Bhaso Ndzendze is a professor of politics and international relations and the Senior Director for Global Engagement at the University of Johannesburg.
He recently published an opinion article that first appeared in the Sunday World on 07 June 2026.
Following the embarrassing withdrawal of its draft national policy on AI in late April, the Department of Communications and Digital Technologies has set up a new seven-member panel of eminent experts drawn from academia, business, legal practice, and government. This is to be welcomed, along with the internal investigations going on within the department. The new panel should avoid some mistakes in the withdrawn policy. Crucially, what was missing in the previous draft was how AI is impacting, now and into the future, the internationalisation of higher education. The original document, apart from its fictitious sources, also had the error of not fully appreciating the impact of AI in higher education, and the implications that this has for the South African sector and how it engages with its global counterparts.
The withdrawal and revision of the draft National AI Policy present an opportunity to address this. Recent history has shown that AI is a two-level disruptor in higher education globally. Firstly, as a process disruptor, it has upended the very fundamentals of teaching, learning and assessing, by muddying the research process and reliability of literature. On both scores, it calls question standards, quality assurance and the very trust building processes across the sector and globally that serve as a basis for higher education harmonisation across jurisdictions.
Secondly, AI as an outcomes disruptor affects the employability of graduates, by calling into question the credibility of their qualifications. Employers across the globe are bound to ask whether the students really did the work to obtain the qualification (per the process disruption described above); but that already assumes there is a market willing to absorb the graduates – just as easily, the market is coming to believe it can allocate certain functions to AI processes and agents. Universities have had to do soul-searching on the basis of these questions. But it also has implications for how they collaborate.
Three questions come to mind. How will partner universities put together joint programmes when two or more of the institutions have different philosophies towards AI? How confidently will South African universities continue to send or accept international students for semesters abroad when we cannot be certain about the receiving or sending institution’s AI policies? How will the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA), whose mandate is to validate the degrees of international students or returning South African students, carry out their due diligence towards possibly AI-assisted qualifications obtained from foreign universities?
In early April the South African government, through the Department of Communication and Digital Technologies put out a draft National AI Policy for public comment. None of these issues were contemplated in that document. Ironically, the policy soon came under scrutiny for having fabricated publications in its references, a typical give-away for AI-generated work. It was recalled on the 26th of April by the minister, Solly Malatsi.
The policy’s aims were five-fold, with two of them having clear-cut implications for higher education and its internationalisation. These include the increased uptake of AI technologies in public, private, society, and other sectors; reduction in the digital divide through equitable access to AI education, technologies, and services; and stronger national positioning in global AI discussions and partnerships.
In what it called Strategic Building Block (SBB) 1 (Education, Training and Industry Collaboration), the would-be policy aimed to grow South Africa’s AI talent pool and recommended a National AI Skills Development Strategy spanning schools, TVET colleges, universities, and lifelong learning pathways. Additionally, the draft recommended that the government introduce competitive AI research grants, innovation challenges, and fellowships. In parallel, diaspora engagement programmes can facilitate knowledge transfer and mentorship, while targeted AI entrepreneurship training and incubation hubs will strengthen the pipeline of innovators and startups.
In Strategic Building Block 2 (Global Collaboration and Competitiveness), the withdrawn policy aimed to position South Africa as a regional AI leader, by having the country build AI research facilities and partnerships with sub-Saharan and other continental partners. These would be akin to those at the University of Johannesburg (UJ), Tshwane University of Technology (TUT), and Central University of Technology (CUT).
The document then laid out a list of entities which it says will play key defined roles in the regulation of AI in South Africa, as well as their roles and contributions in the AI ecosystem. These include the Department of Communications and Digital Technologies, the Department of Science, Technology and Innovation, the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), the Technology Innovation Agency, the Industrial Development Corporation, the South African Human Rights Commission, and the Information Regulator.
Concerningly, and despite the number of DHET-facing issues it is cognizant of, the draft policy did not mention the department of higher education and training as a role player in implementing the policy. This is despite education being one of the sectors which have most immediately been impacted by the emergence of AI, particularly generative AI.
Globally there has been much regulatory discourse on higher education, but that too has been inconclusive. Part of the limitation is that the conversation is based on the Beijing Consensus on AI in Education, developed under the auspices of UNESCO. But that document was developed in May 2019 – more than four years before ChatGPT debuted publicly. Today it is every student’s hands. With both the national and international AI regulation landscapes in flux, South African universities, DHET and its agencies have the opportunity to drive the conversation and the process nationally and globally. It is an opportune time to work towards a ‘South African Consensus’ on AI in education.
*The views expressed in this article are that of the author/s and do not necessarily reflect that of the University of Johannesburg.
