The Johannesburg high court has ruled that the VIP protection afforded by the Johannesburg city council to its key officials is unconstitutional and unlawful.
Judge Stuart Wilson handed down judgment on Thursday in a case brought by the DA against the city, city manager, council, speaker, the minister and MEC of co-operative governance & traditional affairs, and finance MEC Margaret Arnolds. The DA asked for a declaration that the personal protection policy adopted by the council in March was unconstitutional and invalid, and for it to be set aside.
The judge set aside both the council’s personal protection policy and the allowances it provided for. He suspended his orders of invalidity until February 14, which he said could be extended further if evidence could be presented to show that imminent harm would result if it was not.
Also set aside were the six luxury vehicles at the disposal of mayor Dada Morero and five for the speaker as well as vehicles assigned to 12 MECs and some committee chairs.
The judge found that the personal protection provided in terms of a council VIP protection policy adopted in March — which finally translated into the mayor and speaker getting eight personal protection officers each, and MECs and two committee chairs between two and five — was unconstitutional.
“The policy entrenched the provision of far more generous personal protection services to senior municipal councillors than the act and the ministerial determinations permits,” the judge said.
The ministerial determinations allowed that any other municipal councillor may be provided with personal security to the extent justified by “a threat and risk analysis” conducted by the SA Police Service (SAPS). This was not done by the council before it adopted its personal protection policy.
In terms of a ministerial determination of October, allowance was made for the executive mayor or mayor, deputy executive mayor or deputy mayor and speaker or whip of a municipal council to be provided with two “bodyguards per shift of a two-shift system”, which could only be increased on the recommendation of SAPS.
“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.
The judge said both the act and ministerial determinations were designed to prevent the creation of “armies of security guards” surrounding public office bearers making them inaccessible to members of the public as is required. “They are not entitled to exist in a security bubble, abstracted from the day-to-day concerns of the general public.”
The effect of the judgment is that the number of personal protection officers available to the city’s senior office bearers will have to be reduced unless a SAPS threat assessment is obtained justifying the numbers allowed at present.
The respondents had provided no evidence, the judge said, that invalidating the policy would harm any ordinary municipal councillor. However, he did not think “it would be wise to issue an order interfering with the personal protection services available to senior municipal councillors in circumstances where I cannot be sure that such an order would not place anyone in danger”.
The City of Johannesburg was ordered to pay the costs of the application.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.