A report from the Public Protector has found that the Gauteng Department of Community Safety acted unlawfully in the creation and deployment of the province’s Crime Prevention Wardens (CPWs), a finding that has prompted Gauteng Premier Panyaza Lesufi to announce the unit’s immediate dissolution.
The report, released by Public Protector of South Africa, Advocate Kholeka Gcaleka, concluded that the department operated “without an empowering legal framework,” resulting in maladministration throughout the establishment, appointment, and deployment processes of the wardens.
The investigation was launched following a complaint, which included arguments from Advocate Paul Hoffman, who contended that the provincial government had overstepped by attempting to create a policing function.
In a move that Advocate Gcaleka confirmed is in line with her office’s recommended remedial action, Premier Lesufi announced earlier today that the CPW program would be dissolved. Lesufi also unveiled a plan to absorb the existing wardens into established policing and security structures.
According to the Public Protector’s findings, the provincial government’s path to establishing the wardens was fraught with legal missteps. After the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Police rejected a proposal to establish the unit under the Criminal Procedures Act, a technical committee was formed to advise the Premier.
This committee subsequently recommended establishing the wardens under the National Traffic Act, a decision the Public Protector’s report has now found to be “inconsistent with the law.”
When questioned on where culpability lay for the irregular implementation, Advocate Gcaleka identified the legal team within the Department of Community Safety and its accounting officer as responsible. However, she stated that her investigation found no evidence of malice in their actions.
“With the evidence before us, there is no evidence of them having been malicious,” Gcaleka stated. “Hence we did not take remedial action in terms of a disciplinary action to be taken but rather that appropriate training and competency upliftment needs to be done.”
She defended this approach, emphasizing that the Public Protector’s role is not always to be punitive but to consider the totality of the circumstances, including the undisputed high crime rate that motivated the program’s creation.
The Public Protector also clarified that Premier Lesufi was not directly involved in the technical decision-making process that led to the legal irregularities, placing the responsibility on the department’s functionaries. She confirmed that the timing of the Premier’s announcement, coming just hours before the report’s release, was a “sheer coincidence,” though the provincial government had been aware of the intended findings since June.
The dissolution of the CPWs and the planned absorption of its members mark a direct response to the Public Protector’s central finding that the project needed to be “properly regulated” to operate within the confines of the law.
