The Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse (Outa) is intensifying its fight against the controversial new by-law requiring residents to register CCTV cameras monitoring public spaces.       

The organisation has announced that it is taking the City of Johannesburg to court, challenging the regulation introduced in February.

Outa said it is challenging the legality of the City of Johannesburg’s new by-law on privately owned CCTV, which sets up convoluted rules requiring registration and city access to private data.

Advocate Stefanie Fick, executive director for the accountability division, said the metro should police the city, not residents’ CCTV cameras.

The case, which was filed in the Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg, on June 18, is against the city and its municipal manager. 

As opposition against the new by-law grows, the SA Property Owners Association (Sapoa) also filed an application at the Johannesburg court to declare it invalid.

Fick said Outa is still awaiting an indication of whether the city intends to oppose the action.

The city’s spokesperson, Nthatisi Modingoane, did not respond to messages and calls.

Fick said the notice of motion calls for the court to declare the city’s privately-owned CCTV by-law invalid and unconstitutional, and set it aside. It also calls for the city to provide the records relating to the public participation, adoption, and promulgation of the by-law.

“This by-law was passed by the city council on February 21, 2025, with the meeting minutes showing support from 15 parties (including the ANC, ActionSA, EFF and PA) and dissent by two parties (the DA and ACDP),” she said.

Fick said the group believes that the by-law is convoluted, irrational, places unreasonable burdens on private businesses and residents, raises privacy concerns, and is unworkable.

She said the organisation wants the by-law overturned due to: 

• Lack of public participation;
• Conflict with Section 156 of the Constitution regarding the powers of municipalities;
• Lack of rationality; and
• Infringement of the constitutional rights to property (Section 25 of the Constitution), privacy (Section 14), and freedom and security (Section 12).

Fick said the public participation process is essential, and calls for the by-law to be declared invalid “for want of sufficient public participation”.

“Given the extent and impact of the by-law, it appears that limited public participation took place, alternatively, that there was insufficient community participation,” she said.

Outa questioned the legality of the by-law, arguing that the city’s powers are limited by the Constitution and the South African Police Service Act, and these do not appear to allow a municipality to exercise direct authority over private property such as privately owned CCTV cameras.

“The City of Johannesburg may regulate its own CCTV camera systems as it deems fit, but it exceeds its powers by directly interfering with private property rights. 

“It would appear that the city is usurping policing functions by commandeering private CCTV camera systems aimed at ensuring the safety and security of individuals, communities, and property within the city, which safety and security responsibility is primarily the function of the national and provincial government. For this reason, the COJ is overstepping its executive and legislative authority,” said Fick.

Outa also added that the city’s registration process is irrational, cumbersome, and unimplementable.

The by-law requires “prior written approval” from the city for installing, using, or upgrading CCTV cameras, which include coverage of public space, to provide the city with plans and motivations for such cameras, get sign-off from a registered engineer, reapply each year, and pay fees to the city. 

It also allows the city to simply confiscate, without a court order, any equipment it deems to have overstepped the by-law.

The organisation said the by-law also requires that each CCTV camera must record and store data for a minimum period, but this is incoherently stated and effectively outlaws cameras that provide only real-time monitoring.

Fick added that the by-law blocks sharing of data with community policing forums or private security companies, restricting it to use by the SAPS and Johannesburg Metro Police Department (JMPD) only.

CCTV cameras must carry labels with owners’ names and contact details, which creates privacy issues.

There are additional restrictions for commercial applicants, and Fick called the demand for fees “nothing more than a scheme to secure additional revenue for the city, which is financially crippled” and a double tax for owners who have already paid VAT and probably import duties on their CCTV equipment.

“Outa believes this by-law will undermine community safety initiatives, which means the by-law will effectively have the opposite effect of what is intended. The by-law appears to grant city officials the right to enter private property at any time to inspect the cameras, which is an invasion of privacy and open to abuse.”

Threats to confiscate unregistered cameras or those of which the city does not approve would be arbitrary deprivation or expropriation without compensation, said Outa, adding that the requirement that owners must simply hand over all data is unnecessary, as “far less intrusive alternatives” already exist in law, including the subpoena system for investigation and prosecution, or simply asking CCTV owners for help.

“The registration requirements raise concerns over privacy, and the city’s handling of data and potential for misuse. If the city takes all footage with access to public space, it follows that much of that footage will also include images of private space. What a person does within the boundaries of his property is private, and the City of Johannesburg must not intrude on this privacy,” said Fick, who added that the by-law is unimplementable, and would not improve security.

manyane.manyane@inl.co.za

Source link