THE city of Johannesburg has conceded defeat and admitted that its bloated VIP protection services for the city's executive were irregular following a ruling that the city’s VIP protection policy was unconstitutional and invalid.
Conceding defeat, the city said in a statement that it would not appeal the ruling, which rescinded the policy adopted in March 2024, allowing for a bloated number of bodyguards for the mayor and speaker and personal protectors for members of the mayoral committee and committee chairs.
The judgment came after the Democratic Alliance approached the court, arguing that the policy was unlawful and diverted resources from the much-needed delivery of essential services.
The city issued a statement yesterday saying that it would not appeal the ruling and admitting that no policy document governing the implementation of VIP security measures exists, resulting in security being provided based on “reported threats.”
Chris Vondo, the city’s mayor's spokesperson, said that the State Security Agency (SSA) and the South African Police Services (SAPS) were the two institutions that provided a comprehensive threat security assessment preceding approval, a claim yet to be confirmed by both institutions.
“The expansion of these services occurred irregularly and without a guiding policy, an inconsistency that a newly approved policy seeks to rectify.
“It specifies that protection services will be offered on an ad hoc basis, contingent on threat risk assessment carried out by the SSA or SAPS," read the statement.
The metro spent R3 million monthly on VIP protection with 60 bodyguards and 40 vehicles.
The court found that the policy exceeded the limit set by the Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs Minister (Cogta), Velenkosini Hlabisa, allowing only two bodyguards for the mayor, deputy mayor, speaker, and whips.
The court also noted that the City Council had not obtained a threat assessment or report from the South African Police Service (SAPS) to justify the policy.
Judge Stuart Wilson suspended his order for six weeks, allowing the city to obtain a threat assessment to justify the policy.
Wilson wrote in his judgment: “The policy still entrenched the provision of far more generous personal protection services to senior municipal councilors than the Act and the ministerial determinations permit … The papers suggest that the City Council might have thought it could obtain a threat assessment after passing and implementing the 20 March 2024 resolution.
“If the City Council did think that, then it fell into error. The Minister’s determinations and the Act require a threat assessment before expanding security provision beyond the default limits set in the determinations can be implemented.”
Economist and senior lecturer at Stadio Higher Education, Chris Harmse, speaking to Independent Media on Friday, said the court decision was a step in the right direction and good news for the taxpayers.
“The financial effects, from an economic view, are always the question of opportunity cost. By scrapping the high cost of VIP protection, we can use the money for other pressing services.
“How many temporary teachers who will lose their jobs can be employed? How much of that money can be used to build new schools? That money can be used to ensure that Gauteng's infrastructure and service delivery are up to standard,” Harmse said.
He added that the Gauteng government should always choose whether to protect the “so-called VIPs” or invest the money in other services.
Harmse said that, according to him, that was the reason the ANC lost votes during last year’s elections.
“According to me, that’s why the ANC did not do well in the elections: those with a lot keep gaining while those with nothing keep getting less.
“This has nothing to do with race, but it’s about managing the state finances, which led to the downfall of the ANC … And this has not only happened here in this country. It happened in Botswana; look at Namibia, where the ruling party lost almost 40% of their vote … It’s all over the world now where people are starting to argue about what citizens get from taxes and government spending,” Harmse said.
The DA welcomed the court’s ruling, saying it was a victory for good governance and the rule of law.
ActionSA also welcomed the judgment and said, “ActionSA was against this policy from the onset, and we even went further to vote against this policy in council. There is already a provision that allows public representatives to apply for necessary protection if they face threats; we believe this provision is sufficient.
“We argued that the resources intended for VIP Protection should be redirected towards service delivery. However, we understood that the personnel would come from the JMPD pool.
“It is worth noting that the security detail of Cllr Nobuhle Mthembu, the City of Johannesburg Council Speaker, is nowhere near what was stated on the VIP Protection Policy. Cllr Mthembu does not enjoy the luxury of having an entourage and a dozen bodyguards.
“ActionSA believes that public representatives must be accessible to the very community that has voted them into power, rather than creating a barrier between them and the community.“