Elections and the information integrity crisis: Why SA’s human rights body is taking action

Information integrity is vital for a functional democracy and recommendations to strengthen it include ensuring platform accountability and support for pluralistic and independent public interest media.

These two recommendations are among five listed in an SAHRC policy brief on Information Integrity and Human Rights, which has been released as the countdown begins for the 4 November local government elections.

Serving both as a warning and a framework for action, the SAHRC says disinformation is a structural threat and “constitutes a systemic human rights concern, with direct implications for life, dignity, equality and democratic participation”. 

“Disinformation is dangerous for democracy because it distorts public debate, polarises society and hinders people’s ability to make informed choices free from interference and manipulation.” 

Effective regulation of disinformation requires a shift from content-focused enforcement to systemic platform accountability, it said, recommending the development of measures that include transparency reporting and clearer obligations regarding algorithmic amplification and synthetic media, particularly in electoral and other high-risk contexts.

The SAHRC notes existing mechanisms through the Electoral Act that outlaw false information, and new attempts to give more teeth to these codes through a draft Electoral Code of Conduct on Countering Disinformation that includes enforcing retraction and correction of false information within 24 hours, and labelling of synthetic or AI-generated content for political adverts. The code applies to political parties, candidates and the electoral cycle, and does not impose systemic duties on digital platforms. 

The three other “policy pathway” recommendations for South Africa are:  

1. The establishment of a well-funded, coordinated early warning and rapid-response mechanism for high-risk periods, including elections;

2. A targeted review of legal frameworks to identify gaps, overlaps and risks of overreach; and

3. Sustained investment in public empowerment, digital literacy and civic education, including school-based interventions, public-sector training and community-level media literacy programmes. The SAHRC recommends that South Africa adopt five priority policy pathways.

Alignment with global media calls

A quick analysis of the SAHRC brief shows that it mirrors calls in the Johannesburg Declaration, which was adopted during the inaugural M20 (Media) Summit in South Africa in September last year – coinciding with President Cyril Ramaphosa’s hosting of the G20.

A rights-centred framework is a cornerstone of the M20 Declaration, which references human rights eight times. It notes that information integrity is both in crisis and essential to sustaining democracy. “Our call is an injunction to everyone to do more to protect press freedom, and support the role of journalism, and a human rights-based media ecosystem in its contribution to the public good.”

Echoing this, the SAHRC brief notes: “In contexts where access to reliable, independent information is limited, disinformation is more likely to take root and spread, particularly among marginalised and linguistically underserved communities.”

Financial media sustainability

Noting an important trend, both the M20 and SAHRC emphasise that financial sustainability is fundamental to safeguarding independent journalism. 

The SAHRC brief argues that public policy must actively support pluralistic media through targeted measures, such as fiscal incentives, donor-supported models (evidenced by initiatives such as South Africa’s GroundUp and Nigeria’s Premium Times Centre), and digital platform levies. 

“The Commission further considers that platform-based funding mechanisms, including levies on digital advertising revenue, may provide a viable means of supporting public-interest content, provided that such mechanisms are designed in a manner consistent with editorial independence and freedom of expression.” 

This aligns with the M20 Declaration’s call – echoing commitments in the Global Digital Compact – for G20 leaders to establish public funding models for journalism akin to other public goods. 

Crucially, both frameworks stress that such financial mechanisms must be designed with strict safeguards to preserve editorial independence and guarantee universal access to reliable information.

“The choices made in this moment will shape whether the information environment serves as a space for democratic engagement and human flourishing, or as a vector for division, exclusion and harm,” notes the SAHRC.

Growing awareness

On a micro level, the SAHRC recommendations underscore a growing awareness that information integrity and independent media are indispensable to safeguarding democracy.

At a global level, the M20 noted its disappointment at the close of the G20 Leaders Summit in South Africa late last year that information integrity and media issues were not included in the Leaders’ Declaration, especially given the earlier work done on information integrity and the digital economy during Brazil’s presidency in 2024.  

But it noted the 11th-hour audience that Ramaphosa held with the M20 delegation, during which the President expressed a strong understanding of the public interest role of journalism, the need to protect information as a public good, and the urgency of strengthening information resilience in the digital age. The M20 also noted that the G20 global leaders’ declaration included pointers on AI governance, data governance and emerging technologies, and also various paragraphs which could support future advocacy around media sustainability, digital rights, platform accountability and the importance of trusted information in governance systems.

The SAHRC recommendations demonstrate that momentum is building – and that safeguarding information integrity is both a local necessity and a global imperative. DM 

Janet Heard is a journalist who writes here in her capacity as a part-time practitioner at the Centre for Information Integrity in Africa (CINIA) and as a member of the M20 Advisory Group, where a version of this article was first published on its website.