Human Rights Council Report On Gated Communities

CONTENTS
FOREWORD _____________________________________________________ 3
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ________________________________________ 4
2. INTRODUCTION _____________________________________________ 7
2.1 The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) ........... 7
2.2 Purpose of the Enquiry ...................................................................... 7
2.3 The Prevailing Legal and Factual Position in Gauteng ................... 8
2.4 Security Access Restrictions ............................................................... 8
3. HUMAN RIGHTS INVOLVED ___________________________________ 10

3.1 The Bill of Rights .............................................................................. 10
4. ANALYSING THE HUMAN RIGHTS ______________________________ 11

4.1 The Rights to Life and Right to Freedom and Security of
the Person ........................................................................................... 11
4.1.1 The Contention that the Act is ultra vires............................. 13
4.2 The Freedom of Movement and Residence .................................. 14
4.3 The Right to Human Dignity ........................................................... 16
4.4 The Right to Equality ........................................................................ 17
Road Closures / Boom Gates

4.5 The Right to Privacy .......................................................................... 19
4.6 Political Rights and Freedom of Trade, Occupation and
Profession............................................................................................ 20
4.7 Limitation of Rights .......................................................................... 21
4.7.1 Application of the Limitations ............................................. 21
4.7.2 The Nature of the Right ........................................................ 21
4.7.3 The Importance of the Purpose of the Limitation .......... 22
4.7.4 The Nature and Extent of the Limitation .......................... 22
4.7.5 The Relationship Between the Limitation and its Purpose23
4.7.6 Less Restrictive Means to Achieve Purpose ........................ 24
5. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ___________________________ 26
6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ________________________________________ 27
ISBN: 0-620-33516-5
1
Report
ABBREVIATIONS
SAPS South African Police Service
ICVS Unites Nations International Crime Victims Survey
JRA Johannesburg Roads Agency
EMS Johannesburg Emergency Medical Services
PEPUDA Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair

Discrimination Act
SAHRC South African Human Rights Commission
ISS Institute for Security Studies
HSRC Human Sciences Research Council
Key Phrases
The Act Gauteng Local Rationalisation of Government Affairs

Act 10 of 1998
The Commission The South African Human Rights Commission
The Policy The City of Johannesburg Security Access Restrictions Policy
2
Report
FOREWORD
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights provide the framework by which we are required to develop
and build our society. While it is held in high esteem as being visionary and progressive, there have
been and will continue to be many battles that must be fought around its provisions, how they are
to be interpreted and given effect to, how they are to be balanced against each other and ultimately
how we are to make choices in the matters that affect our lives – that perhaps is the nature of living
in a constitutional democracy.
The balance we seek to strike is probably most difficult to find in matters that deal with the
enforcement of law and crime and violence. The public debate around closed neighbourhoods and
the erection of boom gates certainly demonstrated how passionate people felt about these matters
and how all sought to find solutions and justify positions using the Constitution as a point of
reference.
Having initially received complaints from members of the public concerning the erection of boom
gates, the closure of roads and the practises at some enclosures, the Commission deemed it
appropriate to hold a Public Hearing into the matter. The process which included invitations to
make written and oral submissions was intended to give all interested the opportunity to address
the Commission and participate in the process. We were extremely pleased with the public response
– numerous written submissions we received and the 2-day hearing was well attended and widely
covered in the media. The hearings were conducted in an environment where, notwithstanding the
often vastly differing positions held, all were willing to listen and give proper consideration to the
views of others.

Ultimately it is the role of the Commission to give proper consideration to the views and opinions
expressed, locate them and interpret them within the legal and constitutional context, and present
its conclusions on the matters raised. We have in this Report sought do to that and trust that the
Conclusions, Findings and Recommendations will assist policy makers, legislators and the public.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank my fellow panellists, Commissioner Charlotte McClain-
Nhlapo, Prof. Mark Oranje and all the staff of the Human Rights Commission who assisted in this
inquiry.
Jody Kollapen
Chairperson
South African Human Rights Commission
3
Report
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The issue of road closures, security booms and such related measures are without doubt matters
close to the heart of the many who came before the Commission. The matters raised however are
also significant to many others who ordinarily use and have access to public roads and places.
In weighing up the various arguments we have to be mindful to locate them within the constitutional
and legal framework created by the Constitution, which in brief requires that all conduct and action
by both State and non-State actors conform to the requirements set out in the Constitution. In
addition, we need to recognise that even after 10 years of democracy we still face considerable
challenges in transforming our society from one predicated on race and exclusion, to one where
the full dignity and worth of each person is recognised – and where we can live united in our
diversity.
Human rights by their very nature, subject to some limited exceptions, are capable of limitation.
The onus would be on the party seeking the limitation to make a proper case for limitation. It
would have to be shown that the limitation was ‘reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic
society’.
It was agreed that boom gates were restrictive and even those who argued in favour of them saw
them as a short-term intervention. However, the reality is that they have been with us for almost
10 years now. There are various types of access restrictions that could be utilised, including monitoring
measures such as guards and guardhouses, traffic calming measures and of course boom gates and
closures. The more severe the measure, the greater the likelihood of it resulting in the restriction or
violation of other people’s rights.
As an institution responsible for the promotion, protection and observance of human rights, the
Commission cannot condone conduct which resembles past discriminatory practices or denies
people their fundamental human dignity. A key point for consideration is whether the existence
and operation of boom gates and closures makes inroads into the rights of others, which are of
such a nature that they are not capable of being constitutionally justified or sanctioned.
The operation of security access restriction points should not have the effect of denying or hindering
public access to public spaces, including roads, nor should they require certain categories of persons
to furnish private information (for example, destination, purpose of visit and identity document ).
Such conduct does indeed violate the rights of those affected. While such practices are not supported
or encouraged by the legislation regulating these gated communities, in many instances however,
evidence indicated that such practices were common at particular closures with little or no possibility
of corrective measures being taken.
It was argued that the existence of booms and the closure of roads had a positive effect in bringing
down crime while not prejudicing road users and other members of the community, yet the evidence
presented at the hearings fundamentally challenged this proposition and accordingly presented the
Commission with considerable difficulties.
4
Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The first difficulty that presents itself is that there is a dispute and there is generally no reliable
evidence to suggest conclusively that the erection of booms and the closure of roads enhance
safety and security. Under such circumstances the approval of any closure on the general assumption
that it enhances safety and security would be problematic in the Commission’s view.
Secondly, the effect and impact of closures materially affects issues of urban mobility and
functionality, and militates against the original idea of a city as a place where people could move
around freely, engaging in business, social activity and recreation as part of a collective. Given our
own history of exclusion and separation we should be extremely careful, even if our motives are
otherwise commendable, in embarking on an urban design that works against the notion of a
united society. There was considerable evidence that booms and closures do indeed exclude and
separate in a manner inconsistent with the idea of an open city.
Thirdly, we should continue to encourage the efforts of communities to become proactive and act
as concerned citizens, and in this regard explore measures that fit into the general functions of the
city, encourage collective solutions and restrict other rights in the least restrictive manner possible.
On the information and the evidence made available to the Commission, it was not convinced that
the least restrictive means were always considered. The Commission remains concerned with the
spectre of a multitude of neighbourhoods becoming closed areas. In this regard the Commission
takes seriously the concern of the JRA – that even the most stringent conditions that may apply to
a closure are difficult to monitor and that the risk of closed, ‘no go areas’ is a real one.
Of course crime and violence remain an ongoing and visible threat to many of our people, and the
challenge is how the State and communities can work together in fighting crime. There was evidence
of this happening successfully in many communities.We need to encourage initiatives such as
community policing, sector policing and greater police visibility.
After proper consideration of all the arguments and submissions, the Commission makes the

