- within Technology topic(s)
- with readers working within the Pharmaceuticals & BioTech industries
- within Criminal Law and Law Department Performance topic(s)
- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Inhouse Counsel
Introduction
On 10 April 2026 in a significant leap in the regulation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in South Africa, the Department of Communications and Digital Technologies (Department) published the Draft South African National AI Policy (Draft AI Policy) for public comment. The period for public comment was meant to expire on 10 June 2026. However, on 26 April 2026, the Minister of Communications and Digital Technologies, Solly Malatsi, took to the social media platform “X” to issue a statement withdrawing the policy.
The statement read as follows:
“Statement on the integrity of the Draft National Artificial Intelligence Policy
Following revelations that the Draft National Artificial Intelligence Policy published for public comment contains various fictitious sources in its reference list, we initiated internal questions which have now confirmed that this was the case.
This failure is not a mere technical issue but has compromised the integrity and credibility of the draft policy. As such, I am withdrawing the Draft National Artificial intelligence Policy.
South Africans deserve better. The Department of Communications and Digital Technologies did not deliver on the standard that is acceptable for an institution entrusted with the role to lead South Africa ‘s digital policy environment. The most plausible explanation is that AI-generated citations were included without proper verification. This should not have happened.
In fact, this unacceptable lapse proves why vigilant human oversight over the use of artificial intelligence is critical. It’s a lesson we take with humility. I want to reassure the country that we are treating this matter with the gravity it deserves. There will be consequence management for those responsible for drafting and quality assurance.
End.”
In our article commenting on the content of the Draft AI Policy, it was noted that the Draft AI Policy was based on the SA National Artificial Intelligence Policy Framework issued in August 2024 (SA AI Framework of 2024).
Accordingly, whilst the Draft AI Policy has been withdrawn, it is anticipated that the fundamental direction of South Africa’s intended AI governance approach would not necessarily change in a significant way after the Department has appropriately dealt with the AI-generated citations issues included in the document. This is so as the SA AI Framework of 2024 is still firmly in place and which will again shape a new draft AI Policy for South Africa; hopefully this time around with credible and reliable citation sources, and certainly where proper human oversight verification has accordingly taken place.
Notwithstanding this setback, stakeholders who make use of AI tools are encouraged not to adopt a “wait and see” approach pending the re issuance of a new Draft AI Policy and what would eventually flow from this.
The SA AI Framework of 2024, thus, still remains a valuable guiding instrument for organisations to start creating its own AI governance structures, policies and guidelines to avoid the risks that come with the use of AI. This being said, given the very same risks that the Draft AI Policy was aiming to address, it unfortunately fell into the same shortfalls. Given our title of this article bulletin, it is the “hallucinatory irony of it all”.
It is, undoubtedly, a cautionary tale of how risky AI tool usage can be when organisations, including policymakers and government departments, do not adequately have safeguards and mechanisms to prevent and manage these risks.
Our recommendation, therefore, given this cautionary tale, is to not necessarily wait until AI laws are shaped and implemented, but to deal with the immediate and proliferated risks that are presented (in advocating for adequate AI governance). Especially that specific legislation, including the Protection of Personal Information Act of 2013, still applies to the regulation of AI tools.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
