As South Africa approaches the 4 November 2026 local government elections, the announcement of temporary fuel levy relief has reignited a familiar political debate: where does legitimate government intervention end and electioneering begin?
It also raises an important question about the growing tendency to label political claims as disinformation without first establishing whether they are false, misleading or deliberately deceptive.
Following the Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement (MTBPS) presented by Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana on 21 October, the uMkhonto weSizwe Party (MK Party) and the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) questioned the timing and political implications of the fuel levy reduction. Their criticism must be examined alongside the government’s responsibility to act in the public interest and the constitutional imperative to ensure free and fair elections.
READ: MTBPS| Fikile Mbalula hails R10bn fuel relief as one for the people
The central question is not whether a government announcement made before an election can benefit the governing party politically. It may. The question is whether the timing, purpose and circumstances of the announcement provide evidence of improper electoral conduct, and whether the claims made in response are supported by facts.
The 2024 national and provincial elections provide a useful point of reference. In Democratic Alliance v Ramaphosa and Others (0027/2024EC) [2024] ZAEC 24, the Democratic Alliance challenged President Cyril Ramaphosa’s televised national address on 26 May 2024, three days before the general elections.
The DA argued that the address amounted to a disguised election campaign for the African National Congress (ANC), using a public broadcast to advance the governing party’s political interests.
The President maintained that the address was a legitimate communication about matters of state and the performance of the sixth democratic administration. It addressed the country’s election readiness, special votes and overseas voting arrangements, while highlighting the government’s record on the COVID-19 pandemic, state capture, electricity supply, infrastructure and social support.
The Electoral Court dismissed the DA’s application after considering the address in its particular circumstances. The case is instructive because it demonstrates the importance of examining the substance and context of government communication rather than assuming that timing alone establishes improper electioneering.
However, the judgment does not automatically determine whether the current fuel levy intervention constitutes electioneering.
The circumstances of the MTBPS and the measures announced must be assessed on their own merits.
The same discipline must apply to allegations of disinformation. A political statement does not become disinformation simply because it criticises the government or could damage the governing party’s electoral prospects. Its factual content, the evidence available and the applicable legal standards must be examined.
The MTBPS forms part of South Africa’s established public finance framework. Section 28 of the Public Finance Management Act 1 of 1999 provides for the tabling of an annual budget policy statement setting out, among other matters, multi-year budget projections and key macroeconomic assumptions.
The tabling of the MTBPS is therefore an established part of the budget process, not an extraordinary event created for an election campaign. Through it, government communicates its fiscal outlook, policy priorities and response to economic developments.
On 21 October, the Minister of Finance announced temporary relief from the fuel levy in response to rising international oil prices and the pressure these increases place on households and businesses. The reduction is R1.50 per litre for petrol and R3 per litre for diesel from 4 November to 1 December 2026. From 2 December 2026 to 5 January 2027, the relief will continue at lower rates of R1 per litre for petrol and R1.50 per litre for diesel.
READ: MTBPS | Treasury sets aside R10bn to ease fuel price pain
The intervention has direct implications for the cost of living. Fuel prices influence transport, food distribution, production costs and the prices consumers pay for goods and services. For households already under financial pressure, relief at the pump can make a meaningful difference.
South Africa has previously used temporary fuel levy reductions to cushion consumers against sharp increases in fuel prices. In 2022, government introduced temporary relief amid rising international oil prices following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. That precedent demonstrates that fuel levy adjustments can serve an economic stabilisation purpose outside an election context.
It does not, by itself, prove that the current intervention is free of political considerations. Equally, the fact that relief takes effect on election day does not establish that the measure was designed to influence voters.
Government has a responsibility to respond to economic shocks, protect household purchasing power and maintain economic stability. Where an intervention is justified by those responsibilities, its proximity to an election should not automatically disqualify it. Equally, government must remain accountable for how public resources are deployed and how its decisions are communicated to voters.
The Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC) promulgated the Electoral Code of Conduct Countering Disinformation in the Local Government Elections on 4 September 2026. The code provides an important framework for assessing election-related communications.
It seeks to protect electoral integrity while preserving lawful criticism, opinion, commentary, fair reporting, satire and legitimate democratic debate. Political parties and candidates are expected to check information for accuracy, take responsibility for communications issued on their behalf and correct false or misleading information in accordance with the code.
The distinction between misinformation and disinformation is important. Misinformation generally refers to false or inaccurate information shared without an intention to deceive. Disinformation involves the deliberate dissemination of false or manipulated information intended to mislead.
These concepts cannot be reduced to a test of whether a statement helps or harms a particular political party.
If the EFF or MK Party argues that the timing of the fuel levy reduction could benefit the ANC electorally, that is a political interpretation that can be examined and challenged. Establishing that such a claim constitutes disinformation requires more than pointing to its political consequences. It requires identifying the factual assertions being made and determining whether they are false or misleading under the applicable legal framework.
The distinction is especially important in a constitutional democracy, where opposition parties have a legitimate responsibility to scrutinise government decisions. Robust criticism is not, in itself, evidence of an attempt to deceive the electorate.
Conversely, political affiliation cannot excuse the deliberate circulation of false information. If a party advances demonstrably false factual claims about a government decision, the appropriate response is to establish the facts, apply the relevant rules and pursue any available remedies through the proper channels.
The same standard must apply to the ANC and every other political party.
The fuel levy controversy presents an opportunity to strengthen South Africa’s democratic culture. Government must explain its decisions, opposition parties must scrutinise them, and voters must be able to distinguish verifiable facts from political interpretation.
The ANC cannot establish the legitimacy of the fuel levy reduction merely by pointing to the statutory status of the MTBPS. The budget process explains why the statement was tabled; it does not settle every question about the timing, implementation or political use of an individual announcement.
Similarly, the EFF and MK Party cannot be said to have engaged in disinformation simply because they question the announcement’s electoral implications. Any allegation of a breach of the IEC’s code must be tested against the actual statements made, the available evidence and the applicable provisions.
The 2024 Electoral Court judgment is instructive because it underscores the importance of assessing alleged electoral misconduct in its full context. It should encourage an evidence-based approach to the current dispute rather than be used to predetermine the outcome.
Three distinct questions must be answered:
- whether the fuel levy relief is a legitimate response to economic pressure,
- whether government has used its position improperly,
- and whether the political claims surrounding the announcement are factually supportable.
Each deserves a proper answer.
South Africa’s electoral integrity depends on more than the absence of false information. It requires public institutions to act responsibly, political parties to engage honestly, and citizens to remain free to question those in power without legitimate criticism being dismissed as disinformation.
Neither the timing of a policy announcement nor the political advantage it may confer is sufficient, on its own, to establish wrongdoing. Equally, the existence of a legitimate policy objective does not place government beyond scrutiny. The evidence must determine the conclusion, and the same standard must apply to the government and its critics.
- Mahlengi Bhengu is the National Spokesperson of the African National Congress (ANC).
- South Africa's Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana announced a temporary fuel levy relief starting 4 November 2026, coinciding with local government elections, reducing petrol by R1.50/litre and diesel by R3/litre initially.
- The fuel levy relief aims to ease rising international oil price impacts, affecting transport, food distribution, production costs, and consumers' living costs.
- Opposition parties MK Party and EFF questioned the timing and political motivations behind the fuel levy reduction, prompting debate on whether it constitutes electioneering.
- The Electoral Code of Conduct Countering Disinformation, effective from 4 September 2026, requires political parties to accurately check information and avoid deliberate falsehoods, differentiating misinformation from disinformation.
- A 2024 Electoral Court case (Democratic Alliance v Ramaphosa) highlighted the need to assess government announcements' substance and context, rather than timing alone, in determining improper electoral conduct.