following findings and recommendations.
Findings and Recommendations

The Commission accordingly makes the following findings and recommendations:
1. The Commission does not generally support the use of boom gates and gated communities.
The Commission is of the view that based on the information it has, these measures cause
social division, dysfunctional cities and lead to the further polarisation of our society. In addition,
the proposed benefits they bring by way of enhanced safety and security are in doubt and the
subject of considerable debate.
2. The Commission finds that the use of road closures/boom gates has the potential to and does
indeed in practice violate a number of rights as indicated in the Report. While such infringement
of rights in most instances occurs in violation of the policy of the local authority, there was
little recourse for those whose rights had been violated. Evidence remains inconclusive that the
use of alternative measures for safety and security had been sufficiently explored.
3. The Commission takes cognisance of the fact that legislation such as the Gauteng Local
Rationailsation of Government Affairs Act 10 of 1998 does indeed provide for access restrictions,
including road closures. It also notes with concern that notwithstanding the existence of relatively
strict conditions normally attached to an approved closure (eg. a commitment to free and
5
Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
unhindered access) there was considerable evidence of non-compliance with such conditions
coupled with an inability, due mainly to capacity and practical difficulties, to effectively monitor
compliance. The consequence accordingly was that a breach or non-compliance with such
conditions was not visited with any sanction or adverse consequence.
4. Responding effectively to the phenomena of crime and violence does indeed require closer co-
operation between the State and citizens, and therefore the Commission encourages continued
community efforts in liaison with the authorities, to make communities safer. More resources
for policing, greater police presence and visibility, effective community police forums and effective
police response to the needs of the community will all contribute to making a difference.
5. The Commission, even though satisfied that a legal basis does exist for security access restrictions,
including boom gates and road closures, urges local authorities and communities to consider
and exhaust alternate access restrictions, including guards and guard houses, traffic calming
measures and closed circuit television.
6
Report
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC)
The South African Human Rights Commission1 is a State institution established by Chapter 9 of
the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996,2 to support constitutional
democracy.
The Commission is a national body, mandated in terms of Section 184 of the Constitution to
promote respect for human rights, promote the protection, development and the attainment of
human rights and furthermore to monitor and assess the observance of such rights within the
Republic of South Africa.
In addition, the preamble of the Human Rights Commission Act 54 of 1994 states:
“The Constitution provides that the Human Rights Commission shall, inter alia, be competent and
obliged to promote the observance of, respect for and the protection of fundamental rights; to
develop an awareness of fundamental rights among all people of the Republic;
• To make recommendations to organs of State at all levels of government where it considers

such action advisable for the adoption of progressive measures for the promotion of
fundamental rights within the framework of the law and the Constitution;
• To undertake such studies for report on or relating to fundamental rights as it considers
advisable in the performance of its functions;
• To request any organ of State to supply it with information on any legislative or executive

measures adopted by it relating to fundamental rights; and
• To investigate any alleged violation of fundamental rights and to assist any person adversely
affected thereby to secure redress.”
2.2 Purpose of the Enquiry
Complaints were lodged with the Commission regarding public road closures with the use of
boom gates for crime prevention in certain city suburbs. Many complainants alleged that their
human rights were violated by certain security measures used at the boom gates. They alleged that
security personnel manning the boom gates insisted that they signed registers and divulged personal
information before being granted access to enclosed suburbs. It was also allegedly that in certain
cases individuals were being denied access solely on a racial basis. In response to these complaints,
the Commission’s Legal Services Department conducted an investigation into the alleged personal
encroachments and drafted an internal legal opinion on the matter.
However, given the contesting views on the subject and in response to the complainants, it appeared
that the Commission needed to further investigate the matter. The Commission took a decision to
1
Hereinafter referred to as the “Commission”
2
Hereinafter referred to as the “Constitution”
7
Report
INTRODUCTION
hold an Open Hearing into the human rights issues at stake in the use of road closures or boom
gates. After taking into consideration the views and expertise from the submissions received, the
Commission would determine the constitutional validity of security access restrictions as well as
their broader utility and desirability from a human rights perspective.
The Commission initiated the process by calling for written submissions from the public and
interested parties. Thereafter, key role-players were identified and invited to make oral submissions
to a panel at the hearings held from 21 – 22 September 2004 at the Commission’s office in
Johannesburg. The hearings, which were open to the public, were well attended and received
prominent media coverage.
2.3 The Prevailing Legal and Factual Position in Gauteng
The initial complaint lodged with the Commission originated in the Gauteng Province and the
Commission’s call for submissions was met with substantial interest from members of the public
there. The response demonstrated that such security measures were more predominant in Gauteng
and also that the effects on its residents more prevalent than in other provinces. Yet it should be
noted that the findings and recommendations of the Report may be relevant to all South African
provincial and local governments, residents and affected parties.
2.4 Security Access Restrictions
Public road closures and the increasing establishment of “gated communities” became a topic of
intense debate in South African cities since the mid 1990’s. Communities in Gauteng could apply
to the local authorities to restrict access to a defined geographical area, as from 5 March 1999, if
they could show that it was in the interest of safety and security to do so.
The Gauteng Local Rationalisation of Government Affairs Act 10 of 1998,3 provided for the “Restriction
of Access to Public Places for Safety and Security Purposes”, and regulated security access restrictions
in the Gauteng Province. Chapter 7 of the Act governs the implementation of security access
restrictions, and any Council procedures must comply with the provisions it contains.
The City of Johannesburg Security Access Restrictions Policy defines security access restrictions as:
“… any means that discourages access to any other person and may include measures such as
traffic calming measures, guards and guardhouses. A restriction of access does not necessarily
mean the erection of gates, fences or booms. Restriction of access shall mean restriction is limited
to access control, no denial of access and no discriminating actions nor infringements on the rights
of individuals.”
The purpose of the policy is:
(a) To state the policy of the City of Johannesburg with regard to the restriction of access to
public places for safety and security purposes;
(b) To provide guidelines to applicants in terms of the required contents of applications,
procedures to be followed and responsibilities in terms of costs; and
(c) To provide guidelines to officials of the Johannesburg Roads Agency for the effective
processing and evaluation of applications4 in accordance with the Act.
3
Hereinafter referred to as the “Act”
4
Annexure A, Page 1- City of Johannesburg- Security Access Restrictions: Policy
8
Report
INTRODUCTION
The Act allows authorised access restrictions to public places or spaces by private persons or
bodies, with municipal consent. It allows for suburbs to be closed off by limiting the number of
entrances and exit points as a security measure.
This Report shall set out the relevant human rights framework, examine the various rights within
which that framework is set and then proceed to examine the submissions and general arguments
brought to the attention of the Commission. The Report concludes with the findings and
recommendations of the Commission.
9
Report
3. HUMAN RIGHTS INVOLVED
3.1 The Bill of Rights

