Court tells JRA to ‘stay in its lane’ and process Vumacam’s CCTV applications

The South Gauteng High Court has told the Johannesburg Roads Agency (JRA) to stay in its lane and ordered the agency to process new applications from Vumacam to rollout its surveillance system in suburban Johannesburg.

This on the back of an urgent application brought by Vumacam against the JRA, in response to its recent refusal to accept wayleave applications – to use property legally owned by someone else – from the company.

Judge Bashir Vally on Thursday ruled in favour of Vumacam – saying while the JRA may have been well-meaning, it had acted unlawfully.

Vumacam chief executive officer Ricky Croock said in the founding papers to the application that despite meeting all the necessary requirements, none of the company’s wayleave applications had been approved since March. As a result, he said, Vumacam could not complete the installation of its CCTV network in certain parts of the city.

JRA acting CEO Victor Rambau, however, in response told the court Vumacam wanted “to install surveillance cameras to monitor movements of innocent people and sell the relevant footage to third parties”. This, he said, violated those individuals’ rights to privacy and the JRA did not have the legislative authority to approve a system intended to “spy” on private citizens.

Also read: Vumacam not empowered to approve Jozi’s CCTVs, argues JRA boss

In court, the JRA argued Vumacam had to obtain approval for the collection and use of data, but eventually had to concede there were no laws to this effect. It then changed tack, arguing the law was deficient and that until it was remedied, the JRA was entitled to not accept Vumacam’s applications.

But Vally disagreed.

“[The] JRA does not explain why it can confidently say that a law – in the form of a regulation or statute – will be passed and more importantly, that such a law will apply retrospectively,” he said on Thursday,

“There is simply no basis for such a bold averment from an administrative body whose function in this case is to oversee the work that is undertaken at a road reserve and no more.”

Vally said the JRA had no power to decide that the law was deficient.

“Nor does it have the power to suspend its duties pending the curing of the alleged deficiency,” he went on. “By refusing to accept wayleave applications  from Vumacam, it is either abdicating its duties or suspending them”.

He said the collection of personal information via CCTV cameras may well be unlawful but that was not the question at hand.

“That issue – the legality or otherwise of the conduct – is not engaged here,” Vally said.

Also read: Spat over Joburg Roads Agency’s CCTV ‘spy’ cameras

Vumacam CEO Ricky Croock welcomed the ruling.

He said in a statement that the company would continue “to work closely with the JRA to ensure that infrastructure is erected in a compliant manner and to resolve any concerns they have within their ambit of decision making.”

Of the privacy concerns that had been raised around the erection of the company’s cameras, Croock said: “We take the protection of data and privacy rights very seriously and have ensured significant measures to exceed not only local by-laws and regulations but also international standards on privacy.”

“Our doors are always open to any party or individual who wants to learn more about our operations and we are pleased that with this ruling, we are able to address the equally important constitutional rights of citizens to be kept safe from the unrelenting impact of crime in South Africa,” he added.

For more news your way, download The Citizen’s app for iOS and Android.