The Gauteng High Court has dismissed the City of Johannesburg's request to extend enhanced security protection for municipal councillors, ruling that the controversial policy exceeds legal boundaries. The City must now comply with standard protection measures by 14 February 2025.
This ruling strikes at the heart of the City's "Protection and Security for VIP Risk Management System Policy," a measure that had previously allowed councillors to receive protection beyond mandated limits under the Remuneration of Public Office Bearers Act 20 of 1998.
The court's decision, issued by Judge SD Wilson, invalidated the City Council's resolution, firmly establishing that the practice of affording extra protection to certain councillors exceeded legal boundaries. However, the judge also displayed caution, suspending the ruling until 14 February 2025, allowing the City a brief window to demonstrate any potential danger faced by those affected by the order.
As the deadline loomed, the City of Johannesburg submitted an urgent request to extend the suspension. In a somewhat vague notice, they did not specify the duration of the requested extension. However, Patrick Jaca, the City's Chief of Police, indicated that the City may need until 30 April 2025 to comply with the provisions set under the aforementioned Act.
The judge's subsequent ruling made it clear that any extension of the suspension would be contingent upon substantial evidence of imminent harm to the councillors involved, rather than a simple assertion of needing more time to conform to legal requirements. Unfortunately for the City, Jaca's affidavit, which referenced past anonymous threats against two senior councillors and an unsettling incident experienced by another, failed to convincingly articulate any immediate danger that might result from the termination of the policy.
Despite the unsettling nature of the claims presented, the lack of direct testimony from the councillors, who could provide specific accounts of threats or intentions to cause harm, weakened the argument for continued protection. The determination of the chief whip to justify the necessity of additional bodyguards, despite already possessing two under the Act, also left much to be desired.
Under the standard protection measures outlined in the Remuneration of Public Office Bearers Act, councillors are entitled to basic security provisions, including up to two protection officers where justified. Legal experts note that this level of protection aligns with international standards for local government officials.
Judge SD Wilson ruled that the City had not substantiated claims that imminent harm would follow if the suspension period expired. Furthermore, the judgement emphasised that no legislation prevents the City from providing adequate security in case of verified and specific threats to individual officials. What was deemed unacceptable was the perpetuation of an illegal and blanket provision of enhanced protection solely based on the status of office held by certain councillors.
#Conviction