“The Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic; law or conduct inconsistent with it is invalid,
and the obligations imposed by it must be fulfilled.”5
The Bill of Rights is the cornerstone of South African democracy and grants all people in the
country fundamental human rights. It underpins the democratic values of human dignity, equality
and freedom and regulates relationships between the State and individuals and/or between individuals.
Legislation must be interpreted to promote the spirit and objectives of the Bill of Rights. Subject
to very limited exceptions, the rights in the Bill of Rights are not absolute. The Report shall now
proceed to examine the rights set out in the Bill of Rights and then proceed to examine the general
arguments brought to the attention of the Commission. Several sections of the Bill of Rights can
be applied in this matter, including:
• The right to equality.6

• The right to human dignity.7
• The right to life.8
• The right to freedom and security of the person.9
• The right to privacy.10
• Political rights.11
• Freedom of movement and residence.12
• Freedom of trade, occupation and profession.13
• Limitation of rights.14
5
Section 2 of the Constitution
6
Section 9 of the Bill of Rights
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
10
Report
4. ANALYSING THE HUMAN
RIGHTS
4.1 The Right to Life and the Right to Freedom and Security of the Person
The Right to Life states that:
“Everyone has the right to life.”
The Right to Freedom and Security of the Person states that:
“ (1) Everyone has the right to freedom and security of the person, which
includes the right -
(a) not to be deprived of freedom arbitrarily or without just cause;
(b) not to be detained without trial;
(c) to be free from all forms of violence from either public or private
sources;
(d) not to be tortured in any way; and
(e) not to be treated or punished in a cruel, inhuman or degrading
way.
(2) Everyone has the right to bodily and psychological integrity, which
includes the right-
(a) To make decisions concerning reproduction;
(b) To security in and control over their body; and
(c) Not to be subjected to medical or scientific experiments without
their informed consent.”

The constitutional provisions of the right to life and the right to freedom and security of the
person will be analysed here jointly, as the submissions indicated a tendency to associate them both
with security access restrictions.
The inclination to associate the right to life and that to freedom and security of the person by
those in favour of security access restrictions was expressed aptly by their view that communities
should not feel threatened when approaching their properties or “havens”.
It was expressed that fear of crime influences people’s behavioural patterns and restricts their
movements, sometimes to the extent that they may move away from areas they regard as unsafe.
“In the 1990’s fear of crime became a global concern…[which] can be described as a general
concern, anxiety, worry or subjective assessment of one’s victimisation risk.”15
Those in favour of security access restrictions argued that there is a positive obligation on the State
in that it is expected to protect individuals from violence in all forms. The State’s law enforcement
is not considered as always being successful in protecting individuals from violence. Residents said
15
Prof. Beaty Naudé: “Can Public Road Closures Reduce Crime Effectively?” 2003, Page 1
11
Report
ANALYSING THE HUMAN RIGHTS
they felt compelled to take their protection into their own hands by employing alternative methods
to ensure their safety and security, such as the use of private security companies.
Parties opposing such security access restrictions also raised the right to freedom and security of
the person. They pointed out incidents where various individuals were allegedly handcuffed to
gates by security guards, had mini explosives thrown onto their property and were threatened with
a shotgun because of their refusal to comply with the restrictions imposed at road closures/boom
gates.
In Ferreira v Levin NO and others16 the Constitutional Court examined the right to freedom and
security of the person. Justice Ackerman explained that the right to freedom must be given a broad
and generous interpretation and “...must therefore not be thought to be premised on a concept of
the individual as being in heroic and atomistic isolation from the rest of humanity, or the
environment”.17
The Bill of Rights Handbook states: “Violence against an individual is a grave invasion of personal
security. Section 12 (1) (c) requires the State to protect individuals, both by refraining from such
invasions itself and by restraining or discouraging private individuals from such invasions.”18
Accordingly, road closures/boom gates are claimed to serve as deterrents to criminals and therefore
enforces the rights of residents within enclosures to be free from violence. The City of Johannesburg,
it was submitted, is tasked with promoting a safe and healthy environment under Section 152 (1) (d)
of the Constitution and is fulfilling its obligation by acting in terms of the Act.19
However, there continues to be disputes over whether closures do in fact lead to a reduction in
levels of crime.
Arguments opposing security access restrictions stated that enclosed neighbourhoods can
compromise the freedom and security of the person, as they have the potential to prevent emergency
vehicles from reaching persons in need if their route is compromised by road closures or gates.
This is time-consuming, as the emergency personnel are forced to search for alternative entrances
and exits.
In this regard the research conducted by Professor K.D. Boffard at the Johannesburg Hospital
Trauma Unit has been extensively cited. The Trauma Unit has close working relationships with
metropolitan emergency services and private emergency services. A study specific to response
times for enclosed suburbs found that the emergency vehicles’ response times were delayed by 7 to
15 minutes. On this basis Boffard stated that although the rate of crime allegedly fell in those
suburbs, the overall morbidity and mortality rate rose after the enclosure was erected. Furthermore,
he said that the enclosed areas were usually comprised of middle to higher income groups and
within these population groups the incidence of strokes, asthma attacks, seizures, heart attacks,
falls and children falling into swimming pools were “very much higher”.
16
1996 (1) SA 984 (CC); 1996 (1) BCLR 1
17
Ibid: Para [52]
18
The Bill of Rights Handbook, Third Edition 2000 by De Waal, Currie and Erasmus
19
Gauteng Local Rationalisation of Government Affairs Act 10 of 1998
12
Report
Johannesburg’s Emergency Management Services (EMS) raised the following concerns:
• The restriction of accesses may rise to the extent that accurate plotting becomes impossible
for emergency service vehicles;
• The service does not possess the relevant tools for dispatching mechanisms to record the
position of security access restrictions;
• The access restrictions impedes on the ability of emergency services to gain access to areas
where such services are required;
• The access restrictions have caused delayed reaction and response times of emergency
services, which includes fire, rescue and medical services;
• The emergency vehicles are not necessarily equipped to execute the required break-in to
obtain access;
• The restrictions in general result in additional and longer routes to reach destinations;
• Emergency back-up is often used from remote areas that are not necessarily familiar with
the characteristics of enclosures in the applicable areas; and
• Delayed attendance could result in liability to the Council if proven that such delays were a
result of access routes closures.
Unofficial statistics which showed a decline in crime in enclosed neighbourhoods were submitted
to the Commission by various groups favouring road closures or boom gates. These statistics were
pointed to as evidence to the contention that by effecting road closures, residents in enclosed
neighbourhoods are able enforce their constitutional right to be free from all forms of violence.
4.1.1 The Contention that the Act is ultra vires
The Open City Forum, an organisation opposed to closures made a submission to the effect that
Chapter 7 of the Gauteng Rationalisation Act was ‘ultra vires’ in that:
• Issues of safety and security do not fall within the functional area of concurrent legislative

competence of the Gauteng legislature;
• The Act is in conflict with the South African Police Services Act 68 of 1995;
• National security is a prerogative of Parliament and the national executive; and
• Road closures are in contravention of Section 199 (3) of the Constitution in that only
national legislation can establish armed services or organisations.
Advocate Kairinos, who made submissions in support of enclosed neighbourhoods, responded to

these arguments by explaining that:
• Section 104 (1) of the Constitution provides that the legislative authority of provinces is
vested in the provincial legislature and confers upon it the powers to, amongst others, pass
legislation with regard to any matter within the functional area listed in Schedule 4,20 and
Schedule 5 21;
• Schedule 4: includes legislation relating to (i) Police to the extent that the provisions of
Chapter 11 of the Constitution confer upon the provincial legislature competence and (ii)
Road traffic regulations; and
20
Schedule 4: Functional areas of concurrent national and provincial legislative competence; Part A
21
Schedule 5: Functional areas of exclusive provincial legislative competence; Parts A and B
13
Report
• Schedule 5 22 provides for legislation relating to (i) Provincial roads and traffic, (ii) Municipal
roads and (iii) Traffic and parking.
Chapter 11 of the Constitution deals with the Police Service and Section 205 provides in subsections
4 and 7 that:
(4) A provincial executive is responsible for policing functions-

