Fact-checkers in Cameroon, Kenya, Nigeria and South Africa describe their jobs in markedly different terms, a study interviewing 19 practitioners in the four countries between January and August 2025 found.
The researchers, who study misinformation and disinformation, found that the political environment shapes not only what fact-checkers can do but what they believe their role is.
The study, reported by The Conversation, covered countries chosen to represent a range of political systems in sub-Saharan Africa: Cameroon, described as officially a democracy but in practice authoritarian; Kenya and Nigeria, described as hybrid systems where elections and constitutional rights exist alongside heavy-handed state power; and South Africa, where a constitution protects press freedom that is generally respected.
The clearest finding, the researchers wrote, was that there is no single “African fact-checker.”
The 19 interviewees were experienced practitioners working for fact-checking organisations and in newsrooms; the study did not set out to measure how common a particular view is across a whole population.
Cameroon: checking what is safe to check
Cameroonian fact-checkers said their main job was to debunk false claims spreading online, but they acknowledged that they mostly stayed away from politics. The reason they gave was fear.
One respondent said: “We avoid fact-checking government authorities. It is a risky enterprise to do that.”
Instead, they checked claims about fires, road accidents, armed robberies, the death of a public figure, or rumours about footballers, musicians and influencers. The researchers describe this as a form of self-censorship that limits what fact-checking can do.
They add that fear makes the work harder to do well, because good fact-checking depends on showing the public evidence and sources, yet in Cameroon officials rarely cooperate and eyewitnesses are often too afraid to speak.
Kenya: fact-checkers as democratic guides
Kenyan fact-checkers described a much broader role. They saw themselves as helping people take part in democracy, settling public disputes about facts, holding leaders accountable and guiding citizens through an overload of online information.
One organisation has set up channels where people can send in viral photos or memes for checking, and mainstream newsrooms are bringing in specialists to train journalists to trace texts, images and videos back to their original sources before publishing.
Kenyan fact-checkers also described organised disinformation campaigns by both government-aligned and opposition groups, which leave ordinary people “at a crossroads” about whom to believe.
They reported harassment and intimidation, and said many politicians and officials ignore requests to respond to viral claims, some because they believe the media is against them.
Nigeria: two different ideas of the job
In Nigeria, the researchers found a split. Newer fact-checkers, and those working inside newsrooms, tended to see fact-checking as one task within journalism.
One said: “My job is mostly verifying viral claims before publication. I still consider myself primarily a journalist.”
Senior fact-checkers saw something much bigger. For them, the job includes teaching the public, tracking how false stories spread over time and preventing real-world harm.
As one put it: “What we are essentially going for is information integrity and helping people to develop media literacy.”
They also described serious pressure. One said: “Once a claim touches politics or security, you start receiving warnings, sometimes framed as ‘friendly advice’ but clearly meant to intimidate.”
Another said cybercrime and defamation laws were often used to threaten legal action, even when reports were based on evidence.
Money was a constant worry, too: “We are chasing misinformation that spreads in minutes with resources that barely sustain daily operations.”
South Africa: filling the gaps newsrooms leave
South African fact-checkers saw themselves as a complement to struggling newsrooms. One said: “We are doing the job that everyone wants or might be doing but doesn’t have the time or the resources to really get into.”
They train journalists, students and community groups, and publish through partnerships with media outlets, radio and social media platforms such as TikTok.
The researchers said this surprised them: given South Africa’s relatively strong press freedom, they had expected fact-checkers there to focus heavily on holding politicians to account. Instead, their main concerns were less about the state and more about the public.
They also spoke about the limits of reacting after a claim has spread: “When you wait for a claim to go viral and then you respond to it, much of the damage has already been done.”
And few people want to read a 1,000-word explanation of why a claim is wrong.
What next
The researchers concluded that fact-checkers face different challenges but all need greater protection, resources and public trust.
They argued that governments should stop misusing the law to intimidate fact-checkers, and that public officials should respond to requests for comment, adding that checking facts is not an attack on the state.
They also called on funders and technology companies to offer long-term support, and said newsrooms and fact-checking organisations can strengthen their work through closer collaboration.
Media literacy should be taught in schools, they wrote, and fact-checkers can reach wider audiences through local languages, radio and shorter formats.
But there is no single approach that will work across Africa: solutions must reflect local political realities and support those working, often at personal risk, to counter false information.
Source: The Conversation
Comments