The Control of Information.

How the rich and powerful shape the media and control your mind. By Dr. Judith Brown

Fact checking in Africa – part 1.

“We in the West must bear in mind that the poor countries are poor primarily because we have exploited them through political and economic colonialism.” Martin Luther King.

The origins of Sub-Saharan fact checking – a colonialist project.

Fact checking in Africa began in 2012, when the first African fact checking platform, Africa Check, was launched in South Africa. The African network was launched by Europeans, and is largely funded by American and European governments, corporations, and charitable foundations. Dominant narratives that are protected by the fact check industry in the United States and Europe are similarly protected in Africa.

Africa Check was first proposed by a journalist from the French newswire AFP, Peter Cunliffe-Jones. Th proposal was supported by the AFP Foundation [1] here, and an award from the Vienna-based International Press Institute. The launch was in Johannesburg following a three-day conference at the University of Witwatersrand; now a partner of Africa Check. Other partners include Google, Meta, TikTok, a German Foundation, a Swedish media institute, and two other African universities. From 2012 until 2018 it was registered with UK Companies House, after which, it began to publish its accounts in South Africa [2] here.

Africa Check accounts verify its dependence on its Western supporters [3] here. The last accounts available on its website in 2023 showed 81% of its income came from American sources. This includes the the US Department of State, the US Embassy, and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). American foundation donors incudes the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), Luminate, and Open Society, American Corporates were Google and Meta. Some of this corporate income was earned through third party fact checking contracts with Western corporations. The International Fact Checking Network (IFCN) also donated to Africa Check. Other donors included the UN, a Swedish media institute, and a French foundation. By comparison, two South African funders only provided 3% of Africa Check’s income. Hence, Africa Check’s proposers, partners, and funders demonstrate significant Western influence on the African fact checking industry.

Additionally, Africa Check has a wider reach on fact checking in Africa itself. Through its Africa Facts Network it coordinates with other countries and continents to promote fact checking activities in the preferred style.

African humanities graduates are often mismatched between their qualifications and their employment [4] here. There are limited well paid employment opportunities for such graduates. Comparatively well-paid jobs are available to graduates by the African fact check industry. Inevitably, the industry supports Western, not African interests, and hence this could be described as a form of exploitation.

The big players in African fact checking.

A network of think tanks and NGOs support the censorship industry in Africa. The largest African NGO supporting censorship is called Code for Africa (CfA), founded by a South African journalist, Justin Arenstein, in 2012. It is the continent’s largest network of civic technology and data journalism labs, with teams in 21 countries. On its website it advertises jobs and grants available within the African fact check industry. Like all parts of the global censorship industry, CfA states that it empowers individuals and protects democracy. It is hard to understand how restricting both speech and access to diverse opinions achieves this stated aim. CfA’s activities include building infrastructure such as the continent’s largest open data portals at openAFRICA and sourceAFRICA. It also incubates diverse initiatives including a drone network; the PesaCheck fact-checking platform; and an air quality sensor network, called sensorAFRICA [5] here.

CfA also manages an iLab called African Network of Centers for Investigative Reporting (ANCIR); its stated purpose is to provide its members, partners, and collaborators with round the clock investigative support services. This includes providing grants. iLab services include document tracing and encryption services, and fact checking tools. CfA states its iLab services extend across Africa and to the Maghreb, the Arabic speaking part of North-West Africa. CfA additionally has a research arm that uses human analysis, alongside machine learning, and a Data Academy, partnered with the American Hacks/Hackers that ‘spearheads training partnerships’. It also has an engagement team that communicates its shared vison of a ‘connected and technologically empowered continent’ [6] here.

No information was found relating to the funding for CfA on its website. However, a newspaper report form 2015 reported that CfA received $4.7 million dollars from the BMGF to fund data projects in Africa [7] here. CfA launched a Data Journalism Fund in 2016, in partnership with the American International Center for Journalists (ICJ), with funding from the BMGF and the World Bank [8] here. Other CfA funders that were located include the German Deutsche Welle [9] here and Google [10] here. This information on funding sources is unlikely to be complete and many other funders are likely with such a large and diverse organisation as CfA.

The African Digital Democracy Observatory (ADDO) was co-founded by CfA and the Atlantic Council’s global Digital Forensic Lab (DFRLab) in 2020 [11] here. The Atlantic Council is aligned to NATO, and its funders include the Global Engagement Center (GEC) which is now a closed-down US state organisation that used to fund censorship activities; the US military; Blackstone; Raytheon; STRATCOM and many other diplomatic, banking, and military organisations [12] here. ADDO states that this partnership is to coordinate research into foreign disinformation and propaganda campaigns. ADDO describes itself as a network of 13 independent research think tanks and investigative watchdogs that monitor coordinated attempts to subvert African democracies. According to PesaCheck, ADDO members include African University departments. ADDO website states that it proactively identifies misinformation, and counters this with credible data driven facts. Its functions include annual reports on trust, a China Index, and the Climate Action Against Disinformation (CAAD) network. It works closely with African Fact Check Alliance (AFCA) [13] here.

