- SAPS measures during the Comrades Marathon show that drones are regulated aircraft subject to strict legal controls, says Cor van Deventer.
- Many recreational drone flights in suburbs and built-up areas may be taking place unlawfully, according to van Deventer.
- He predicts South Africa is likely to see its first major court case dealing directly with unlawful drone operations.
The South African Police Service's decision to declare the entire 86km Comrades Marathon route a no-fly zone has drawn attention to what legal expert Cor van Deventer believes is a growing problem of unlawful drone activity across South Africa.
Ahead of the 2026 race, a SAPS spokesperson was quoted as saying unauthorised drones would be shot down, before later clarifying that authorised counterintelligence measures would be used to disable them. The Comrades Marathon Association also issued a notice reinforcing the ban, citing aviation law, safety concerns, and the risk of interference with emergency operations.
For Van Deventer, director at Van Deventer Dowlath and Marx Incorporated, the public warning ahead of the event demonstrated that authorities regard drones as regulated aircraft rather than recreational gadgets.
"When SAPS is prepared to disable drones during a major national event, it underscores that these devices are regulated aircraft. They're not toys. They carry legal consequences," he said. Van Deventer said the Comrades enforcement plan reflected broader concerns about compliance with aviation regulations, privacy rights, and public safety.
He also believes litigation involving unlawful drone operations is inevitable. "It's just a matter of time until a court is asked to rule on unlawful drone operation, because the incidents we're seeing now are neither isolated nor harmless," he said.
Recreational drone flying restricted by aviation regulations
According to Van Deventer, South Africa's drone laws fall under the Civil Aviation Act and Part 101 of the Civil Aviation Regulations, and apply to most drones except the smallest toy-grade devices.
He said the regulations prohibit flying within 50m of any person, building, structure, vehicle, or public road. Operators are also prohibited from flying over private property without permission, operating within 10km of an airport or airfield, flying at night without approval, flying beyond visual line of sight, and exceeding an altitude of 120 metres.
Van Deventer said many recreational drone users misunderstand the extent of the restrictions. "Many South African hobbyists mistakenly believe that drones under 250g are exempt from all rules, but even sub-250g drones must follow the 50m and privacy laws," he said.
He argued that once the 50m rule is applied, lawful recreational flying becomes difficult in most built-up environments, making many flights in suburbs, near roads, and around residential complexes potentially unlawful.
Van Deventer further warned that recording identifiable individuals or private property without consent could expose drone operators to civil and criminal liability under the Protection of Personal Information Act.
Noise complaints raise animal welfare concerns
While drone regulation is often discussed in the context of privacy, Van Deventer believes the impact of drone noise on animals receives insufficient attention.
"A drone produces a distinctive high-frequency whine, layered with rapid, irregular modulation from its propellers. To humans, the noise is irritating, but for cats, dogs, and livestock, it's a threat from a predator which will trigger defensive behaviour. That's why the law prohibits flying close to people and animals," he said.
Van Deventer said one of the complaints recently brought to his attention involved a Cape Town resident who reported a man regularly walking along a pavement outside her gated complex while flying a drone overhead.
According to Van Deventer, the conduct described by the resident potentially involved multiple legal concerns, including flights within 50 metres of people and buildings, flights over private property, possible privacy violations, and behaviour that could amount to harassment.
Only authorised state bodies may disable drones
The Comrades Marathon warnings also sparked public debate about whether drones can legally be brought down. Van Deventer said private individuals may not interfere with drones, as drones are regarded as aircraft in law, and interference can attract significant penalties.
According to Van Deventer, breaches of the Civil Aviation Regulations can result in fines of up to R50,000, imprisonment of up to ten years, or both. More serious conduct involving the destruction or endangerment of aircraft may attract substantially higher penalties under aviation legislation.
"SAPS and authorised state bodies are permitted to disable drones, but only under controlled conditions and only when justified by public safety or aviation security mandates," he said.
He added that members of the public who throw objects at drones, attempt to jam signals, or otherwise interfere with drone operations could themselves be committing offences.
Absence of case law leaves regulations untested
Despite increasing reports of alleged drone misuse, Van Deventer noted that South Africa has not yet produced reported case law dealing directly with unlawful drone operations. He described this as an example of what lawyers often refer to as "the dog that didn't bark".
"The dog that didn't bark comes from a Sherlock Holmes story in which a horse was stolen, but the guard dog never barked. In law, we use this idea when what did not happen tells the real story. Sometimes, a lack of action speaks volumes," he said.
Van Deventer believes the absence of reported judgments should not be interpreted as evidence that the law is ineffective. "The lack of case law isn't a sign of weak regulation. It's a sign of untested regulation, for now. But sooner or later, a drone is going to hurt someone, damage property, or cause a serious privacy breach, and when that happens, the courts will have to interpret these laws," he said.
Organisations urged to adopt drone policies
Van Deventer recommended that organisations responsible for land, shared spaces, and precinct management adopt drone-use policies aligned with national aviation legislation.
According to him, unauthorised flights should be prohibited and only accredited operators holding valid Remote Pilot Licences and Remote Operator Certificates should be permitted to conduct approved activities such as security monitoring and maintenance work.
He also recommended that governing documents include indemnity provisions and clear penalty frameworks to support consistent enforcement.
Residents advised to document suspected violations
Van Deventer cautioned residents against confronting drone operators or attempting to interfere with aircraft. Instead, he advised residents to document dates, times, and flight paths, record descriptions of operators, report incidents to body corporates or homeowners' associations, and escalate matters to SAPS where necessary.
"When reporting to SAPS, make it clear that the drone is being flown within fifty metres of buildings and people, in breach of Part 101, with potential POPIA violations," he said.
Van Deventer said greater public awareness of drone regulation remains necessary. "Drones can be valuable tools, but they have to be operated within the law. The safety, privacy, and peace of communities depend on it," he said.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
