South AfricaThe Office of the Chief Justice released a Draft Policy on Artificial Intelligence for the Judiciary for comment in April 2026. Resolution 5.2 of the 2026 Judiciary Conference (Umhlanga, 13–16 July 2026) directs the Judiciary Administration and Information Technology Steering Committee to finalise it for adoption.
Regulation Tracker · Country · Africa
South Africa
Developingmixedupdated 2026-09-04verified 2026-09-04
As of 4 September 2026 South Africa has no binding AI rule for legal practice; the position is set by judgments (Mavundla, Northbound, FJL v TGO). The Office of the Chief Justice circulated a draft judiciary AI policy in April 2026 and the 2026 Judiciary Conference resolved to finalise it. The national AI policy was withdrawn in June 2026.
As of 2026-09-04, South Africa has 0 binding rules, official guidance in 0 categories, 8 proposals and 2 positions set only by case law across the 20 categories in the map. In 8 categories we found nothing; in 2 the position is not yet determined.
How to read this page
- Binding rule Binding rule means a rule in force from a court, statute, regulator or equivalent authority.
- Official guidance Official guidance means an official non-binding position from a judiciary, regulator, bar or public body.
- Proposed / consultation Proposed / consultation means a public bill, draft rule or consultation that is not yet in force.
- Set by case law Set by case law means no rule was found, but courts have set the position in decisions.
- Nothing found Nothing found means the category was checked and no rule, guidance, proposal or case-law position was found.
- Not yet determined Not yet determined means research did not establish a reliable position yet.
The rules, category by category
The draft judiciary policy expressly bars AI from adjudicative functions — evaluating evidence, assessing credibility, interpreting or applying law, generating substantive legal reasoning, and determining bail, sentence or risk. Conference resolution 5.2 asks for greater specificity on permissible and prohibited uses; resolution 5.3 keeps judicial reasoning and determination central.
- 2026 Judiciary Conference Resolutions, Section 5 — Information Communication Technology, Digitisation and Artificial Intelligence 2026-07-16
- Draft Policy on Artificial Intelligence for the Judiciary in South Africa 2026-04-01
- 2026 Judiciary Conference Resolutions, 16 July 2026 (official PDF), s5.2–5.3
Not yet binding. The LSSA revised draft guidelines require practitioners to address cybersecurity risks including prompt injection and data corruption; conference resolution 5.2 asks the judiciary policy to safeguard confidentiality.
- Revised Ethics Guidelines for Legal Practitioners in South Africa on the Use of Generative AI 2026-07-01
- 2026 Judiciary Conference Resolutions, Section 5 — Information Communication Technology, Digitisation and Artificial Intelligence 2026-07-16
- Draft Policy on Artificial Intelligence for the Judiciary in South Africa 2026-04-01
No competence rule names AI. The LSSA revised draft guidelines require output to be evaluated for accuracy, local legal relevance and bias; the LPC has consulted on adopting ethics guidelines.
In 2026 the LPC invited the profession to comment on proposed Ethics Guidelines for Legal Practitioners on the Use of Generative AI, and held a webinar on AI in legal research in August 2025. The LSSA AI Committee's revised draft was published in De Rebus on 1 July 2026. Neither has been adopted.
Resolutions 5.1 and 5.4 of the 2026 Judiciary Conference direct modernisation of court systems and use of customised, secure AI platforms, initially for court recording and transcription, translation, case management and document summarisation. No policy is yet adopted.
- 2026 Judiciary Conference Resolutions, Section 5 — Information Communication Technology, Digitisation and Artificial Intelligence 2026-07-16
- Draft Policy on Artificial Intelligence for the Judiciary in South Africa 2026-04-01
- 2026 Judiciary Conference Resolutions, 16 July 2026 (official PDF), s5.1, 5.4
No mandatory requirement in force. Resolution 5.5 of the 2026 Judiciary Conference directs the Judiciary to provide ongoing education on responsible AI use, including prompt design and verification, while maintaining legal research, reasoning and judgment-writing skills.
Resolution 5.3 of the 2026 Judiciary Conference requires the Judiciary to retain ownership and governance over the development, procurement and use of AI systems, and that training data reflect South Africa's constitutional values. No rule applies to law firms.