AFCA is an umbrella organisation for fact check groups, founded in 2021 by CfA and its fact check platform partner, PesaCheck. AFCA states it has 380 newsroom members in 30 countries. In 2023 its website it listed151 media outlets and institutes that have staff that it has trained in fact checking. This included broadcasters, press, charities, NGOs and universities. However, this list was no longer available in 2025. Its African partners include the think tank African Centre for People, Institutions and Society (ACEPIS). There is no information concerning the funding of ACEPIS but it states that it has worked with western establishment organisations, including Open Society, Oxfam, UNESCO, and other European and UK based charities and trusts. AFCA’s powerful international partners include: the EU; IFCN; UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO); and the World Health Organisation (WHO) [14] here. AFCA and CfA also organise a newsroom networking project to streamline fact checking systems, account profiling, and offer a range of fact checking tools. Eight East African countries are involved in this project, which is funded by UNESCO and the EU [15] here.

During the Covid era, the WHO set up an initiative to coordinate the African fact checking approach, called the Africa Infodemic Response Alliance (AIRA) [16] here. By 2024, AIRA has morphed into a site that fact checks all health information. AIRA’s partners include three UN departments, the African CDC, the International Federation of the Red cross and Red Cresent (IFRC) and the fact check platform Verified. The associated African fact check platforms listed are AFP, Africa Check, Dubawa, Fact Space West Africa (FSWA, also known as Ghana Fact), PesaCheck and the American technology company Meedan. Meedan is strongly associated with censorship activities and was named on American journalist and censorship analyst Matt Taibbi’s top 50 organisations in the Censorship Industrial Complex [17] here. Meedan has widespread public and private funding from organisations that are commonly found to fund fact checking activities. The other AIRA partners are pan-African fact check platforms that between them fact check most of Africa. As well as belonging to AIRA, four of these cross-border fact check organisations belong to the American Credibility Coalition network, all are verified signatories to the IFCN code of practice. Also, all participated in the CoronaVirusFact Alliance database at the American Poynter Institute. In addition, all except FSWA belong to the Facebook Third Party Fact Checking Project, which provides a significant part of their income.

It can be seen that CfA is a significant player in the Censorship Industrial Complex, as it manages data. and by doing so, controls the dissemination of information within Africa. It also has links with Western governments, Western corporations, and Western philanthropic foundations that belong to immensely wealthy and powerful families. These donors provide a significant part of CfA funding. Though its subsidiaries and offshoots CfA is associated with NATO and the American military, UN, WHO, American corporations and American conglomerates that have immense assets. These CfA subsidiaries network with other fact check platforms worldwide, via international organisations such as the Credibility Coalition and the IFCN. CfA interests include health and climate information, topics where information is widely controlled in the Western world, which through CfA activities and influence is mirrored in the African continent.

There are other networking NGOs that coordinate content moderation activities, such as the Media Development and Diversity Agency (MDDA) [18] here. MDDA is funded by South African media organisations and the South African government; many of its projects are funding of local media outlets, both broadcast and print. This was the only Africa funded organisation linked to fact checking that was located. The Open Society Initiative for West Africa (OSIWA), linked to the George Soros Foundation, funds media and fact checking activities in West Africa. The Centre for Journalism Innovation and Development (CJID) is a West African think tank in Nigeria that has extended its reach to both English speaking and Francophone countries, and it is also heavily involved in fact checking. It produces reports on online disinformation, as well as reports that follow Western interests, on subjects such as gender, climate, and terrorism [19] here. CJID is funded by a number of large American foundations, including BMGF; MacArthur Foundation; Ford Foundation and Luminate; the American government via NED, the UK government via the British Council, and OSIWA.

The fact checking platforms – a coordinated censorship operation.

Most of sub-Saharan Africa is covered by four main fact check groups, each of which have offices in a number of countries. The four main groups in sub-Saharan Africa are AFP Fact Check (four countries located); PesaCheck (operates in fifteen countries in East, West and Central Africa); Africa Check (four countries); and Dubawa (seven countries in West Africa). The funding sources are mainly from the West, as was revealed in the Africa Check details shown at the start of this report. In 2023 PesaCheck received 48.8% of its funding from Meta and Google, a further 18% from TikTok, and 12% from UNDP. Most of the remainder of funding is from American and European sources [20] here. Dubawa receives a significant part of its funding from an American foundation (MacArthur) and a German foundation (Heinrich Boll) that both are frequent funders of the fact check industry. Dubawa is also contracted to Meta for fact checking activities. Other funders are the US government via the NED; the UK government via the British Council; another German foundation; UN; and IFCN [21] here. The French newswire AFP is funded by Meta for its extensive international fact checking activities.

