The Johannesburg High Court has dismissed an application by the City of Johannesburg to suspend a court order declaring the city’s VIP protection policy unconstitutional until April 30 2025.
The judgment was handed down electronically on Friday by Judge Stuart Wilson.
On January 2 2025, the Johannesburg High Court declared the City of Johannesburg’s March 2024 resolution to allocate eight VIP protection officers to the executive mayor unconstitutional and invalid and set it aside. This application was brought by the DA against the City of Joburg.
City sought extension
In his Friday judgement, Wilson said because none of the respondents had placed any information before him about the extent to which such an order might place the affected municipal councillors in danger, he suspended his January order until noon on February 14 2025.
He said he made allowance for the extension of that period beyond February 14 2025 if facts could be adduced to demonstrate that an extension is necessary to avoid imminent harm.
Wilson said on the afternoon of February 13 2025, less than 24 hours before the period of suspension was due to expire, the city filed an application to extend the suspension.
“The City’s notice of motion neglects to specify the period for which the extension is sought. However, in his affidavit filed in support of the application, Mr. Patrick Jaca, who describes himself as the City’s Chief of Police, suggests that the City will require until 30 April 2025 to remedy its non-compliance with the requirements set by the sixth respondent, the Minister, under section 7 of (1) of the Act,” said Wilson.
No evidence of imminent harm
“Whether or not that is so, my order makes clear that an extension is not to be granted. Merely because the city might need more time to comply with the law. An extension will only be granted if it is required to avoid imminent harm,” said Wilson.
Wilson said Jaca does say in his affidavit that two senior municipal councillors – the Chief Whip and the MMC for Public Safety – have, at some unspecified point in the past, received anonymous threats.
“He also says that the MMC for Finance thought that she had been followed home on her way from work one evening. However, there is no suggestion that any of these councillors will come to any harm if my order is brought into effect.
“None of these councillors deposes to an affidavit setting out the harm they think might ensue if the suspension expires today. In the case of the Chief Whip, there is no attempt to say why the two bodyguards to which he is already entitled under the Act are insufficient to address any concerns he may have.
City can still provide adequate security
“It follows that the city has failed to adduce facts showing that imminent harm will follow if the suspension I placed on my order of 2 January 2025 is allowed to expire,” said Wilson.
“I should add that nothing in my judgment prevents the city from providing adequate security to any of its officials or councillors who face a specific threat to their safety in a particular context or on a particular occasion.
Extension of illegal, round-the-clock, personal protection
“What my judgment strikes at is the extension of illegal, round-the-clock, personal protection to particular councillors simply by virtue of the offices they hold. The city has given no reason why that illegality should be perpetuated beyond today. The application is dismissed,” concluded Wilson.
On March 20 2024, the city council adopted a resolution endorsing a VIP protection policy. At the time the resolution was adopted, the practice was to provide the executive mayor with 10 personal protection officers. But this was later revised to eight.
The speaker was given eight. MMCs and the chairs of two other committees were each afforded between two and five personal protection officers.
