2
WILSON J:
1 On 2 January 2025, I handed down judgment in Democratic Alliance v City of
Johannesburg (052407/2024) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1. In that decision, I declared
unconstitutional and invalid a resolution adopted by the second respondent,
the City Council. The resolution approved a document developed by the first
respondent, the City, called the “Protection and Security for VIP Risk Management System Policy” (“the policy”). The policy regularised the City’s prior decision to increase the number of personal protection officers afforded to some municipal councillors beyond the limits prescribed under section 7 (1)
of the Remuneration of Public Office Bearers Act 20 of 1998 (“the Act”) . I also
set that prior decision aside.
2 Because none of the respondents had placed any information before me about
the extent to which such an order might place the affected municipal councillors in danger, I suspended my order until noon on 14 February 2025. I made allowance for the extension of that period beyond 14 February 2025 if facts could be adduced to demonstrate that an extension is necessary to avoid imminent harm.
3 On the afternoon of 13 February 2025, less than twenty -four 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-
3
compliance with the requirements set by the sixth respondent, the Minister,
under section 7 of (1) of the Act.
4 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.
5 In this respect, Mr. Jaca’s affidavit is sorely lacking. Mr. Jaca says that he has
sent letters to the Provincial Commissioner of Police in which he asks the Commissioner to carry out assessments of whether the “inherent risks”
associated with the work of various senior municipal councillors might justify
enhanced personal protection. That is obviously not the same as saying that imminent harm will ensue unless my order of 2 January 2025 is further
suspended.
6 Mr. Jaca does say in his affidavit that two senior municipal councillors – the
Chief Whip and the Member of the Mayoral Committee for Public Safety –
have, at some unspecified point in the past, received anonymous threats . He
also says that the Member of the Mayoral Committee 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.