Right2Know Campaign chips in on argument as Joburg camera saga drags on

The legal tussle over Johannesburg’s public “spy” cameras has heated up, with the Right2Know Campaign (R2K) applying to assist the court with some aspects relevant to the case, including the legality of the existing cameras and the intrusive nature of the system.

The Citizen has reported how the Johannesburg Roads Agency (JRA), an entity of the City of Joburg, has granted 64 wayleaves or permission to erect the controversial public surveillance system though there was no legislative framework or policy for the roll out of a public surveillance system.

The agency has now made an about turn, suspending aerial and CCTV wayleave applications as it had no legal authority and policy for the roll out of a public surveillance system.

Vumacam, the company installing the artificial intelligence (AI) capable closed-circuit television (CCTV) to fight crime in Johannesburg suburbs, has since approached the High Court in Johannesburg with an urgent application to declare JRA’s decision to suspend aerial and CCTV wayleave applications unlawful and invalid, and set it aside.

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

The matter was set to be heard this week but had to be postponed to next week following Right2Know Campaign’s notice of intention to apply for admission as friends of the court in the Vumacam’s urgent application. The advocacy group contends in papers the proper process in this matter dictated that JRA should have set aside the approvals of the previous wayleave application by way of counter-application.

R2K’s organiser Floyd Nkosi argues that the intrusive nature of the video surveillance in public spaces required an existence of an enabling legal framework which includes appropriate safeguards to protect, among others, the rights to privacy, freedom of movement and freedom of association.

“This framework currently does not exist and the sole reliance on the Protection of Personal Information Act by [Vumacam] is insufficient. It is accordingly not in the interest of justice to grant the relief sought by [Vumacam] in relation to the present wayleave applications at this stage … [and that] a dichotomy need not exist between privacy and security and an appropriate balance should be struck between these competing interests,” Nkosi states in his affidavit.

He submits that despite Vumacam’s averments to the contrary, the decision to approve the installation of a network of video surveillance cameras in public spaces raised important questions of privacy, public participation and the chilling effect that video surveillance has on constitutional rights to, among others, freedom of movement and association.

“It also relates to just administrative action and the transparency of the process,” he submitted. R2K is set to launch a constitutional challenge to the saga, seeking an order not only to switch off the existing cameras, but to completely tear down the existing infrastructure.

Vumacam, through its lawyers, is against R2K admitted as friends of the court in the matter, and will file its answering affidavit by end of today.

JRA remains mum

Victor Rambau, the Johannesburg Roads Agency (JRA) acting chief executive officer, has conceded in court papers that the agency had no legislative powers to grant wayleaves for the aerial and CCTV system but went on to grant 64 such approvals to Vumacam.

In his affidavit, Rambau does not deal with why the wayleaves applications were approved when there was no legal framework or policy for such a system, except to say that the approvals being granted did not mean “they must be given in future…”

He deposed that difficulties referred to by Vumacam in getting wayleaves applications approval were as a result of “realisation that the by-laws do not actually empower the JRA … to approve the installation of the CCTV surveillance cameras”

The JRA is yet to respond to the Right2know Campaign’s application to be admitted as friends of the court and have not responded to Citizens questions as to:

What is going to happen to those approvals? Does this mean they become null and void?

Why were the first 64 wayleaves approval granted for Vumacam in the first place if JRA has no legal authority or policy to do so?

Does this mean the JRA failed in its duty for due diligence in checking the reasons for the applications or was this information, about the nature and intention of the invasive CCTV system, concealed when the applications were made?

Vumacam has charged that JRA did have the authority to grant authorisation for Vumacam to install poles with cameras, and has in fact approved hundreds of wayleaves to date.

“All Wayleaves approvals to date are legal and cannot be deemed illegal post approval. All Vumacam poles with cameras that have been erected to date have approved wayleaves attached and are all legal. Vumacam clearly articulates the reason for a Wayleaves application … JRA are well aware, so it is surprising that your source suggests they were not aware of the intent and purpose,” Vumacam has said.

– siphom@citizen.co.za

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