Solly Malatsi said had damaged the document\u2019s credibility. According to South African government statements and local reports, the draft had been intended to set out a framework for AI governance, innovation and wider social benefit, while also helping to position the country as a regional leader in the field.<\/p>\n
The controversy centres on a document that was approved by Cabinet on 25 March 2026 and published for public comment on 10 April 2026. It was later found, after media scrutiny and an internal review, to include multiple citations that could not be verified. The South African news outlet News24, as cited by other reports, found that at least six of 67 referenced scientific texts did not appear to exist, despite being attributed to real researchers and institutions.<\/p>\n
Malatsi has said the failure went beyond a technical mistake and called it a matter that undermined the integrity of the policy process. He also indicated there would be consequences for those responsible for preparing the draft. At the same time, he said the department would still press ahead with a revised version, but this time with the text fully written by people rather than relying on AI-assisted drafting.<\/p>\n
The episode has become a cautionary example of the risks governments face as they rush to regulate the technology. The original draft was meant to mirror, in part, the kind of structured approach taken by the European Union\u2019s AI Act, with proposals for national oversight bodies and a framework grounded in responsibility, ethics and inclusion. Instead, the South African case has drawn attention to the danger of using the very tools a policy is meant to govern, especially when public trust depends on accuracy at every stage of the legislative process.<\/p>\n
Inspired by headline at:<\/strong> [1]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n Sources by paragraph:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n