The Electoral Commission of South Africa has introduced a sweeping new set of rules aimed at curbing election-related disinformation, requiring political parties and candidates to publicly retract and correct false or misleading content within 36 hours of becoming aware of it or face sanctions under electoral law. The measures, contained in a newly adopted Electoral Code of Conduct, are designed to close what the commission describes as a major gap in a legal framework that was developed long before the advent of social media and the modern digital information environment. 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. They must also publicly censure the person responsible for spreading the disinformation. The obligation extends beyond official party statements to platforms associated with political parties and candidates, meaning that parties are expected to take reasonable steps to identify disinformation, including third-party user-generated content, and act quickly to correct it and limit its spread. 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. The commission said the new rules are necessary as political campaigning increasingly moves online, where false claims, manipulated content and fabricated material can spread rapidly and cause significant harm to the integrity of elections.
The IEC’s concern stems from what it calls an outdated electoral framework that predates the social media era. Dr Victor Shale, the IEC’s Deputy Chief Electoral Officer, said the commission was worried that existing laws and regulations had failed to keep pace with the digital information environment. “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.” The existing Code of Conduct framework was developed in the 1990s, before social media became a major platform for political campaigning, public debate and the rapid dissemination of information. Shale said this had created a significant gap in election management. “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,” he said. The commission’s move reflects a broader global recognition that elections can no longer be managed solely through traditional procedural mechanisms, and that the digital realm requires proactive regulation and monitoring. With South African political campaigns increasingly relying on digital platforms to reach voters, the IEC has argued that the risks posed by disinformation are no longer hypothetical but are already visible in the form of manipulated videos, false narratives about candidates, fake news websites and coordinated online smear campaigns. The new code is intended to give the commission the tools it needs to respond swiftly and effectively to these threats.
The obligations placed on political parties and candidates under the new code are extensive and detailed. Once a party or candidate becomes aware that disinformation has been disseminated by them, for them, or on their behalf, they are required to take immediate corrective action. That action must include a public retraction and correction within the 36-hour window, as well as a public censure of the individual responsible for disseminating the material. This requirement is designed to ensure that political organisations do not distance themselves from harmful content merely by claiming it was produced by an unauthorised supporter or an overzealous volunteer. Instead, they are expected to take responsibility for all content associated with their campaigns and to act decisively to prevent false information from taking root in the public mind. The code also 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. The IEC has designated Real411 for this purpose, a platform that allows members of the public to report disinformation, incitement to violence and other harmful content. In addition to the retraction and reporting obligations, parties are expected, where appropriate and within their control, to publicly condemn and appropriately sanction members or nominated candidates who contravene the law or the code. This internal accountability mechanism is intended to create a culture of responsibility within political organisations, ensuring that candidates and party officials understand that the spread of disinformation will not be tolerated.
The new rules also extend to newer and more sophisticated forms of digital manipulation. Online political advertising must now be clearly labelled with the relevant political party or candidate, so that voters can easily identify the source of political messages. In a significant move for the age of generative artificial intelligence, the code requires that AI-generated audio, images, video and text be identified as “synthetic content” before distribution. This provision is aimed at addressing the growing threat of deepfakes and other AI-manipulated media, which have become increasingly realistic and difficult to detect. Voters could easily be misled by fake videos of political figures saying things they never said, or by fabricated images designed to incite anger or prejudice. By requiring clear labelling, the IEC hopes to ensure that voters are not deceived by content that appears genuine but is in fact manufactured. 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. This broad prohibition recognises that disinformation is not only a matter of individual false posts but can be amplified through coordinated networks and automated systems that create the illusion of widespread support or opposition. Fake accounts and bots can be used to artificially boost certain messages, harass critics and create false narratives, and the new code is designed to curb these tactics as part of protecting election integrity.
Shale said the scale and speed of digital communication had fundamentally changed what was required to protect elections. “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. In other words, the accurate administration of the electoral process, while still essential, is not enough to guarantee a free and fair election if voters are being bombarded with lies and manipulated content. He said political competition in South Africa and elsewhere had contributed to the spread of disinformation, and warned that if left unattended, disinformation peddling could “derail the electoral process”. The stakes are high: disinformation has the potential to undermine public confidence in the electoral system, provoke conflict between communities, and distort the choices made by voters. Shale further said the new framework was intended to strengthen the IEC’s ability to deal with the risks created by digital campaigning. “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,” he said. The commission has therefore positioned the new code not as an act of censorship but as a necessary safeguard for democracy and electoral integrity in the digital age. By holding parties and candidates accountable for disinformation associated with their campaigns, the IEC is seeking to shift the burden of responsibility onto the political actors themselves, rather than relying solely on platform takedowns or after-the-fact legal action.
However, the new measures have also drawn attention to the difficult balance between protecting elections from disinformation and safeguarding fundamental rights. The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC), in a separate Policy Brief on Information Integrity and Human Rights, has warned that efforts to tackle disinformation must not undermine constitutional protections. The SAHRC said disinformation could 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, the commission said, it becomes a human-rights concern. But the SAHRC also 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 particularly significant in a context where political opposition groups and civil society organisations often rely on strongly worded and sometimes inconvenient criticism to hold power to account. The challenge for the IEC will be to implement the new code in a way that targets genuine harm without chilling political speech or enabling abuse. As South Africa moves toward elections, the success of the new framework will depend not only on the willingness of political parties to comply, but also on the ability of the IEC to act impartially, transparently and with a clear commitment to both electoral integrity and constitutional freedoms. The coming electoral cycle will therefore serve as a critical test of whether the new disinformation code can meet the demands of a rapidly evolving digital age without sacrificing the very rights it is meant to protect.
