Click here to read the full judgment on Saflii

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-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.