New By-Law Forces Residents to Register Their Cctv Cameras

The Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse (OUTA) is going to court to challenge the legality of the City of Johannesburg (COJ) new by-law on privately owned closed-circuit television cameras (CCTV), which sets up convoluted rules requiring registration and City access to private data.

OUTA’s case is against the City of Johannesburg, and the City’s municipal manager and mayor, and was filed in the Johannesburg High Court on 18 June. Currently the acting municipal manager is Tshepo Makola (since 17 January 2025) and the mayor is Dada Morero (since 16 August 2024). The papers have been served, and OUTA is awaiting an indication of whether the City intends to oppose the action.

The notice of motion calls for the court to declare the City’s Privately-Owned Closed-Circuit Television Surveillance Camera 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 21 February 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).

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

OUTA’s founding affidavit

OUTA’s founding affidavit is by Advocate Stefanie Fick, OUTA Executive Director for the Accountability Division.

Fick 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;
• Infringement of the constitutional rights to property (section 25 of the Constitution), privacy (s14), and freedom and security (s12).

Fick says 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,” says Fick.

OUTA questions the legality of the by-law, arguing that the City’s powers are limited by the Constitution and the South African Police Services Act, and these do not appear to allow a municipality to exercise direct authority over private property such as privately owned CCTV cameras. “The COJ may regulate its own CCTV camera systems as it deems fit, but it exceeds its powers by directly interfering with private property rights,” says Fick.

“It would appear that the COJ 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 National and Provincial Government. For this reason, the COJ is overstepping its executive and legislative authority.”

OUTA says 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 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.

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.

Fick calls the demand for fees “nothing more than a scheme to secure additional revenue for the COJ, 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, says OUTA.

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 COJ must not intrude on this privacy,” says Fick.

The by-law is unimplementable, and will not improve security.

“The exercise of public power must be rational and logically connected to the intended purpose,” says Fick. “It is contended that 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.”