Outa believes that the CCTV by-law places unreasonable burdens on businesses and residents, while also raising privacy concerns.
Civil action organisation Outa is going to court to challenge the legality of the City of Johannesburg’s new by-law on CCTV, which sets up convoluted rules requiring registration and city access to private data on it.
Advocate Stefanie Fick, executive director for the accountability division at Outa, says Johannesburg must police the city, not its residents’ CCTV cameras.
Outa’s case, which was filed in the Johannesburg High Court on 18 June, is against the City of Johannesburg and its municipal manager.
Fick says the notice of motion calls for the court to declare the city’s privately-owned closed-circuit television surveillance camera (CCTV) by-law invalid and unconstitutional and set it aside. It also calls for the city to provide the records of public participation, adoption and promulgation of the by-law.
“The city council passed this by-law on 21 February 2025, with the meeting minutes showing support from 15 parties, including the ANC, ActionSA, EFF and PA, while two parties, the DA and ACDP, dissented.”
ALSO READ: Sapoa to challenge Joburg CCTV by-law in court
Outa’s concerns about CCTV by-law
According to Fick, Outa believes that the by-law is convoluted, irrational, places unreasonable burdens on private businesses and residents, raises privacy concerns and is unworkable.
She says that Outa 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).
“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, there was insufficient community participation.”
Outa questions the legality of the by-law, arguing that the constitution and the South African Police Services Act limit the city’s powers, 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 of Johannesburg 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.
“The City of Johannesburg’s safety and security responsibility is primarily the function of national and provincial government. For this reason, the City of Johannesburg is overstepping its executive and legislative authority.”
ALSO READ: Concerns over private CCTV cameras in Joburg
CCTV registration process cumbersome and unimplementable
In addition, Outa says the city’s registration process is also irrational, cumbersome and unimplementable. The by-law requires “prior written approval” from the city for installing, using or upgrading CCTV cameras that include coverage of public spaces, to provide the city with plans and motivations for the cameras, get sign-off from a registered engineer, reapply each year and pay fees to the city.
It also allows the City of Johannesburg to simply confiscate any equipment it deems to have overstepped the by-law without a court order. 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 says the by-law also blocks the sharing of data with community policing forums or private security companies, restricting it to use by the Saps and Johannesburg Metro Police Department (JMPD).
CCTV cameras must also carry labels with owners’ names and contact details, which creates privacy issues.
There are additional restrictions for commercial applicants.
ALSO READ: Cameras ‘don’t deter criminals’ – experts
Demand for fees for CCTV scheme for additional revenue
Fick calls the demand for fees “nothing more than a scheme to secure additional revenue for the City of Johannesburg, which is financially crippled” and a double tax for owners who 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.”
She points out that threats to confiscate unregistered cameras, or those the city does not approve, would be arbitrary deprivation or expropriation without compensation.
“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 of Johannesburg takes all footage with access to public spaces, 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.”
ALSO READ: CCTV cameras pit security against privacy concerns
By-law will not improve security
Fick says the by-law is also unimplementable and will not improve security. “The exercise of public power must be rational and logically connected to the intended purpose. There is no rationality between the purpose and object of the Act and the unreasonable burdens imposed on a CCTV owner.
“Placing an enormous administrative burden on a CCTV owner would discourage residents from installing CCTV camera systems. The net result would be a community increasingly exposed to crime, where the Saps and JMPD are not equipped to effectively deal with the scourge of pervasive crime.”