MALAIKA MAHLATSI: Invalid City of Johannesburg VIP policy illustrates tone-deafness of politicians

A recent important case that was before the Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg had a judgment passed. The case was brought by the Democratic Alliance (DA) against the City of Johannesburg. The party sought to challenge the constitutionality of the VIP protection policy that the municipal council had passed in March 2024.

The policy provided for as many as eight protectors (or bodyguards) for the mayor, speaker, members of the mayoral committee (MMCs) and chairpersons of committees. This number was in contrast to that stipulated by the Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA), who placed the number of protectors at two – and then only for the mayor, deputy mayor, speaker and whips.

Setting aside the policy, Judge Stuart Wilson found it “wholly inconsistent with the legislation", deeming it unconstitutional and invalid. This was in great part due to the contention that it deviated from the Remuneration of Public Office Bearers Act (Act 20 of 1998) which requires a threat assessment to be conducted before an expansion of security provision beyond the default limits set in the determination can be implemented.

The ministerial determination not only requires that a risk assessment be conducted before a municipal councillor is provided with personal protection, but that such protection needs to be justified by the specific security threat and that it must be financially prudent to provide the protection.

At the time that the judgment was handed down, no security assessments had been done. Judge Wilson suspended his order for six weeks in case a threat assessment could justify the current allocations in the interim.

The indeed said VIP policy reduces the number of protectors for the mayor from ten to eight. This could be deemed a step towards progress. However, we must, as Judge Wilson did, reflect very seriously on the idea that publicly elected officials should require this much protection.

Judge Wilson stated that the Act and the ministerial determinations were designed to “prevent the creation of armies of security guards surrounding public office bearers, insulating them from the people they appointed or elected to serve”. This is not an unreasonable argument. The security detail that is provided to senior officials in South Africa, particularly ministers, deputy ministers and municipal officials, runs into the hundreds of millions annually.

The minister of police recently stated that on overtime alone, R360 million was forked out for the protectors of ministers and deputy ministers in the last two financial years. The figure is no doubt higher when provincial and municipal officials are included. This is deeply concerning.

It is especially concerning in the case of Johannesburg – the heartbeat of the national economy, and a city that is in a State of deterioration on all fronts. And this is why the passing of the policy reflects a tone-deafness that has become synonymous with politicians in our country.

It's important to reflect on the state of Johannesburg at the time when the policy was passed by the city council. Firstly, the municipality was in dire financial straits, with debt levels in the hundreds of millions of rand.

In fact, in the same month that the controversial VIP policy was passed, the council’s Municipal Public Accounts Committee (MPAC) published an oversight report of the council’s annual report, detailing the city’s deteriorating finances.

The report noted that the municipality had, In the previous financial year, had a surplus of over R1 billion. At the time of the presentation of the report, the municipality had a deficit of just over R300 million. In the same year, the municipality racked up unauthorised, irregular, fruitless and wasteful expenditures totalling R6.6 billion.

Perhaps most significant is that the City of Johannesburg has the highest debt-to-revenue ratio in comparison to all other metropolitan municipalities in the country. And while the situation has somewhat improved, with the city having built its surplus to just over R500 million by the end of 2024, the reality of the situation is that the financial health of the municipality is shaky.

And while the MPAC report noted factors such as load shedding and the cost-of-living crisis as some of the key factors that inform the municipality’s financial health, poor governance, particularly of a number of its 13 entities, is especially concerning.

A second issue that begs for reflection is what the state of crime in Johannesburg was at the time. I focus specifically on the crime of murder because it is the most reliable recorded crime in our country. This is because every murder is reported to, and recorded by the South African Police Service (SAPS).

This is not the case for many other crimes, particularly sexual crimes, domestic violence and robberies. For varying reasons, many of these crimes go unreported. In the case of rape and related sexual crimes, under-reporting is particularly notable. In a 2014 study titled “Rape and other forms of sexual violence in South Africa”, published by the Institute for Security Studies, the researcher noted key factors affecting the reporting of sexual violence in the Gauteng Province.

These include the fear of not being believed, the power and authority of the abuser, the fear of loss of economic support by the abuser, the fear and anxiety over the legal process – in part due to the actions of the police - etc. And so, while official statistics provide a glimpse into the state of crimes, they do not paint the full picture. I focus on the murder rate because it is the most reliable.

According to data from the SAPS, the month of March 2024 saw an exponential increase in the number of murders. There were 2,550 people killed across the country during the said month, translating to 82 murders a day. More than half of these murders happened in just two provinces, Gauteng and KwaZulu-Natal, with Johannesburg recording hundreds of these killings.

The SAPS data indicates that one in every five murders in the first half of 2024 (a period which recorded a total of 12 734 murders) occurred in March. The average murder per day in this period stood at 70. In fact, for the previous two years, the average murder per day in the first half of the year stood at 69. Therefore, with 82 murders a day, March 2024 was an outlier, with a significantly higher than usual murder rate.

For the City of Johannesburg council to have passed the VIP protection policy at the time when the municipality had reached its descent speaks to the disregard with which residents of the city are being treated. It also demonstrates that politicians have become so callous that even the winning political points for mere optics are no longer considered symbolic.

And while tangible change means much more, symbolism at the very least demonstrates a level of shame and some degree of empathy. As ordinary residents, we are forced to contend with the debilitating levels of crime in the city while those we elect to serve us want to enjoy the privilege of having armies of protectors around them.

More concerning is that their insulation from the hellish realities that we are confronted with must be funded by our taxes. In what world must people who endure poor service delivery and debilitating levels of crime pay so that those they elect do not experience the same?

It’s unconscionable. And perhaps we must agitate for the banning of many more privileges that are afforded senior government officials. Perhaps the only way things will change in our country is when those who govern use the services they provide and live among those they fail.