There are challengers to the domination of the big four. For example, FactSpace West Africa (FSWA) (also known as Ghana Fact) has a flagship platform in Ghana, and its submission to the IFCN states that it also fact checks in Gambia, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Nigeria. It is partnered with, and funded by, Africa Check. Other funders include the South African Shuttleworth Foundation that has now closed down, the French Embassy, two UN departments, Meedan, and the EU [22] here. FSWA is engaged in media literacy and fact check training, including training of journalism students [23] here. IFCN states that FSWA partnered with Full Fact from UK to develop its fact checking skills [24] here.

Another fact check network, based in Nigeria, is the Media Foundation for West Africa (MFWA), with media partners in sixteen West African countries. It has an impressive range of funders: Open Society; OSIWA; American and German foundations; the embassies of America, Netherlands, France, Canada and the EU; World Wide Web Foundation; UNESCO; Oxfam; and others [25] here. Through their funding partners and international associates MFWA are integrated into global networks and linked to international influencers; and in turn they have a wide network in West Africa with whom they interact [26] here. FSWA and MFWA are developing parts of the African fact check industry, challenging the big four, but still with the same Western influences. Apart from the six platforms already described, other independent fact check platforms are still increasing in Sub-Saharan Africa, with eight being verified signatories of the IFCN code, and three of which are contracted to the Facebook third party fact checking programme. One fact check group was launched with EU funding in 2020 specifically relating to Covid-19 reporting.

The six largest fact check platforms in Africa are all active in fact checking, in training fact checkers, in media literacy training, and many also design censorship tools. Some of the smaller platforms also perform multiple functions, including media literacy, which is rapidly growing in Africa, as it is in other parts of the world.

Agendas – Western versus African interests.

African history, culture, climate, resources, health issues, and wealth profile are distinctly different to those of the Western countries that extensively fund its fact check industry. It would be expected that the outcomes of verifying activities would be different to those of European and American fact check sites. There is local content moderated on African platforms, but it is always difficult to check local issues. For example, with local knowledge, it would be possible to evaluate the manner in which fact check platforms deal with election contenders that are favoured by Western powers, and those that are not. This would give information on the influence Western funders have on African election processes, but this was not evaluated for this report. There are the usual trivial checks as are found globally – for example, on 30 November 2024 Africa Check stated that a woman was arrested in 2022, not 2024. On PesaCheck 29 October 2024, investigated whether the hottest day ever recorded was in Libya.

Looking at international issues, on PesaCheck on 29 October 2024, three international items were content checked. This included a check on American Vice President Kamala Harris during the 2024 election campaign. The fact check stated that negative comments made by Harris, that appeared in a video, did not refer to President Biden. Another stated that a circulating video claiming that the aftermath of an Israeli attack on Lebanon was AI generated, whilst a third denied that a video was showing a Hezbollah attack on Acre, Israel. These followed the same themes as US/European fact checks, which were generally favoured Trump’s opponent in the 2024 election campaign, whilst they downplay Israeli military actions, and are critical of resistance militias. Groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas are not proscribed in African countries, hence there is more opportunity to be even handed in the topics selected for investigation. Nevertheless, PesaCheck follows the American rather than the African agenda; for example, South Africa is currently awaiting the ruling on an appeal to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), claiming a genocide is occurring in Gaza. However, this support of the Palestinian cause was not found on African fact check platforms.

There were no fact checks found that referred to Palestinians, Gazans, or Lebanese interests when sites were examined in October 2024. Palestinians and others alleged that a starvation policy was being enacted at the same time as human rights abuses of the Gazans by Israeli forces, which is a war crime [27] here but this was ignored. With Africa’s history of recent colonisation, and South Africa’s current appeal to the ICJ, the contested Palestinian case should have been of interest to Africans.

African fact checkers follow Western themes in other topics. A fact check by Africa Check on 31 August 2022 followed the publication of a study from Thailand, that revealed that nearly a third of teenage boys who took the Covid-19 vaccine had cardiac manifestations [28] here. This has been taken seriously by a number of eminent doctors, cardiologists and academics, some of whom stated that the vaccines should be halted until there are more studies [29] here. Africa has a younger population that is less likely to be seriously affected by Covid-19, and vaccine side effects would be devastating for African boys and young men. Despite this, Africa Check confidently – and inaccurately - stated ‘Pfizer vaccine safe for teens – social media posts mangle study results’ [30] here. This study ought to have given a more even-handed consideration. Instead of this, Africa Check followed the same agenda as Western fact check platforms, by underplaying studies that showed adverse reactions to vaccines, and by emphasising pharmaceutical company funded studies that are more likely to exhibit bias [31] here.

