Zimbabwean writer Simbarashe Kundizeza is facing allegations that his short story, The Blue Fighter, was produced using artificial intelligence, just days after the piece secured the prestigious Caine Prize for African writers on October 6. The controversy emerged when Vauhini Vara, an author and journalist, published an article in The Atlantic titled “Yet Another Literary prize winner Seems to Be AI.” “I look forward to continuing to work with the Caine prize team, and to celebrating this recognition with the people who helped bring this story into the world.
Vara claims she processed the text through Pangram, an AI-detection tool, which reportedly identified the story as almost entirely machine-generated, with the exception of an epigraph taken from an unpublished poem by South African writer Vangile Gantsho. Describing the work, Vara stated: “Taste is subjective, but trust me, this story is bad – maudlin and full of tired tropes.” She also cited stylistic concerns, noting a repetition of linguistic patterns common to AI, such as specific sentence structures and excessive metaphors.
Responding to the accusations on X, Kundizeza firmly denied the claims: “For the avoidance of doubt, I wrote ‘The Blue Fighter’. I did not use generative AI to write it. It is entirely my own work.” He further addressed comparisons made by Vara between his latest work and a 2021 story, adding that suggestions that a writer cannot evolve in style or improve over several years “fundamentally misunderstands the craft of writing.” Most importantly, I will continue to write.”. According to vara, In her article, and repeated in an interview with Front Row, that she had read a 2021 story by Kundizeza that was tonally and stylistically different from The Blue Fighter.
The Caine Prize organizers have initiated a review of the allegations.
In a statement, they noted their responsibility to investigate such claims, emphasizing a “human-centred approach” to support the authors involved. Ensuring that writers are supported and cared for during the process.”, we aim to do this by taking a human-centred approach.
Ellah Wakatama, chair of the prize, expressed skepticism regarding the reliability of detection software as a final authority. Appearing on the BBC’s Front Row, Wakatama stated: “I’m obviously not against AI, but what I am against is it being used as a final arbiter in this case… because they have already proclaimed our winner to be a cheater without investigating it properly.”
Wakatama further voiced concerns about the implications for marginalized writers, adding that she is unhappy for the work of Black authors to serve as a testing ground for technology that is still considered “rough and ready.” While Pangram asserts high accuracy for its tools—even regarding non-native English speakers—Vara herself acknowledged to the BBC that there remains limited third-party research to confirm the efficacy of such AI-detection systems. Including for non-native English speakers writing in English, as well as a peer-reviewed journal article that found Pangram had “strong accuracy” when assessing mock academic papers created fully, partly or with no AI, vara pointed to Pangram’s own research that found that false positives were rare.
The incident reflects a growing trend of scrutiny toward literary honors. Earlier this year, in July, Trinidadian writer Jamir Nazir faced social media criticism regarding his Commonwealth Foundation short story prize win, with detractors labeling his work as AI-assisted. Additionally, last month, the novel C’était Ça Ou Mourir by Canadian-Haitian author Thélyson Orélien was dropped from the longlist for France’s Goncourt prize following an anonymous allegation that the book was largely AI-written.