The duty is judge-made. Mavundla v MEC (KZN), Northbound Processing and Parker v Forsyth establish that practitioners are personally responsible for checking every authority. The LSSA AI Committee's revised draft ethics guidelines (1 July 2026) state practitioners are fully responsible for AI-assisted work but are not adopted.
Courts apply existing costs, contempt and referral powers. Mavundla v MEC (KZN) and Northbound Processing dealt with practitioners' fabricated citations; in FJL v TGO (Gauteng full court, 31 July 2026) Opperman J referred an acting judge to the LPC over at least eleven fictitious citations; Molawa v Matjhabeng (Labour Court, 13 July 2026) concerned a disciplinary chairperson's hallucinated authorities.
No court rule, practice directive or uniform rule requires disclosure or certification of AI use in filings as of 4 September 2026. Courts have addressed fabricated citations case by case under existing costs and contempt powers.
No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.
No evidence rule or guidance on AI-generated or deepfake material found as of 4 September 2026; authenticity is handled under the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act and common-law principles.
No supervision duty naming AI found as of 4 September 2026. FJL v TGO exposed a gap for acting judges, who remain practising advocates answerable to the LPC rather than the Judicial Conduct Committee.
No requirement to inform clients of or obtain consent for AI use found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule, guidance or reported case on billing for AI-assisted work found as of 4 September 2026.
No AI-specific ruling or regulation on consumer AI legal services; the Legal Practice Act 28 of 2014 reserves legal practice to enrolled practitioners.
No horizontal AI statute. The Draft South Africa National AI Policy (General Notice 3880, Government Gazette 54477, 10 April 2026) was withdrawn in its entirety by Notice 3978 of 2026 (Gazette 54840, 12 June 2026, signed 4 June 2026) after at least six of its 67 academic citations were found to be fabricated by AI.
POPIA applies to AI processing by firms and courts, but Information Regulator guidance specific to AI was not located within the research budget. Not fully checked as of 4 September 2026.
No AFSA or AAA-Africa AI guideline located within the research budget; not fully checked as of 4 September 2026.
Official documents recorded for South Africa (4)
- 2026 Judiciary Conference Resolutions, Section 5 — Information Communication Technology, Digitisation and Artificial Intelligence
SA Judiciary Conference · revised 2026-07-16 · verified 2026-09-04
- Revised Ethics Guidelines for Legal Practitioners in South Africa on the Use of Generative AI
LSSA AI Committee · revised 2026-07-01 · verified 2026-09-03
- Draft South Africa National Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy (published GN 3880 of 2026; withdrawn by Notice 3978 of 2026)
DCDT · revised 2026-04-10 · verified 2026-09-04
- Draft Policy on Artificial Intelligence for the Judiciary in South Africa
OCJ · revised 2026-04-01 · verified 2026-09-04
Court incidents on the record in South Africa
- FJL v TGO2026-07-31 Regulatory referral
- Molawa and Others v Matjhabeng Local Municipality and Another2026-07-13 Other
- Northbound Processing (Pty) Ltd v South African Diamond and Precious Metals Regulator (2025/072038) [2025] ZAGPJHC 6612025-06-30 Regulatory referral
- Mavundla v MEC: Department of Co-Operative Government and Traditional Affairs2025-01-08 Regulatory referral
- Parker v Forsyth NNO and Others (1585/20) [2023] ZAGPRD 12023-06-29 Other
Cite this page
SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Tracker, "South Africa" (updated 2026-09-04, verified 2026-09-04), https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/za (accessed 2026-09-04). Data: CC BY 4.0.
SafeLegalAI is a research publication by Cognesio LLP, not a law firm. Nothing here is legal advice, and no lawyer–client relationship arises from reading it. Rules change; always check the official document linked on each record and take advice on your own situation. Researched and drafted with AI assistance; verified against primary sources and edited by Cognesio LLP. The linked official documents are the record — our summaries are not the law and are not legal advice.
- South African Judiciary — 2026 Judiciary Conference Resolutions (16 July 2026)
- Withdrawal of the Draft South Africa National AI Policy — Notice 3978 of 2026, GG 54840 (12 June 2026)
- Draft South Africa National AI Policy — GN 3880, GG 54477 (10 April 2026)
- SAnews — Minister announces withdrawal of draft AI Policy
- De Rebus — Responsible AI use in South African legal practice: revised guidelines