SA local elections test voters’ ability to spot fake news
South Africa’s upcoming local government elections on 4 November will be among the most fiercely contested in the country’s democratic history, but they will also serve as a high-stakes test of whether ordinary citizens can still separate fact from fiction in a rapidly changing information environment. With public confidence in the ability to identify fake news falling sharply, and with artificial intelligence enabling more sophisticated and targeted manipulation, the Electoral Commission of South Africa has introduced a legally binding code of conduct aimed at countering election-related disinformation. The Electoral Code of Conduct Countering Disinformation in the Local Government Elections, known as the Disinformation Code, was gazetted by the IEC on 4 September, just weeks before voters head to the polls. The measure is widely seen as a vital safeguard, particularly after the latest Voter Participation Survey revealed that only 52% of respondents now describe themselves as confident in recognizing fake news, a significant decline from 62% in 2023. Even more concerning, only 18% of respondents say they regularly verify election-related information before liking, sharing or reposting it. This gap between perceived vulnerability and actual verification behaviour suggests that many South Africans are exposed to false or misleading content without the tools or habits needed to protect themselves and their communities from manipulation.
The survey also paints a complex picture of how South Africans consume political information in the digital age. Traditional media remain highly influential, with 71% of respondents relying on television and 38% on radio for voting information. Yet social media is rapidly gaining ground, with 23% citing it as a source of election-related information, up sharply from just 8% in 2021. While social media is not yet the leading source of election information, South Africans spend enormous amounts of time online, recording an average of nine hours and 37 minutes per day in 2025, the highest in the world. Roughly three and a half of those hours are devoted to social media platforms. This paradox of high connectivity and low verification means that false information can spread quickly, especially in closed messaging spaces where content is not subject to editorial oversight. The World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2026 ranks misinformation and disinformation among the top risks facing societies worldwide, and South Africa is not immune. Speaking at the Disinformation Dialogue 2026, IEC Chairperson Mosotho Moepya warned that the 2026 elections would likely see a shift from national misinformation and disinformation to “ward-specific deceptions” driven by generative artificial intelligence and hyper-local campaigning. His warning reflects a growing recognition that the battlefield for information integrity has moved from broad national narratives to the intimate spaces of wards, streets and community groups.
Institute for Security Studies research has shown that disinformation and political messaging are becoming increasingly localised and targeted at specific communities and voter groups. Community WhatsApp groups and Facebook pages have become central arenas for political discussion at ward and municipal levels, where information travels quickly and verification is often limited. These spaces are particularly vulnerable because they are built on trust, with members often reluctant to challenge posts from neighbours or community leaders. At the same time, political parties are investing more heavily in digital campaigning, using online political advertising and influencer-driven strategies to reach voters. While these tools can enhance political engagement and allow smaller parties to compete, they also make it harder for voters to distinguish between authentic political discussion, sponsored content and coordinated influence campaigns. The rise of generative AI is further complicating the picture. South Africa has not yet experienced a major election crisis linked to deepfakes, but AI-generated content is becoming cheaper, more accessible and increasingly difficult to detect. As these technologies become more sophisticated, the ability of ordinary citizens to identify manipulated images, fabricated audio and synthetic videos will decline further. This means information integrity is no longer simply a media issue but has become an integral part of citizenship, democracy and governance. Technology itself is not inherently the problem; it can be used both to spread harmful falsehoods and to help voters access accurate information. The challenge for South Africa is to ensure that the tools designed to strengthen democratic participation evolve as quickly as the technologies used to manipulate it.
Much of the public conversation around disinformation understandably focuses on the responsibilities of social media users, but verification cannot be the sole burden of citizens. Professional and legacy media journalists remain one of democracy’s most important lines of defence against false and misleading information. Journalists investigate claims, provide context and test competing narratives before they reach the public, a function that becomes even more critical in an era of AI-generated content. Although newsrooms are increasingly pressured to produce more content with fewer resources, this does not necessarily mean that verification standards are being compromised. Newzroom Afrika, a South African news channel, told ISS Today that accuracy takes precedence over being first, and that it applies a three-step verification process and labels fabricated AI-generated content as fake. These standard practices are reflected in the Press Council of South Africa’s guidance on the use of AI in journalism, which encourages newsrooms to maintain editorial oversight and transparency when using synthetic media. The IEC has also expanded its efforts to strengthen information integrity and public trust in the electoral process. Voter education campaigns and public roadshows have been accompanied by journalist training, digital outreach and new tools that enable voters to verify information through official channels. These initiatives recognise that a well-informed electorate is not just one that receives accurate information, but one that has the confidence and capacity to question what it sees, hears and reads.
The new Disinformation Code is a central pillar of these efforts. It requires political parties and candidates to verify information before sharing it, to clearly label political advertising and AI-generated or synthetic content, and to correct and retract false or misleading information within 36 hours. Anyone can report suspected election-related online disinformation through the IEC’s Real411 platform, which has been updated to handle complaints quickly and transparently. Crucially, the Disinformation Code extends responsibility for information integrity beyond official party statements to the wider networks through which political content circulates. This means parties and candidates cannot simply distance themselves from false claims made by surrogates, social media influencers or community-based campaigners. Social media platforms also have a role to play. As political parties and candidates face greater expectations to take responsibility for the information they share, platforms should strengthen their responses to election-related disinformation, including faster takedowns of fake accounts and clearer labelling of manipulated content. The IEC chairperson has warned that breaches of the Disinformation Code carry the same legal consequences as violations of the core Electoral Code of Conduct, making clear that this is not merely a symbolic gesture. However, the Disinformation Code remains in force only until the election results are declared, while the problem of disinformation can persist long afterwards. Allegations of vote rigging after the 2024 national elections demonstrated that false narratives can continue to corrode public trust even after the ballots have been counted. South Africa will therefore need long-term information integrity solutions that extend beyond elections, including stronger digital literacy programmes, sustained investment in independent journalism and ongoing dialogue with technology companies.
Safeguarding local democracy is a shared responsibility, but citizens are an important first line of defence. Small, deliberate actions, such as challenging a suspicious post in a community WhatsApp group or helping a family member verify a candidate’s claim, can strengthen democratic resilience far more than any single regulation or platform policy. With six weeks left before voting starts, South Africans need access to information they trust. That requires a sustained commitment to verification from political parties, institutions, media organisations, platforms and citizens alike. The IEC’s Disinformation Code is a crucial step forward, but it is not a cure-all. It must be backed by a culture of accountability, where public figures who spread falsehoods face consequences, where platforms take their responsibilities seriously, and where voters feel empowered to pause before sharing. The 2026 local elections will not be decided solely in polling stations; they will also be decided in the digital spaces where narratives are built, rumours are spread and loyalties are formed. South Africa has the legal framework, the institutional experience and the civic energy to meet this challenge, but only if everyone plays their part. The test is not merely whether the elections are free and fair, but whether the information environment in which they take place is healthy enough to allow voters to make informed choices. As the world watches, South Africa has an opportunity to demonstrate that democracy can adapt to the age of artificial intelligence, not by banning technology, but by building the resilience of its citizens, its institutions and its public discourse. The stakes could not be higher, because the integrity of local government, which touches the daily lives of every South African, depends on it.