(a) vested in it by this Chapter;
(b) assigned to it in terms of national legislation; and
(c) allocated to it in the national policing policy.
(7) National legislation must provide a framework for the establishment of powers, functions
and control of municipal police services.
It does appear to us that Chapter 7 of the Act, which restricts access, was not intended to have a
policing function. It was aimed at the restriction or prohibition to use certain public roads and this
therefore falls within the scope of Schedule 4 - the functional area of concurrent national and
provincial legislative competence. Also, Schedule 5 (as discussed above) bestows exclusive provincial
legislative competence for the regulation of provincial roads and traffic, municipal roads and traffic
and parking.
In terms of the National Road Traffic Act the local authority has the power to legislate by-laws for the
purpose of restricting or prohibiting any matter or thing in relation to that purpose either absolutely
or conditionally.23 The use of a boom as a traffic calming measure or a safety measure is not
substantially a policing function even though done in the interest of safety and security.
Accordingly, the Commission is not of the view that the Act is unconstitutional for the reasons
referred to above.
4.2 The Freedom of Movement and Residence
The Freedom of Movement and Residence states that:
“ (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave the Republic.
(3) Every citizen has the right to enter, to remain in and to reside anywhere
in, the Republic.
(4) Every citizen has the right to a passport.”
The majority of submissions opposing gated communities were based on the fact that such access
restrictions infringed on an individual’s right to freedom of movement on a public road.
22
Schedule 5: Functional areas of exclusive provincial legislative competence; Parts A and B
23
See National Road Traffic Act, 93 of 1996: Section 80A (1) (a), (l) and (r), (2) and (3)
14
Report
The right to freedom of movement has international recognition in such international instruments
as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights24, the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights25 and the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights.26
This right is of particular relevance to South Africa due to it past, where apartheid laws such as the
Black Land Act,27 the Group Areas Act, 28 the Development Trust and Land Act,29 and the
Black Administration Act 30 sought to rigidly control the movement of people purely on the
basis of their race.
It is in this context that the present use of security access

restrictions has sparked similar fears and concerns. The fear
... guards at these enclosure of forced segregation arises if communities are permitted
points “wield tremendous powers to box themselves off from the rest of society and have
in deciding whom to let in and on the power to determine who can be granted or denied access
what basis”. to public places. In addition, it was suggested that guards at
these enclosure points “wield tremendous powers in
deciding whom to let in and on what basis”.
The Commission heard evidence that security access restrictions did not exist prior to 1994, despite
the prevalence of crime. One submission described the situation as having gone from “fencing the
masses in, to fencing the masses out”.
The right to the freedom of movement can be limited, and every citizen’s constitutional right to
movement, to enter, to remain in and to reside anywhere in the Republic, is subject to limitation.
For example, in order to leave the Republic, the Aliens Control Act31 stipulates that citizens and non-
citizens may not do so without being in possession of a valid passport.
It was argued in some submissions that access restrictions were used to deny black persons access
to predominantly white suburbs. If this is indeed the case then the practice is in direct contradiction

to the spirit, purpose and object of the Bill of Rights and constitutes a serious affront to the dignity
of those affected.
Divided Communities
Supporters of access restrictions argued that they did not deny individuals the right to enter their
enclosures, therefore road closures/boom gates did not infringe on the right to freedom of
movement. Those opposed contended that the freedom of movement of people trying to access
enclosed areas was being curtailed.
The Star featured an article titled “Boom policy infuriates residents” featured in the Star, dated 16
November 2002, in which it reported on residents who were forced to sign in and out each time
they entered or exited their residential suburb. An anonymous resident is quoted as saying: “I am
24
Article 13
25
Article 12
26
Article 12
27
Act 27 of 1913 Section 1
28
Act 36 of 1966
29
Act 18 of 1936 Sections 25 and 26
30
Act 38 of 1927 Section 5
31
Act 96 of 1991
15
Report
being denied access to my own home. I believe the

“I am being denied access to my
guards have absolutely no security value and, in fact,
own home. I believe the guards
they constitute a risk for those being stopped at the
have absolutely no security value
booms.” The relevant chairperson for the enclosure
and, in fact, they constitute a risk
justified the restriction with claims that the crime rate
for those being stopped at the
had dropped by 80% and the property values had
booms.”
increased dramatically, therefore making the suburb
sought-after. Despite this, he admitted that support
for the system had decreased. He added that those residents who refused to contribute towards
maintaining the enclosure would be required to sign in and out, while paid-up residents would be
given stickers showing they had done so, and therefore have unhindered access.
A further written submission in support of road closures argued that motorists experienced only
minor inconveniences while pedestrians were provided access at pedestrian gates which stayed
open 24 hours a day.
Unlawfully operated road closures

In counterarguments, prima facie evidence was presented to the Commission indicating that the
prescribed requirements in the City of Johannesburg’s Security Access Restrictions Policy on boom
gates were not always complied with. It was brought to the Commission’s attention that not all road
closures/boom gates are operated lawfully.32 This leads to the crucial question whether enclosed
neighbourhoods are monitored and effectively regulated to ensure that they are functioning within
the parameters of the Gauteng Local Rationalisation of Government Affairs Act, and not adversely
affecting mobility. The managing director of the Johannesburg Roads Agency (JRA) indicated that
adequate monitoring was not possible given the limited resources available, and that in practice
once permission had been granted the local authority was not in a position to regularly and effectively
monitor the structures.
The Johannesburg Roads Agency (JRA)

