South Africa’s Electoral Commission has moved to close one of the most significant gaps in the country’s election-management framework by introducing a binding code of conduct that will force political parties and candidates to act swiftly against disinformation. Under the new rules, once a party or candidate becomes aware of false or misleading election-related content disseminated by them, for them, or on their behalf, they will have no more than 36 hours to publicly retract and correct it. Failure to comply will constitute a breach of the Electoral Code of Conduct and will be subject to sanctions in terms of the Local Government: Municipal Electoral Act. The regulation is intended to address a growing challenge in South African elections: the rapid spread of false claims, manipulated content, and fabricated material on digital platforms. The Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC) has long warned that the legal framework governing elections was designed before social media transformed political communication. With campaigning increasingly taking place online, the Commission argues that the old rules are no longer sufficient to protect electoral integrity. The new code therefore represents a deliberate and urgent attempt to bring election regulation into the digital age, giving the IEC stronger tools to respond when disinformation threatens to distort public debate and undermine voter confidence.
The background to the new code lies in the fact that the existing Code of Conduct framework was developed in the 1990s, before social media became a major platform for political campaigning and public discussion. According to the IEC, this has left a serious gap in election management. Dr Victor Shale, the IEC’s Deputy Chief Electoral Officer, said the Commission was concerned that the legal framework had not kept pace with the pervasive use of digital and social media. “The concern has been that the legal framework is inadequate in dealing with the pervasive use of digital and social media,” Shale said. “In particular, the electoral code of conduct did not have any reference to disinformation.” He noted that while social media has positive attributes, it also entails disinformation and misinformation that are detrimental to election integrity. The new code is designed to respond directly to that reality. Shale explained that procedural correctness, which was once the most important pillar of election management, is no longer sufficient on its own. The speed and scale of digital communication have changed the environment, and the IEC increasingly found itself confronting online falsehoods that could spread to thousands of people before any official response was possible. Political competition in South Africa, he said, had itself contributed to the spread of disinformation, and if left unattended, disinformation peddling could derail the electoral process. The new framework is therefore intended to strengthen the IEC’s ability to mitigate the harms that come with the use of social and digital media in elections.
The obligations contained in the new code are detailed and wide-reaching. Parties and candidates must take reasonable steps, as soon as reasonably practicable and no later than 36 hours after becoming aware, to publicly retract and correct disinformation or other false and misleading information that was disseminated by them, for them, or on their behalf. They are also required to publicly censure the person responsible for disseminating the disinformation. Importantly, the obligation does not apply only to official party statements. It extends to platforms and channels associated with political parties and candidates, including third-party user-generated content. This means parties cannot distance themselves from false content that is posted by supporters on their behalf or on pages linked to the party. They are expected to monitor these platforms, identify disinformation, and act quickly to correct it and limit its spread. In addition, the code requires parties and candidates to report instances of disinformation, or suspected disinformation, distributed through an online platform to the IEC’s designated complaints mechanism within 36 hours of becoming aware of it. That mechanism is Real411, an online platform designed to receive and process complaints about disinformation. A contravention of these duties is not merely a matter of non-compliance with internal party rules; under the code, any breach is subject to sanctions under the Local Government: Municipal Electoral Act. The code also requires parties, where appropriate and within their control, to publicly condemn and appropriately sanction members or nominated candidates who contravene the law or the code.
The new rules also seek to regulate newer forms of digital manipulation that have become increasingly common in elections. Online political advertising must be clearly labelled with the relevant political party or candidate, so that voters can see who is behind the message. This is particularly important in an age where micro-targeted ads and sponsored posts can influence voter perceptions without traditional campaign disclosures. In addition, AI-generated audio, images, video, and text must be identified as “synthetic content” before being distributed. This requirement responds to the emergence of deepfakes and other AI-based tools that can create realistic but false depictions of candidates, events, or statements. By forcing parties and candidates to identify synthetic content, the IEC hopes to reduce the risk that voters will be deceived by manipulated media. The code also prohibits the use of technologies or tools intended to amplify disinformation or manipulate political discourse. This includes the use of fake accounts, automated bots, deceptive content, doxxing, and the misuse of personal or sensitive information. These practices have become a serious concern in electoral contexts globally, as well as in South Africa, because they allow political actors to create the illusion of widespread support, silence opponents, or spread harmful falsehoods at scale. The prohibition is designed to prevent parties and candidates from using these tactics, while also giving the IEC a clear legal basis to act when such practices occur.
Shale’s comments underline the seriousness with which the IEC views the challenge of digital disinformation. He said the concern has been that the legal framework is inadequate in dealing with the pervasive use of digital and social media. The code, he said, ensures that the IEC is sufficiently equipped to mitigate the harms that come with social and digital media in South Africa’s elections. This is not simply a matter of administrative convenience. Disinformation can undermine the integrity of elections by confusing voters, suppressing participation, and creating false narratives about parties, candidates, and the electoral process itself. In extreme cases, it can provoke violence or attacks on electoral institutions and vulnerable communities. The IEC has pointed out that the rules are necessary because political campaigning is increasingly moving online, where false claims and manipulated content can spread rapidly before they are checked or corrected. The 36-hour window is intended to create urgency while still allowing parties time to verify facts and prepare a responsible public response. The requirement to publicly censure those responsible for disinformation is also significant. It places a positive duty on parties to distance themselves from unethical behaviour and to take internal disciplinary action where necessary. By linking non-compliance to sanctions under the Municipal Electoral Act, the code gives the IEC meaningful enforcement powers rather than relying solely on moral persuasion or political pressure.
The South African Human Rights Commission has separately warned that efforts to tackle disinformation must not undermine fundamental rights, including freedom of expression. In its Policy Brief on Information Integrity and Human Rights, the SAHRC said disinformation can no longer be treated simply as a communications or social-media problem. When false or manipulated information contributes to violence, discrimination, electoral disruption, attacks on vulnerable communities, or the erosion of trust in democratic institutions, it becomes a human-rights concern. At the same time, the commission cautioned that measures to counter disinformation must comply with human-rights standards. “Freedom of expression remains fundamental,” the SAHRC said, stressing that responses must be lawful, necessary, and proportionate and should not suppress legitimate dissent. This warning is an important reminder that the fight against disinformation must be balanced with the protection of democratic rights. The new code is aimed at political parties and candidates, not ordinary citizens, and it focuses on false and misleading information that is disseminated in the electoral context. Nevertheless, the implementation of the code will require careful judgment to ensure that it is not used to silence criticism, satire, or honest political debate. As South Africa prepares for elections under new digital conditions, the success of the code will depend not only on enforcement but also on the willingness of parties to act responsibly. The IEC’s move represents a major step toward a more accountable electoral environment, but it also raises enduring questions about how to reconcile electoral integrity with freedom of expression in the digital era.
