Every year since 2013, Africa Check has fact-checked South Africa’s State of the Nation Address (SONA) — the speech President Cyril Ramaphosa delivers to mark the start of the political calendar, officially open Parliament, recap the year gone by and outline the government’s aims for the year ahead. After more than a decade of scrutiny, the organisation’s researchers say they can often guess what the president is going to say before he opens his mouth. That observation, simple on its face, raises deeper questions about political messaging, public accountability and the role of independent verification in South Africa’s democratic life.
The State of the Nation Address is by design a ritual of governance. It is where the executive sets tone and priorities, and where opposition and media take their cues. It is also, as the Africa Check note implies, a carefully managed exercise in political communication. Repetition and predictable framing are not unique to South Africa — leaders around the world use rehearsed themes and reissued targets to reassure constituencies and maintain a narrative. But predictability carries risks as well as benefits: it can make it easier for the public and watchdogs to evaluate claims — and, conversely, it can enable the steady circulation of unexamined assertions.
- Advertisement -
Fact-checking SONA annually since 2013 gives civil society an archive of claims and counters. That institutional memory matters. When statements recur year after year — on job creation, service delivery, infrastructure progress or crime statistics — they invite comparison, context and verification. Predictability therefore becomes a tool for accountability: the more often a claim is repeated, the more opportunities there are to test it against independent data.
At the same time, predictable messaging allows governments to refine how they package complex policy choices. By emphasising certain successes and softening or omitting setbacks, a speech can shape public perceptions without fully updating the underlying reality. That is why the work of fact-checkers is not merely pedantic; it is a corrective to the theatrical elements of national addresses. Verifying a speech’s facts compels conversation back toward evidence and away from narrative alone.
For journalists and researchers, the regularity of SONA also offers tactical advantages. Familiarity with typical themes — economic recovery, job creation, crime reduction, service delivery, and investment — lets reporters prepare sharper questions and demand specific metrics when claims are made. It enables targeted pre-broadcast vetting, quicker post-speech analysis and better context for readers who want to know what, precisely, has changed since last year.
But predictability should not breed complacency. Civil society, media and Parliament need norms and processes that ensure claims in high-stakes political speeches are verifiable and timely. That requires more than reactive fact-checking after the address. It implies clearer presentation of evidence by government, prompt publication of the data underpinning headline promises, and institutional mechanisms for tracking progress on the record.
Practical steps could strengthen that accountability loop:
- Require that claims tied to measurable outcomes cite the specific source and period of the data (for example, “Job growth of X percent in manufacturing, according to Statistics South Africa, January–December 2025”).
- Publish an accessible, up-to-date repository of the performance metrics referenced in national addresses so journalists and watchdogs can verify claims quickly.
- Establish parliamentary follow-ups with timelines for evidence release and progress reports tied to major SONA pledges.
- Encourage routine briefings by independent agencies charged with oversight — such as national audit institutions — timed to coincide with the political calendar.
These are not prescriptions for technical perfection; they are pragmatic steps to widen the space for public scrutiny. When a speech is both rhetorically polished and empirically transparent, citizens can more easily distinguish between aspiration and achievement.
There is also a democratic case for fact-checking beyond the immediate mechanics of verification. Repeated claims in high-profile speeches shape the national conversation: they influence investor confidence, affect how voters judge incumbents, and frame legislative priorities. When fact-checkers document patterns across years of addresses, they contribute to historical accountability — a record showing whether successive administrations fulfilled the promises they touted.
South Africa’s SONA tradition — its ritual opening of Parliament and its summarising of the year past and goals ahead — will remain a central political moment. The observation that researchers can anticipate much of the content suggests that the contest over meaning begins before the president steps to the podium. It is contested in briefing rooms, in media offices, and in the quietly selective use of data. Strengthening the transparency and verifiability of what is said in that moment can turn predictability from a potential liability into an instrument of democratic strengthening.
The advantage is reciprocal. Governments that make their evidence available and subject their claims to scrutiny gain credibility. Media and civil society that make fact-checking routine and rigorous help citizens judge policy on its merits rather than on the force of rhetoric. The State of the Nation Address will always be a performance, but in a healthy democracy performance and proof should travel together.
By News-room
Axadle Times international–Monitoring.