The JRA is appointed by the City of Johannesburg to manage and maintain the road network of
the City’s roads and to improve mobility and road safety. The JRA is further responsible for
managing the access restriction process to ensure that it remains in line with the City’s policy. The
contradiction in the mandate of the JRA is that it is responsible for ensuring mobility and yet
responsible for recommending or opposing applications that directly inhibit the public’s right to
move around freely. The Managing Director of the JRA was concerned that closures impacted
severely on urban mobility and worked against the essential features and character of a city.
4.3 The Right to Human Dignity
The Right to Human Dignity states that:
“Everyone has inherent dignity and the right to have their dignity respected and
protected.”
32
That is in terms of the conditions attached to the approvals.
16
Report
In the landmark case of S v Makwanyane 33, in which the Constitutional Court abolished the death
penalty, Chief Justice Chaskalson acknowledged that, “... the rights to life and dignity are the most
important of all human rights, and the source of all other personal rights... By committing ourselves
to a society founded on the recognition of human rights we are required to value these two rights
above all others.” 34
An example of the right to dignity, with respect to boom gates, is found in a Sunday Times Metro
article35 where it was reported that domestic workers employed inside enclosed suburbs were
compelled – for improved security purposes – to produce their identity cards in order to gain
access to the area. Such identity checks have strong associations with the pass laws of apartheid.
In a written submission, a woman alleged that she was often waved through at boom gates because
she had a pale complexion. Even when compelled to disclose details into a register, she had never
been asked to produce an identity document. She further alleged being witness to the degrading
treatment of black males at these access points where they are stopped, questioned and instructed
to fill in a register, and in some cases, had to produce identity documents.
4.4 The Right to Equality
The Right to Equality states that:
“ (1) Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal
protection and benefit of the law.
(2) Equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and
freedoms. To promote the achievement of equality, legislative and
other measures designed to protect or advance persons; or
categories of persons, disadvantaged by unfair discrimination may
be taken.
(3) The State may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly

against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender,
sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual
orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture,
language and birth.
(4) No person may unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against
anyone on one or more grounds in terms of subsection (3).
National legislation must be enacted to prevent or prohibit unfair
discrimination.
(5) Discrimination on one or more grounds listed in subsection (3) is
unfair unless it is established that the discrimination is fair.”
The equality provision was raised in the initial complaint to the Commission on the basis that
people of different races were not treated similarly at security access points. Many submissions
received from the public either directly alleged racial discrimination at security access points or
alluded to it. It was alleged that many of the security guards at these booms were instructed to, or
chose to routinely stop black people in order to enquire about their movements. Such treatment
was not applied to white people.
33
S v Makwanyane 1995 (3) SA 391 paragraph 104
34
Ibid 26; Para [144]
35
Dated March 16, 2003 by Futhi Ntshingila
17
Report
Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (PEPUDA)

Section 6 of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000
(PEPUDA) contains a general prohibition of unfair discrimination and Section 7 (b) specifically
prohibits such discrimination on the basis of race, including “the engagement in any activity which
is intended to promote, or has the effect of promoting, exclusivity, based on race”. Section 7 (c)
furthermore prohibits racial discrimination if it is at “the exclusion of persons of a particular race
group under any rule or practice that appears to be legitimate but which is actually aimed at
maintaining exclusive control by a particular race group”.
The Constitutional Court

The Constitutional Court formulated its equality jurisprudence over a number of years into a
three-stage enquiry. According to that enquiry, one needs to determine that when people are treated
differently if it is mere differentiation or discrimination. If the discrimination is not done in terms
of Section 9(2)36 of the Bill of Rights but instead on listed ground, found in Section 9(3) of the Bill
of Rights37 then the discrimination is presumed to be unfair discrimination (until otherwise proven)
because it may potentially “impose burdens on people who have been victims of past patterns of
discrimination or will impair the fundamental dignity of those affected.”38
At the Pension Lawyers Conference in Cape Town in 1998,39 Justice O’Regan noted that “…we
have entrenched equality in our Constitution, not simply because we fear that individuals may be
treated differentially, but because we recognise that group membership in our society has improperly
become a determinant of advantage and disadvantage. The primary purpose of our equality legislation
is to combat and prevent such patterns of disadvantage. It is whether differentiation is likely to or
will lead to such patterns of disadvantage that should be the primary determinant of whether it is
inappropriate or not.” 40
Applications for enclosures

According to a presentation made to the Commission, the City of Johannesburg policy on Security
Access Restrictions41 has made provision for previously disadvantaged areas applying for security
access restrictions, to request that their application fees be reduced or waived. The contention of
those in favour of boom gates was therefore that applications for security access restrictions could
not be deemed discriminatory to underprivileged areas.
Counterarguments suggested that although such a waiver may be possible, less affluent or
underprivileged areas were not in a financial position to erect or maintain such enclosures. In
addition, the geographical layouts of many townships simply do not make booms or road closures
practical or possible. From a social perspective, poorer communities are less likely to apply for road
closures. The evidence provided by the JRA indeed indicated that the overwhelming majority of
applications originated from the northern suburbs of Johannesburg.
36
Section 9(2) allows the State to take legislative measures to protect and advance persons or categories of persons
37
“The state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including
race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion,
conscience, belief, culture, language and birth.”
38
“The Bill of Rights Handbook” By De Waal, Currie and Erasmus - Third Edition; Page 198
39
“The Achievement of Equality: A New Challenge for Retirement Funds”
40
See: http://www.pensionlawyers.co.za/downloads/files/13082003_hschooling_pres.ppt
41
“An applicant may petition reduction and waiver of specified fees, together with the submission for application.
This will be accommodated in communities where it can be demonstrated that it is not affordable to pay such fees.”
18
Report
4.5 The Right to Privacy
The Right to Privacy states that:
”Everyone has the right to privacy, which includes the right not to have-
(a) their person or home searched;
(b) their property searched;
(c) their possessions seized; or
(d) the privacy of their communications infringed.”
The right to privacy was used to justify both arguments for and against road closures. Infringements
on the person’s right to privacy occurs when arbitrary searches are conducted at security access
points, as well as having to divulge personal information to security guards. Differing arguments
suggest that the right to privacy should be extended to cover the eventuality of criminal activities
occurring in homes where enclosures are not allowed, and therefore may be construed as an
infringement of the right. Privacy is not an absolute right and can be limited in terms of the
limitation clause. A requirement to satisfy this provision is that the action infringing a human right
is done in terms of a law of general application. At that point it is noteworthy that the private
security industry does not confer upon its workforce the power or authority of search and seizures.
Constitutional Argument
Constitutional arguments presented to the Commission cited Mistry v Interim Medical & Dental
Council of SA42 in which the Constitutional Court considered the following when finding whether
the right to privacy had been violated:
• whether the information was obtained in an intrusive manner;

• whether it was about intimate aspects of a person’s life;
• whether it involved information provided by the person which was then used for another

