By Bernadette Wicks.
The Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg has declared as unconstitutional and invalid the City of Johannesburg’s controversial VIP protection policy, which – in its current form – allows for eight bodyguards for the mayor.
It also allows for multiple bodyguards for the speaker as well as personal protectors for members of the mayoral committee and committee chairs.
This against the backdrop of the cooperative governance and traditional affairs minister having set the limit at two – and then only for the mayor, deputy mayor, speaker and whips.
Council adopted the policy in March 2024, prompting the DA to approach the court which, on Thursday, ruled in its favour.
Judge Stuart Wilson said in the judgment that while the limit set by the minister could be exceeded and protection could be extended to other councillors in certain circumstances, this was only on the South African Police Service’s (SAPS) recommendations in the first instance and if justified by “a threat and risk analysis” in the second.
“It is common cause that the City council has not obtained a threat assessment or other report from SAPS that might have justified any of these departures from the ministerial determinations,” Wilson said.
Wilson found the policy “wholly inconsistent with the [Remuneration of Public Office Bearers] Act and the ministerial determinations”.
He, however, suspended his order for six weeks, in case a threat assessment was to be obtained to justify any of the current allocations.
In announcing that it had approached the court in May, the DA said: We cannot allow good governance to go out the window and watch millions being spent on VIP protection outside the upper limits while there is barely enough money for service delivery like water, electricity infrastructure protection and roads maintenance.
“We believe in the supremacy of the Constitution and the rule of law. We cannot stand by and watch lawlessness unfold, in the very same council chamber meant to uphold it. This, while residents are forced to beg for service delivery,” the party’s Belinda Kayser-Echeozonjoku said at the time.
She said a trend had developed in the executive that “leaves service providers unpaid, and basic service delivery at a standstill”.
“The mayor and his executive are protected to the ends of the earth, and we’re forced to ask: Why? What could a mayoral cabinet need this much protection from?”
The City, meanwhile, previously said it was concerned about “misinformation” and “exaggerated numbers” that were circulating.
“The policy stipulates that protection services are offered on an ad-hoc basis, based on a threat risk assessment conducted by either the State Security Agency or the SAPS. Furthermore, there has been no additional budget allocation for this purpose, and there is no diversion of resources from essential service delivery to fund protection services,” it claimed.
It insisted further that the policy was “aimed at ensuring the City has the means and basis to provide protection to councillors as and when a risk assessment determines such is required”.
Editor’s note: This story has been edited after the number of bodyguards allocated to the mayor in terms of the policy was incorrectly stated as 10, when it is in fact eight, originally.