Gauteng Premier Panyaza Lesufi.
The “AmaPanyaza” crime prevention programme was introduced in February 2023 by Gauteng Premier Andrek “Panyaza” Lesufi as part of the province’s broader strategy to address both crime and unemployment.
The initiative sought to strengthen visible policing by deploying Crime Prevention Wardens (CPWs) across Gauteng to support the South African Police Service (SAPS), while simultaneously providing work opportunities to thousands of unemployed residents.
Last week, Lesufi announced that the CPWs were being disbanded. This is welcome, as it was unlawful from inception. Here’s why.
The programme raised substantial legal and constitutional questions. Lesufi asserted that the CPWs were provincial traffic officials and thus qualified as “peace officers”. However, under section 334 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (CPA), the designation of any person as a peace officer can occur only through a formal process initiated by the minister of justice, in consultation with the minister of police, and published by notice in the Government Gazette.
Section 334(1)(a) requires such a notice to define the category of persons, specify the area of operation and delineate the extent of their powers. Furthermore, in terms of section 334(2) and (3), no person may exercise those powers without a valid certificate of appointment, issued under prescribed conditions.
These provisions serve as safeguards to ensure that only duly authorised and properly trained individuals perform functions associated with law enforcement.
Concerns emerged that these procedural steps were not fully complied with at the time of the wardens’ deployment. In the absence of clear evidence of gazetting and certification, doubts persisted as to whether the CPWs were lawfully empowered to conduct arrests or perform other policing duties. This uncertainty is material given that section 40 of the CPA empowers peace officers to arrest without a warrant under certain circumstances — authority that, if exercised without lawful appointment, could give rise to civil liability for unlawful arrest and detention.
Training and institutional oversight also became a point of contention. Although the CPWs reportedly received instruction through the Road Traffic Management Corporation and several metropolitan police departments, the involvement of the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) in their training raised constitutional questions. The SANDF’s mandate, set out in section 200 of the Constitution, is to defend and protect the republic, not to train or manage civilian law-enforcement personnel. Its participation, therefore, extended beyond its constitutional remit.
The Gauteng provincial government previously announced that the AmaPanyaza crime prevention wardens initiative, in its existing form, would be restructured and integrated into formal law-enforcement and community safety frameworks. This process will include additional accredited training and certification to enable compliant absorption into recognised policing, traffic or by-law enforcement units.
Those who do not meet the required standards will be reassigned to alternative public safety or administrative roles within the provincial government.
This restructuring reflects an acknowledgement of the legal and operational irregularities surrounding the original implementation of the programme. While the initiative succeeded in promoting employment and enhancing visible policing, the absence of transparent legal authorisation, uniform training standards and proper certification created material risks for both the wardens and the province.
The decision to restructure and integrate the CPWs, therefore, represents a corrective measure aimed at achieving compliance with the Criminal Procedure Act, aligning the programme with constitutional and statutory mandates, and mitigating future liability risks.
Going forward, the effectiveness of this reform will depend on the province’s ability to ensure full legal regularity, professional training and the maintenance of accountability mechanisms consistent with established law-enforcement frameworks.
Rupert Candy and Kiara Dhanpall, Rupert Candy Attorneys Incorporated.