purpose; and
• whether it was disseminated to the press or general public or to persons from whom the
person could reasonably expect such private information would be withheld.
It was argued that personal details such as name, identity number and vehicle registration number
could not be considered as private information. Furthermore, the information requested at security
access points were not obtained in an intrusive manner and was not used for ulterior purposes.
Contrary arguments suggested that disclosing such information to strangers (security guards) was
indeed an infringement on people’s right to privacy. A further concern was whether such information
could be used for ill gain outside the scope of its apparent purpose.
42
1998 (4) SA 1127 (CC)
19
Report
4.6 Political Rights and Freedom of Trade, Occupation and Profession
Political Rights states that:
“ (1) Every citizen is free to make political choices, which includes the right-
(a) to form a political party;
(b) to participate in the activities of, or recruit members for, a political
party; and
(c) to campaign for a political party or cause.
(2) Every citizen has the right to free, fair and regular elections for any
legislative body established in terms of the Constitution.
(3) Every adult citizen has the right-
(a) to vote in elections for any legislative body established in terms
of the Constitution, and to do so in secret; and
(b) to stand for public office and, if elected, to hold office.”
Freedom of Trade, Occupation and Profession states that:
“Every citizen has the right to choose their trade, occupation or profession
freely. The practice of a trade, occupation or profession may be regulated by
law.”
The constitutional provisions for political rights and freedom of trade, occupation and profession
were raised to a lesser extent in submissions received.
The concern was raised that if members of political parties were denied access to certain suburbs,
it would amount to a prima facie violation of their right to participate in the activities of, or recruit
members for a political party, as provided for by the Bill of Rights.
The right to choose a trade, occupation or profession could be infringed upon when persons are
denied access to seeking employment at residences in enclosed suburbs, or when hawkers are not
allowed to sell their goods there. Access restriction would also negatively affect businesses located
within enclosures, even if business owners did not support these security initiatives. Customers
would avoid these businesses because they would not be easily accessible.
The following arguments were presented to the Commission to justify enclosures in relation to
Political Rights and Freedom of Trade, Occupation and Profession:
• If residents needed gardeners, for example, they could leave the tools required for the job
at the entrance to the enclosure and the security guard could direct the job seeker accordingly
– this apparently would prevent persons from wondering these areas unnecessarily.
• Hawkers or door-to-door sales persons should not be allowed to ply their trade anywhere
and at any time, and by ringing doorbells they were invading the privacy of residents.
• Businesses within such enclosures were intended for the benefit of the residents in the
respective enclosures.
• Business owners in enclosures do not have a constitutional right to economic activity, as it
is not specifically provided for in the final Constitution.
The Commission feels that these arguments neglected to address critical issues such as social
integration, poverty alleviation and the attainment of equality.
20
Report
4.7 Limitation of Rights
Limitation of Rights states that:
“The rights in the Bill of Rights may be limited only in terms of law of general
application to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an
open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom,
taking into account all relevant factors, including-(a) the nature of the right;(b)
the importance of the purpose of the limitation;(c) the nature and extent of the
limitation;(d) the relation between the limitation and its purpose; and(e) less
restrictive means to achieve the purpose. Except as provided in subsection (1)
or in any provision of the Constitution, no law may limit any right entrenched in
the Bill of Rights.”
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and bestows upon everyone fundamental rights
and freedoms, which are enforceable but not absolute. Rights and freedoms are not exercised in
isolation but within a context. This means that they have the potential to affect or restrict other
persons from exercising their constitutional rights. Limitations of such rights are therefore necessary
to ensure that a balance of interests is achieved.
4.7.1 Application of the Limitations
A ‘law of general application’ means that the law must be applied equally, and must not be arbitrary
or aimed at specific individuals. For the purpose of examining the limitation of rights, this Report
will assume that the Act allows for all persons or group of persons to make such an application in
the interest of safety and security, provided certain criteria are met. To satisfy the second part of
the enquiry, it must be shown that the law of general application is reasonable in an open, democratic
society based on human dignity, equality and freedom. In S v Makwanyane the Constitutional Court

developed its jurisprudence through identifying whether a limitation is legitimate or not. We will
now deal with the factors to be considered using this methodology.
4.7.2 The Nature of the Right43
“The proportionality enquiry required by Section 36 [Limitation of Rights] involves the weighing
up the harm done by a law – the infringement of the fundamental right – against the benefits that
the law seeks to achieve – the reasons for the law, or the purpose of the law.” 44
The Act, which allows roads to be closed by private individuals, infringes predominantly in practice,
on the rights to freedom of movement, equality and human dignity.
It is evident that the Constitution as well as the Constitutional Court places great value on the rights
to equality and human dignity. Therefore any law that limits these rights should meet the limitation
criteria set out in the Constitution.
43
Section 36 (1)(a) if the Bill of Rights
44
The Bill of Rights Handbook, Third Edition 2000 by De Waal, Currie and Erasmus, Page 144
21
Report
4.7.3 The Importance of the Purpose of the Limitation45
“...Reasonableness requires the limitation of a right to serve some purpose. Justifiability requires
that purpose to be one that is worthwhile and important in a constitutional democracy.” 46
A JRA representative explained at the hearings that the City’s policy is in response to the said Act,
as it provides that all applications for security access restrictions will be considered. If one has to
consider an application, there must be an avenue to approve or disapprove the application, therefore
a policy was necessary. The City by admission would have preferred not to have the policy at all,
and does not encourage such measures for security purposes.
The rights that the limitation puports to protect are those to freedom and security of person and
life. This argument presupposes that road closures/boom gates do in fact protect individuals
within such enclosures from violent crime, which threaten their lives and physical integrity. From
the submissions received and presentations made in support of such security measures, no conclusive
evidence exists as to the effect of closures on crime levels.
Concerns have been raised that people residing within enclosed neighbourhoods might become
complacent and run the risk of being less observant of their surroundings. It is worth mentioning
that submissions were made to the Commission indicating that many enclosures have opted to use
community policing forums in conjunction with road closures.
Parties submitted that if the purpose of boom gates is to monitor the activities of people entering
and exiting the enclosure, and the purpose of road closures is to limit the amount of escape routes
for criminals, the efficiency of the security method was still dubious given the nature of organised
crime in South Africa. Furthermore it has been submitted by parties opposing road closures/
boom gates that such enclosures only displaced crime to other areas outside the enclosures and
therefore were not addressing the core of crime as a local, provincial or national problem.
4.7.4 The Nature and Extent of the Limitation47
Proportionality requires a weighing up of the harm done by depriving people of their rights to
freedom of movement (given South Africa’s historical context), equality and human dignity, against
affording other people the rights to freedom and security of the person and life.
“This assessment is a necessary part of the proportionality enquiry because proportionality means
that the infringement of rights should not be more extensive than is warranted by the purpose that
the limitation seeks to achieve.” 48
The limitation imposed by the Gauteng Local Rationalisation of Government Affairs Act has far-reaching
consequences on urban functionality, traffic, road maintenance and socio-economics. It was argued
that movement in the entire City could be impacted if large areas were closed and blocked off.
Enclosures restrict access to public facilities such as schools, parks and shopping centres. It has
adverse effects on traffic flows, especially when traffic is diverted to arterial roads. Roads within
enclosures are under utilised, and this leads to road surface deterioration. As previously mentioned,
45
Section 36(1)(b) of the Bill of Rights
46
Ibid: Page 145
47
Section 36 (1)(c) of The Bill of Rights
48
22
Report
emergency services as well as other services such as water, electricity, Telkom SA and refuse trucks
amongst others, find it problematic to enter and exit such enclosures. Longer distances are travelled
and detours are necessary as a result of the limited access points. Minibus taxis are especially
prohibited from entering the enclosed suburbs yet they transport 72% of public transport users –
some people have admitted that they view minibus taxis as potentially threatening to their safety
and security and as responsible for criminal activities in the area. Socio-economic issues should be
considered, for example property values within enclosures usually increase but have an adverse
effect on property prices of houses in surrounding residential areas without enclosures.
4.7.5 The Relation between the Limitation and its Purpose48
“...There must be proportionality between the harm done by the infringement and the beneficial
purpose that the law is meant to achieve.” 49
In terms of the constitutional provision everyone has the right to be free of all forms of violence.
This right places a positive obligation on the State and requires that it protect individuals from all
forms of violence either by restraint or discouragement. Unfortunately the State’s law enforcement
has not been successful in protecting individuals from violence and as a last resort municipalities
have conceded to approving applications to enclose neighbourhoods.
The effect on crime levels

According to criminologist Carina Coetzer50 six crime trends have increased between 1994 and
2000 in enclosed suburbs. Examples include housebreaking at residential premises (increased by
3.4%), robbery (up by 18.5%) and robbery with aggravating circumstances (up by 11.06%).
The United Nations International Crime Victims Survey (ICVS) conducted surveys in 11 Sub-
Saharan African countries using the same methodology each time. These surveys show that South
Africa’s crime rates are not much different from its counterparts, yet South Africans and Lesotho’s
citizens have the highest fear of crime.

