# The Hallucinated Policy

- Link: https://dearsouthafrica.co.za/news-2/the-hallucinated-policy/
- Published: 2026-05-19T15:07:29+02:00
- Author: dearSA

_Advert_

_Advert – scroll down_

![The Hallucinated Policy: When Government AI Fails Its Own Test](https://cdn.dearsouthafrica.
co.za/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/19150238/Ai-policy-withdrawn-scaled.jpg "Ai policy
withdrawn")

### THE HALLUCINATED POLICY: WHEN GOVERNMENT AI FAILS ITS OWN TEST

There is a profound, almost poetic irony in watching the very custodians of our 
national technology policy get tripped up by the exact tools they are attempting
to regulate.

On 10 April 2026, the Department of Communications and Digital Technologies (DCDT)
published the highly anticipated Draft National Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy
in Government Gazette No. 54477. It was intended to establish a structured, 60-day
public comment window to guide South Africa’s approach to an AI-driven future. Instead,
just over two weeks later on 26 April 2026, the entire policy was abruptly withdrawn
by Minister Solly Malatsi.

The reason? A catastrophic failure of human oversight. The foundational 86-page 
document, meant to serve as a strategic blueprint for the country, was exposed for
containing a reference list packed with completely fabricated, AI-generated citations.
In the tech world, this is a classic “AI hallucination”—where large language models
confidently invent facts, sources, and links that do not exist. In a government 
gazette, however, it is a national embarrassment.

What makes this blunder truly remarkable is how directly it violates the explicit
directives contained within the draft policy itself. The document spent pages outlining
the critical importance of safety, professional accountability, and human control
over automated systems.

Consider the stark disconnect between the department’s words and their actions:

    - _The “Human-in-the-Loop” Failure:_ Section 9.6.1 of the policy heavily advocated
      for a Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) approach, declaring that “critical AI decisions
      involve human oversight… ensuring oversight at all development stages”. Yet,
      it is painfully obvious that no qualified human official bothered to verify
      the accuracy of the source material before appending the Minister’s name and
      pushing it to the Government Printer.
    - _Neglecting Professional Responsibility:_ The policy mandated the development
      of a strict code of conduct for AI professionals, noting that standards must
      be created to help developers and organisations meet “ethical issues arising
      from their work”. By publishing automated text without fundamental fact-checking,
      the DCDT demonstrated the exact type of professional negligence they claim
      to oppose.
    - _Traceable Accountability:_ The text noted that “Organisations must take responsibility
      for the outcomes of their AI systems… This accountability must ultimately 
      point to an attributable official or entity”. Minister Malatsi took heed of
      this specific principle in his withdrawal statement, acknowledging that the
      lapse compromised the state’s credibility and promising strict consequence
      management for those responsible for drafting and quality assurance.

Integrity Requires Research. At Dear South Africa, our core mission is to facilitate
public participation—shaping policy by delivering citizen speech directly to government
decision-makers. Naturally, when a policy as sweeping as the National AI Strategy
drops, the public deserves a platform to dissect it.

However, we did not run a campaign for this draft document.

This situation is a fantastic, real-time display of why we refuse to blindly release
a campaign the moment a gazette hits the press. Constructing a meaningful public
participation campaign demands rigorous internal research, meticulous analysis, 
and deep consultation before anything is published on our platform.

Maintaining institutional integrity is everything to us. We cannot ask citizens 
to dedicate their valuable time, energy, and intelligence to critiquing a policy
frame built on synthetic hallucinations and administrative laziness. Had we rushed
to launch a campaign without doing our homework first, we would have validated a
ghost document and compromised the credibility of the entire public participation
process.

By holding back and executing our standard due diligence, we allowed the structural
flaws of the draft to expose themselves. The fact that the document was pulled within
16 days proves that rushed, unverified policy formulation cannot withstand basic
scrutiny—and it vindicates our careful, research-first approach.

The Real Danger: A Digital Competency Crisis
 Minister Malatsi stated with humility
that the unacceptable lapse proves why vigilant human oversight over the use of 
artificial intelligence is critical. While his quick decision to withdraw the document
and enforce internal accountability is commendable, the broader implications are
deeply worrying.

The DCDT is the apex department entrusted to lead South Africa’s digital policy 
environment. If the individuals tasked with crafting the rules for advanced machine
learning tools cannot safely navigate using those exact tools to compile a reliable
reference list, how can we trust them to regulate high-risk use cases in financial
systems, healthcare, or national infrastructure?

This incident is a warning shot. AI holds massive potential for inclusive economic
growth and public sector efficiency in South Africa. But technology is only as good
as the human guardrails governing it.

South Africans do deserve better. We deserve a digital policy framework written 
by human minds, backed by verified research, and processed with absolute professional
integrity. When the DCDT is ready to present a legitimate, robust, and human-verified
AI policy, DearSouthAfrica’s thoroughly researched platform will be ready to let
the country shape it. Until then, let this serve as a lesson: if you let AI do your
homework, expect to get caught.