South Africa’s IEC Unveils Tough New 36-Hour Rule to Combat Election Disinformation in Social Media Era
Political parties and candidates in South Africa will now have just 36 hours to publicly retract and correct election-related disinformation once they become aware of it, or face sanctions under electoral law. The rule forms part of a new Electoral Code of Conduct aimed at closing what the Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC) describes as a major gap in an electoral framework developed long before the social media era. The IEC says the new rules are necessary as political campaigning increasingly moves online, where false claims, manipulated content and fabricated material can spread rapidly across platforms, often outpacing traditional fact-checking mechanisms and reaching millions of voters before corrective measures can be implemented. The 36-hour window is designed to force swift action from political actors, ensuring that false narratives do not gain an irreversible foothold in the public consciousness during critical election periods. This development marks a significant shift in South Africa’s electoral management, acknowledging that the integrity of elections now depends not only on procedural correctness at voting stations but also on the quality of information circulating in the digital public square.
The new measures come in response to growing concern that the existing legal framework, developed in the 1990s, has failed to keep pace with the digital information environment that now dominates political communication. IEC Deputy Chief Electoral Officer Dr Victor Shale said the Commission was deeply concerned about this regulatory lag, noting that the electoral code of conduct previously contained no reference to disinformation whatsoever. “The concern has been that the legal framework is inadequate in dealing with the pervasive use of digital and social media,” Shale said, adding that the current code of conduct framework is outdated as it predates the social media era which, notwithstanding its positive attributes, entails disinformation and misinformation detrimental to election integrity. The existing framework was designed for a time when political campaigning was conducted primarily through rallies, print media, radio and television, where editorial gatekeepers provided some measure of accountability and where false claims could be corrected through established media channels. The advent of social media has fundamentally altered this landscape, enabling direct, unmediated communication between political actors and voters, while also allowing for the rapid proliferation of manipulated content, deep fakes and coordinated disinformation campaigns that can be difficult to trace and counter effectively.
Under the new Code, parties and candidates must take reasonable steps, as soon as reasonably practicable but no later than 36 hours after becoming aware, to publicly retract and correct disinformation or other false and misleading information disseminated by them, for them or on their behalf. The obligation extends beyond official party statements to platforms associated with political parties and candidates, requiring them to take reasonable steps to identify disinformation, including third-party user-generated content, and act quickly to correct it and limit its spread. Parties must also publicly censure the person responsible for disseminating the disinformation, creating a culture of accountability within political organisations. Furthermore, 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, with the IEC having designated the Real411 platform for this purpose. Failure to comply is not merely a breach of the Code’s guidelines; the Code explicitly states that any contravention or failure to comply constitutes a breach and is subject to sanctions under the Local Government: Municipal Electoral Act, providing a legal teeth to what might otherwise be seen as voluntary guidelines.
The rules also extend to newer forms of digital manipulation that have emerged in recent election cycles, reflecting a comprehensive approach to the challenges of the digital age. Online political advertising must now be clearly labelled with the relevant political party or candidate, ensuring transparency in paid political messaging and allowing voters to understand the source of the content they encounter. AI-generated audio, images, video and text must be identified as “synthetic content” before distribution, a provision that addresses the growing threat of deep fakes and other forms of manipulated media that can be used to create convincing but entirely fabricated statements or actions attributed to political figures. The Code also prohibits the use of technologies or tools intended to amplify disinformation or manipulate political discourse, including fake accounts, automated bots, deceptive content, doxxing and the misuse of personal or sensitive information. These provisions recognise that disinformation is not solely a matter of content but also of distribution and amplification, with coordinated networks of fake accounts and bots often used to create the illusion of widespread support or opposition, artificially boosting certain narratives while suppressing others in ways that distort the democratic process.
Dr Shale said the scale and speed of digital communication had fundamentally changed what was required to protect elections, moving beyond traditional concerns about procedural correctness at polling stations. “Procedural correctness which, hitherto the emergence of social media had been the most important pillar of election management, is no longer sufficient on its own,” he said, noting that political competition in South Africa and elsewhere had contributed to the spread of disinformation. He warned that if left unattended, disinformation peddling could “derail the electoral process”, undermining public confidence in the integrity of elections and potentially inciting conflict or violence. The new framework is intended to strengthen the IEC’s ability to deal with the risks created by digital campaigning, with Shale emphasising that the disinformation code ensures that the IEC is sufficiently equipped to mitigate the harms that come with the use of social and digital media in South Africa’s elections. This represents a significant expansion of the IEC’s mandate, positioning the Commission not only as a manager of the logistical aspects of elections but also as a guardian of the information environment in which democratic choices are made.
However, the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) has separately warned that efforts to tackle disinformation must not undermine fundamental rights, striking a note of caution amid the regulatory push. In its Policy Brief on Information Integrity and Human Rights, the commission said disinformation could no longer be treated simply as a communications or social-media problem, acknowledging that 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. But the commission also cautioned that measures to counter disinformation must comply with human-rights standards, stressing that freedom of expression remains fundamental and that responses must be lawful, necessary and proportionate and should not suppress legitimate dissent. This dual emphasis reflects the complex challenge facing regulators worldwide: how to protect the integrity of democratic processes from the corrosive effects of disinformation without simultaneously providing authorities with tools that could be used to silence legitimate political opposition or criticism. As South Africa moves forward with these new measures, the balance between electoral integrity and freedom of expression will likely remain a subject of intense debate among political parties, civil society organisations and legal experts, particularly as the country prepares for future elections in which digital platforms are expected to play an increasingly central role in shaping public discourse and voter behaviour.