A 2003 Institute for Security Studies (ISS) national victim survey revealed that 58% of South
Africans felt very unsafe at night, while 10% said they felt very safe at night. The Human Sciences
Research Council (HSRC) found that in 1994 about 75% of South Africans felt safe, but this
number decreased to 44% in 2000.
Fear of crime, according to the ISS 2003 survey, is more prevalent among minority groups such as
Indians and whites. This fear of crime apparently stems from the fact that our Constitution has
many provisions in the Bill of Rights for the protection of arrested, detained and sentenced persons.
Yet the law does not seemingly equally protect ordinary citizens, and this contributes to feelings of
insecurity and fear.51
48
Section 36(1)(d) of the Bill of Rights
49
50
Carina Coetzer (MA Criminology) - Crime Information Analysis Centre, South African Police Service in “Crime
Prevention in Neighbourhoods” 2004: Page 2 at No. 3. “The development of enclosed neighbourhoods and security
villages”. Page 1
51
Prof. Beaty Naudé in “Can Public Road Closures Reduce Crime Effectively?” 2003, Pages 1 to 4.
23
Report
Are road closures and boom gates effective in preventing crime?

No statistics could be found to prove or disprove the effect road closures and boom gates have on
the crime rate.
• Individuals residing in gated communities are generally of the opinion that the access controls
are serving their purpose and have provided the Commission with extensive statistics showing
the decrease in criminal activity in established and long standing enclosures.
• A submission from the Tshwane Metropolitan Police indicated that such access restrictions
only prevented petty or opportunistic crimes and were not effective in combating violent or
serious crimes.
• Submissions made on behalf of the City of Johannesburg recognised the fact that in some
instances in restricted areas, factual information from the South African Police Services
(SAPS) indicated an increase in crime levels.
• The SAPS do not keep crime statistics for specific enclosures although it was pointed out
that recent statistics released by the SAPS indicated a decline in violent crimes (except rape),
but did not address whether road closures are effective.
4.7.6 Less Restrictive Means to Achieve the Purpose52
“The limitation will not be proportionate if other means could be employed to achieve the same
ends that will either not restrict rights at all, or will not restrict them to the same extent.” 53
Alternative measures
The Act makes provision for applications for enclosures to be approved only as a last resort to curb
crime in a specific area. It has been submitted that these measures have not been motivated for the
purpose of safety and security alone. Factors such as increased property values, quieter suburbs and
less traffic have also motivated applications for enclosures. Some have submitted that property
prices increased by more than 20% once the enclosure was in place. Furthermore, short term
insurance companies offered residents within particular types of enclosures between 25% and 30%
reduction in their premiums.
The Act does provide for less restrictive measures in terms of the policy but according to the JRA
no applications have been received for such measures.
The policy states that security restrictions, in accordance with the Act (Chapter 7) are supported
only as a short-term solution to combating crime. The policy proposes long-term solutions, such
as encouraging the public to take reasonable measures to protect itself, and by discouraging crime
in various ways.
According to the City of Johannesburg’s Development Unit, areas where the community supports
the police are much less likely to request closures. The community works with the police in so-
called ‘sector policing’, which they say has proven to work effectively. This also allows communities
to be pro-active in crime prevention. The unit has developed a safety strategy for the city as a
medium to long-term solution to crime.
52
Section 36 (1)(e) of the Bill of Rights
53
24
Report
Regulating road closures

A shortcoming of the regulatory policy for road closures is that it has no monitoring or enforcement
provisions for non-compliance with the Act. There are no prescribed penalties for non-compliance,
which could then be argued as a result that non-compliance to the statutory terms is not unlawful.
The JRA conceded that monitoring the enclosures could be problematic because resources would
have to be relocated from roads in less urbanised areas to more affluent areas, where they have to
police proper management of closed roads.
The use of closed circuit television (CCTV) was examined briefly in the hearing. Some conceded
that this option was less intrusive and not very expensive to implement (more than that of the
enclosure) but raised concerns as to who would be employed to do the monitoring. A chairperson
for a particular closure explained that to get such a system working effectively would be quite a
challenge but he was willing to investigate the possibility.
eThekwini Municipality
The eThekwini Municipality in Durban operates in terms of Section 209 of the Local Authorities
Ordinance 25 of 1974 which allows the local authority to act in the best interests of the public,
provided that its actions do not result in the “deprivation or substantial deprivation of the public
of the enjoyment of its right in, or to any public street or public place”. This municipality submitted
that less restrictive measures do exist, and can be effective in addressing crime. eThekwini drew up
a management plan in relation to its Safer City strategy that does not allow for the erection of any
device which obstructs the public roadway completely or partially in the area of jurisdiction.
Applications for security measures in residential areas will only be considered on Class 5 roads.54
The management plan allows for a guard that may be occupied by one person who will then
monitor access, but may not stop or search any person and vehicle or request or collect names
and/or vehicle registration numbers. Any other additional traffic calming measures, whether
temporary or permanent will not be permitted.55 Service providers and essential services may not
be restricted from entering such areas and the guardhouses must be erected in accordance with the
national building regulations. Furthermore, a set of forms have been designed in order to assist the
council in making an informed decision about such applications, which are only valid for six months

