The police minister published a set of draft regulations earlier this month that would modestly extend certain policing powers to municipal police services. These regulations, made in terms of section 64F (2) of the SA Police Service (SAPS) Act, are open for public comment for the next 60 days.
At first glance they appear promising. They recognise the constitutional and operational logic behind empowering local law enforcement to combat crime more effectively. But when one considers the full scale of SA’s crime epidemic and the readiness of certain municipalities to shoulder a greater policing role, it becomes clear that these proposals are too little, too slow. SA does not merely need experimental extensions of power — it needs a paradigm shift towards full decentralised policing, and it needs it now.
What the draft regulations propose
The draft regulations propose a limited extension of municipal police powers to include, for example, certain functions under the Stock Theft Act, the Mental Health Care Act, and the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act. These powers include warrantless searches in specific circumstances, the ability to assist with the apprehension of mentally ill persons posing a danger, and the enforcement of drug-related offences.
While these are welcome steps, they fall far short of what is needed. They represent the minimum possible gesture, not the robust empowerment that circumstances demand. More importantly, they leave capable municipalities waiting at the gates — ready to assist, but kept at arm’s length by regulatory caution.
The case for decentralisation
Crime in SA is no longer just a crisis. Action Society, through its support of victims of crime, is acutely aware of this on a daily basis. Crime is an existential threat to our constitutional democracy. In communities across the country, particularly in urban centres, citizens live in a state of perpetual fear. Violent crime, gang activity, drug trafficking and rampant lawlessness have become facts of daily life. National policing structures are stretched beyond capacity and often unable to respond with the speed, intelligence and accountability required.
Municipalities, especially those with political will, operational readiness and budgetary discipline, are uniquely positioned to step in. They are closer to the communities they serve. They are more agile. And in many cases, Cape Town being a notable example, they already possess the professional infrastructure and oversight mechanisms needed to carry out investigations, manage dockets and assist prosecutions.
The problem is not capacity. The problem is permission.
The minister holds the key
Section 64F (2) of the SAPS Act provides that the police minister may, by regulation, determine the functions a municipal police service may perform, beyond traffic policing, municipal bylaw enforcement and crime prevention. This power is discretionary and does not require parliamentary approval. It is a constitutional and legal mechanism that exists precisely for moments like this, when national policing needs to be augmented by capable local authorities.
In other words, the minister already has the tools to decentralise policing in a meaningful way, at least to those municipalities that have proven their competence. He does not need to wait for legislative reform. He does not need to run the gauntlet of parliamentary committee schedules. With a pen and the political courage to use it, he can unlock real-time support for the fight against crime.
More importantly, he can do it in a structured way without throwing dysfunctional municipalities into the deep end by confining expanded powers to those cities and towns that demonstrably meet clear criteria for readiness, oversight and operational capacity. This allows for a phased, responsible rollout of decentralised policing, ensuring both effectiveness and accountability.
In simple terms if the minister, Senzo Mchunu, wanted to, he could — within a month or two — have the cities of Cape Town, George and Midvaal on his side fighting crime and protecting South Africans.
What should happen now
Action Society recognises that full decentralisation of policing must be done in a structured, lawful and accountable manner. We are not calling for a free-for-all. But decentralisation is not a radical departure from our constitutional framework, rather, it is a fulfilment of it. The constitution explicitly permits differentiated powers and functions across spheres of government where capacity exists.
Municipalities such as Cape Town have spent years building that capacity. Their local police services have internal oversight, professional standards and operational experience that rival, and in some cases exceed, national benchmarks. It is time they were trusted with more than traffic violations and bylaw enforcement.
The minister should revise and expand the current draft regulations to grant broader investigative and enforcement powers to capable municipalities — starting immediately with crimes such as common assault, burglary, drug trafficking, gang activity and environmental crimes. These categories are crippling communities and overburdening the SAPS. Empowering municipal police to investigate and refer cases to the National Prosecuting Authority under SAPS co-ordination is urgently needed and, more importantly, completely legally possible.
The decentralisation of policing is as much a practical necessity as it is a moral one. The longer solutions that could work are delayed, the more South Africans suffer at the hands of criminals emboldened by a slow and overstretched system.
We urge the minister to seize the opportunity presented by section 64F (2). Issue the regulations with the urgency the situation demands to give capable municipalities the opportunity to assist SAPS in the fight against crime.
• Du Preez is with civil rights organisation Action Society, which advocates for justice system reform.
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.