The ADDO website was also examined to find the types of reports that were published. There were no articles that examined Western activities and influences, such as the effect of the activities of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank. There were no investigations into worrying activities of the decarbonisation industry, such as the exploitation of African people, including children, who work in lithium mines [32] here. One report was on the rise of anti-French sentiment in Africa, which was related to Russian interference [33] here. Another was more directly critical of Russia’s African Initiative, declaring it to be ‘Russia’s mouthpiece’ [34] here. Another questioned China’s African involvement [35] here. These reports have the same Russia-phobic themes and the same questioning of China’s world role as are frequently expressed by Western politicians, and are also found in Western media outlets. Before the fall of the Soviet Union, African countries used the rivalry between the West and the Soviets to gain advantage, but by 2024 the African fact check industry was only following the single agenda of its Western funders.

Africa and Western Alliances.

There are references on the websites of the African fact check industry that refer to their coordination with Western institutions. For example, Pesacheck states: “…we regularly collaborate with the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab…All our operations are guided by principles laid out by the International Fact-Checking Network.” [36] here.

Dubawa commented on Meta’s intention to close down its third-party fact checking programme, demonstrating their dependence on Western funds [37] here.

“The shocking announcement means Meta will also end its funding aid to the network, which accounts for a significant 45.5 per cent of its financial resources. Consequently, the network will be dismayed about where its next funding mileage will come from. This also raises the question of the level of trust the rest of the world has in the capacity of fact-checking organisations to sustain the commitment to verification…”

A report by Africa Check [38] here stated:

“…colleagues from other countries had provided practical advice that helped them start up their fact-checking organisations more quickly…before their organisation had even launched, transnational colleagues advised them to work towards applying for IFCN signatory status, which would make them eligible for partnerships and funding opportunities. This allowed them to hit the ground running”.

The ADDO writes of its operations [39] here:

“The African Digital Democracy Observatory is designed to facilitate this, by connecting frontline investigative watchdog organisations with global best-practise research analysts and policy experts as part of a voluntary brains-trust of the world’s leading OSINT (open source intelligence) researchers.”

ADDO lists their many Western collaborators, including NATO’s DFRLab, the American tech company Graphika, and the British Institute of Strategic Dialogue and Global Disinformation Index. These are all named inTaibbi’s list of the top 50 organisations in the Censorship Industrial Complex [40] here.

These examples point to the links between African censorship activities and powerful organisations from the EU, the UK, and the USA that arise in many levels and forms. They have been selected to give an impression of the dynamics in this unequal relationship.

Conclusion.

The fact check industry in sub–Saharan Africa was launched in 2012, with European encouragement and funding, and has grown exponentially since then. It is a Western-backed, pan-African industry, that is dominated by a small number of large fact-checking platforms that cross African boundaries. These are augmented by a small number of African platforms that operate independently; however, the Western funding and control mechanisms remain the same.

This is reflected in the content of fact check platforms, where a bias towards Western agendas and Western approved narratives can be clearly identified. Similarly, organisations that belong to the African censorship industry do not hide the Western organisations that influence their decisions; in fact, they describe their subservience as a badge of honour.

An additional factor when looking at the African fact check industry is that is it intertwined; the Code for Africa organisation is a key player that heads a network of NGOs, think tanks, surveillance observatories, and fact check platforms. These are linked through the use of the central organisations that provide a support service, this includes assistance with tools, funding, information, training, recruitment, and problem solving. Whilst this unifies and strengthens the African censorship network, and it ensures that content moderation follows similar patterns to that of their Western counterparts, debate is similarly restricted to a narrow Overton window, information is withheld, and this cannot be good for Africa.

Western interests are served though the employment of African nationals, that no doubt put an African slant on to their organisations and their output, but this does not disguise the manner in which fact checking of hot button issues follows a Western agenda. The African continent has its own opportunities and problems, and it would be logical if African needs were prioritised over the needs of the immensely wealthy from Europe and America, but this does not happen.

Despite the comradery between censors from Western nations and censors from African nations, despite the funding hat creates comparatively well-paid employment, Africans are still being exploited by Western elites. This is a modern form of colonisation, and it continues the long history of domination of the African continent by European powers.

The next Substack post will look at North Africa.