if approved. Any complaints received must be addressed immediately and failure to remedy the
problem within the designated time will render the application null and void.
54
Class 5 roads are residential access roads
55
According to the eThekwini Municipality representative speed humps was not supported by traffic engineers
because the council has been sued for the damage they were causing cars
25
Report
5. FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Commission does not generally support the use of boom gates and gated communities.
The Commission is of the view that based on the information it has, these measures cause
social division, dysfunctional cities and lead to the further polarisation of our society. In
addition, the proposed benefits they bring by way of enhanced safety and security are in
doubt and the subject of considerable debate. It has been demonstrated that such enhanced
safety and security is possible through the use of alternate means.
2. The Commission finds that the use of road closures/boom gates has the potential to and
does indeed in practice violate a number of rights as indicated in the Report. While such
infringement of rights in most instances occurs in violation of the policy of the local
authority, there was no indication that the use of road closures/boom gates was widely
supported. Evidence remains inconclusive that the use of alternative measures for safety
and security reasons has been sufficiently explored.
3. The Commission takes cognisance of the fact that legislation such as the Gauteng Local
Rationailsation of Government Affairs Act 10 of 1998 does indeed provide for access restrictions,
including road closures. It also notes with concern that notwithstanding the existence of
relatively strict conditions normally attached to an approved closure (eg. a commitment to
free and unhindered access) there was considerable evidence of non-compliance with such
conditions coupled with an inability (due mainly to capacity and practical difficulties) to
effectively monitor compliance. The consequence accordingly was that a breach or non-
compliance with such conditions (meant to act as safeguards) was not visited with any
sanction or adverse consequence.
4. Responding effectively to the phenomena of crime and violence does indeed require closer
co-operation between the State and citizens, and therefore the Commission encourages
continued community efforts in liaison with the authorities, to make communities safer.
More resources for policing, greater police presence and visibility, effective community
police forums and effective police response to the needs of the community will all contribute
to making a difference.
5. The Commission, even though satisfied that a legal basis does exist for security access
restrictions, including boom gates and road closures, urges local authorities and communities
to consider and exhaust alternate access restrictions, including guards and guard houses,
traffic calming measures and closed circuit television.
26
Report
6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Commission wishes to extend its thanks to the public for responding so enthusiastically to our
announcement of this project and to those who were able to contribute and participate in the
hearings. The following persons should be acknowledged for their contributions to our Inquiry:
1. Mr. Bob Stanway, Clr. Gail Daus, Ms. Nazira Cachalia from City of Johannesburg
2. Mr. Mavela Dlamini, Mr. Frikkie Smit, Mr. Liam Clarke, Mr. Kobus Oberholzer, Adv. Thulani
Makhubela from Johannesburg Roads Agency
3. Mrs. Pat Redford, Mr. James Morgan from Combined Chairpersons Committee for Road
Closures
4. Mrs. Lekha Alopi, Ms. Soobs Moonsammy, Ms. Vaneshree Munsami, Ms. Nokhana Moeranel
from eThekwini Municipality
5. Mr. Nick Karvelas from Open City Forum
6. Mr. Boyane Tshehla from Institute for Security Studies
7. Mr. R. Meisel from Dowerglen 3 Residents Association
8. Mr. Stefan Badenhorst from Private Security Regulatory Authority
9. Mr. S. Anderson from Emergency Management Services
10. Dr. J.P du Plessis from Wilgers Security Village
11. Mr. Jaco Lubbe from Montanapark Crime Prevention Forum
12. Ms. Laurie Vogt from Marion Place Closure
13. Dr. I.C Potgieter from Waterkloof Heights Estate
14. Dr. R.D Bigalke from Committee for Establishment of Brooklyn Circle Enclosed Village
15. Prof. Michael Hough from University of Pretoria (Institute for Strategic Studies)
16. Mr. Fred Bisschoff, Mr. Bart Zaayman from Dalpark Homeowners Association

17. Mr. Maddocks from Hurlingham Manor
18. Dr. D.G Catton from Rivonia Valley Residents Association
19. Mrs. S MacFarlane from Brits Close Residents Association
20. Mr. Bill Crichton from Robin Road Security Association
21. Mr. Colin McDonald from Edenvale Community Police Forum
22. Ms. Renee Rabie from Hyde Park Residents Association
23. Mr. Anesh Singh from Dunvegan Security Village
24. Ms. L. Scheepers from Midville Enclosure Committee
25. Mr. Roy Leahy from Cecil Bagley Residents Association
26. Ms. Janine Carstensen
27. Mr. Roger Day
28. Mr. Hanif Manjoo
29. Ms. Caroline Howes
30. Ms. Erica Tattersall
31. Adv. George Kairinos
32. Mr. Peter Elliott
33. Mr. Alistair Meyer
34. Ms. Fiona Keys
35. Mr. Dieter Stalmann
36. Ms. Christina de Klerk
37. Ms. Lesley East
27
Report
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
38. Mr. Frederick Ehlers

39. Mr. Louis de Villiers Roodt
40. Mr. Alex Bhiman
41. Mr. Jan Malan, Mr. Nick Pascoe from Street Safe
42. Mr. Kobus Gouws
43. Mr. Jan Linde
44. Mr. & Mrs. Johnson
45. Ms. Trish Armstrong
46. Mr. Booyens
47. Mr. Chalom
48. Mr. Allan Chennick
49. Mr. Bezuidenhout
50. Mr. Rodger Chadwick
51. Mr. Raymond Naidoo
52. Mr. Humphrey Mphatlehela
53. Ms. Tessa Elliott
54. Mr. Joshua Kruger
55. Mr. Willie van den Bergh
56. Mr. & Mrs. Mangelsdorf
57. Mr. Gideon van der Walt
58. Mr. R.P.J Verheijen
59. Mr. Peter Watermeyer
60. Dr. M.A. O’Neil
61. Mrs. B. Bullen-Smith
62. Mrs. W.A Schutte
Special thanks to our Legal Services Department, headed by Mr. G.J van Zyl, for overseeing this
project, engaging the public and handling all the necessary administrative tasks. Thanks to Ms
Monique Davis who assisted in ensuring that the hearings were properly co-ordinated and assisted
considerably in the preparation of this Report.
Finally, we wish to thank our in-house Media and Communications staff for their support throughout
this project.
28
Report

Human Rights Council Report On Gated Communities

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Human Rights Council Report On Gated Communities

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Human Rights Council Report On Gated Communities

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ________________________________________ 4

3. HUMAN RIGHTS INVOLVED ___________________________________ 10

4. ANALYSING THE HUMAN RIGHTS ______________________________ 11

Road Closures / Boom Gates

5. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ___________________________ 26

SAPS South African Police Service

ICVS Unites Nations International Crime Victims Survey

JRA Johannesburg Roads Agency

EMS Johannesburg Emergency Medical Services

PEPUDA Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair

SAHRC South African Human Rights Commission

ISS Institute for Security Studies

HSRC Human Sciences Research Council

The Act Gauteng Local Rationalisation of Government Affairs

The Commission The South African Human Rights Commission

The Policy The City of Johannesburg Security Access Restrictions Policy

Road Closures / Boom Gates

Road Closures / Boom Gates

Findings and Recommendations

2.1 The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC)

• To make recommendations to organs of State at all levels of government where it considers

Road Closures / Boom Gates

2.2 Purpose of the Enquiry

2.3 The Prevailing Legal and Factual Position in Gauteng

2.4 Security Access Restrictions

The purpose of the policy is:

Road Closures / Boom Gates

3.1 The Bill of Rights

• The right to equality.6

The Right to Life states that:

“Everyone has the right to life.”

The Right to Freedom and Security of the Person states that:

Road Closures / Boom Gates

Johannesburg’s Emergency Management Services (EMS) raised the following concerns:

4.1.1 The Contention that the Act is ultra vires

Road Closures / Boom Gates

Advocate Kairinos, who made submissions in support of enclosed neighbourhoods, responded to

(4) A provincial executive is responsible for policing functions-

4.2 The Freedom of Movement and Residence

The Freedom of Movement and Residence states that:

“ (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement.

It is in this context that the present use of security access

Road Closures / Boom Gates

being denied access to my own home. I believe the

Unlawfully operated road closures

The Johannesburg Roads Agency (JRA)

4.3 The Right to Human Dignity

The Right to Human Dignity states that:

4.4 The Right to Equality

The Right to Equality states that:

Road Closures / Boom Gates

Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (PEPUDA)

The Constitutional Court

Applications for enclosures

4.5 The Right to Privacy

The Right to Privacy states that:

• whether the information was obtained in an intrusive manner;