Alpha Ramushwana2 January 2025 | 13:22

Court rules CoJ's move to increase mayor's security detail invalid & unconstitutional

In March last year, council adopted a decision to allocate ten bodyguards and a fleet of six vehicles to the mayor, while the Speaker was assigned eight bodyguards and five cars.

Court rules CoJ's move to increase mayor's security detail invalid & unconstitutional

The Johannesburg High Court. Picture: Ashraf Hendricks/GroundUp

JOHANNESBURG - The Johannesburg High Court has declared the decision to enhance the security detail of the mayor of Joburg and senior officials invalid and unconstitutional.

In March last year, council adopted a decision to allocate ten bodyguards and a fleet of six vehicles to the mayor, while the Speaker was assigned eight bodyguards and five cars.

All in all, the metro is spending R3 million a month on VIP protection with a total of 60 bodygaurds and 40 vehicles.

In his judgment, Judge Stuart Wilson found that the City of Joburg failed to adequately justify why senior officials needed to have their VIP protection enhanced.

The VIP protection policy limits the number of bodyguards a mayor can have to eight, although this can be increased under specific circumstances.

However, before making such an increase, a threat or risk assessment from the South African Police Service (SAPS) must be provided to justify the need for additional security personnel.

In his ruling, Judge Wilson stated that the City of Joburg failed to obtain the required threat or risk assessment, which would have substantiated the need to increase the security for the mayor, Speaker and MMCs.

This failure means the council did not follow the law when adopting this motion, and the City of Johannesburg did not ensure that regulations were adhered to when approving the request.

As a result, Judge Wilson declared the decision to increase the officials' VIP protection as invalid and unconstitutional.

However, the judgment will only be enforced after six weeks, allowing the city time to justify its decision and ensure the safety of the officials is not compromised due to reduced security.

The application to have this declared unlawful was filed by the Democratic Alliance (DA).