The announcement by Gauteng Premier, Panyaza Lesufi, that the Crime Prevention Wardens (often referred to as the “AmaPanyaza”) will now be reassigned and retrained as traffic officers is both a recognition of failure and a stark demonstration of mismanagement in the province’s approach to public safety.
Whist ActionSA welcomes any attempt to bolster safety structures, the timing, logic and legacy of this programme raise serious concerns, not least of which was political and administrative.
In his response to the Legislature, Premier Lesufi, indicated that in December 2023, the then-Minister of Justice and Correctional Services, Ronald Lamola, officially designated the Crime Prevention Wardens as peace officers in terms of Section 334 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1977. This designation would, in the Government’s view, grant them the same legal status as provincial traffic officers.
However, the reliability of this legal pathway is heavily contested. Lt. Gen. Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi, the KwaZulu-Natal Provincial Commissioner of the South African Police Service (SAPS), told Parliament that the unit “is illegal”, arguing it was not properly sanctioned under the Police Act. The government, however, still insists the unit is lawfully constituted and operating under cooperative governance.
Being designated as peace officers is only one step. Legal status alone does not guarantee that training, accreditation, mandate clarity, supervision, equipment or operational protocols are in place. The confusion and dispute over legality and their role all point to systemic governance weaknesses.
The idea behind the wardens was noble: to support the SAPS, improve visible policing in underserved communities (townships, informal settlements, hostels) and relieve pressure on traditional police resources. The programme created jobs and offered opportunities for young people to engage in frontline public safety work.
However, with the unit’s mandate and powers not clearly defined, there has been persistent ambiguity about what the wardens may or may not lawfully do. Reports suggest the wardens were not adequately trained for crime-fighting functions, nor fully equipped for deployment in high-risk environments. Oversight and coordination with SAPS were weak and resulted in wardens being haplessly attacked by criminals as they operated in dangerous situations without proper backup, recourse or protection.
The public dispute over whether the unit is lawful undermined confidence in its operations. When senior police officials raise the alarm, it signals governance failure.
The abrupt shift to retrain them as traffic officers, signals that the original crime-prevention model did not deliver what had been promised. The “reassignment” acknowledges the model failed to meet expectations.
ActionSA calls on the Gauteng government to:
- Establish a fully independent audit of the programme: number of wardens recruited, trained, accredited; job descriptions and powers; equipment issued; incidents/deployments; coordination protocols with SAPS and municipalities.
- Provide clarity on the reassignment plan. Which wardens will qualify to become traffic officers? What training will they receive? What will happen to those who don’t qualify? What oversight mechanisms will govern the newly trained officers?
- Publish transparent timelines and resource allocation. The shift cannot be a mere relabelling. If the provincial government is serious, it must publish budgets, training curriculums, accreditations and oversight frameworks.
- Take Accountability for this failure: The original roll-out of “AmaPanyaza” must be reviewed and those who are found to have been responsible for its failure must face consequences.
- Engage communities: Residents and civil society must be part of designing how these officers operate. That will ensure legitimacy, trust and effectiveness.
The Gazette of this announcement should not be the end of the story – it must be the turning point. The people of Gauteng deserve both lawfully empowered and well-trained frontline officers, not a programme that makes headlines for the wrong reasons.
A change in title does not automatically fix years of weak implementation and ineptitude. The provincial government must honour its responsibility to deliver public safety that is effective, lawful and sustainable.
ActionSA will closely monitor the implementation of this transition closely and hold the government to account. The promise of safer streets cannot be reduced to slogans – real work, clear governance and measurable outcomes are required.
Disbandment of Gauteng Crime Prevention Wardens a Demonstration of Government’s Failure to Curb Crime
The announcement by Gauteng Premier, Panyaza Lesufi, that the Crime Prevention Wardens (often referred to as the “AmaPanyaza”) will now be reassigned and retrained as traffic officers is both a recognition of failure and a stark demonstration of mismanagement in the province’s approach to public safety.
Whist ActionSA welcomes any attempt to bolster safety structures, the timing, logic and legacy of this programme raise serious concerns, not least of which was political and administrative.
In his response to the Legislature, Premier Lesufi, indicated that in December 2023, the then-Minister of Justice and Correctional Services, Ronald Lamola, officially designated the Crime Prevention Wardens as peace officers in terms of Section 334 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1977. This designation would, in the Government’s view, grant them the same legal status as provincial traffic officers.
However, the reliability of this legal pathway is heavily contested. Lt. Gen. Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi, the KwaZulu-Natal Provincial Commissioner of the South African Police Service (SAPS), told Parliament that the unit “is illegal”, arguing it was not properly sanctioned under the Police Act. The government, however, still insists the unit is lawfully constituted and operating under cooperative governance.
Being designated as peace officers is only one step. Legal status alone does not guarantee that training, accreditation, mandate clarity, supervision, equipment or operational protocols are in place. The confusion and dispute over legality and their role all point to systemic governance weaknesses.
The idea behind the wardens was noble: to support the SAPS, improve visible policing in underserved communities (townships, informal settlements, hostels) and relieve pressure on traditional police resources. The programme created jobs and offered opportunities for young people to engage in frontline public safety work.
However, with the unit’s mandate and powers not clearly defined, there has been persistent ambiguity about what the wardens may or may not lawfully do. Reports suggest the wardens were not adequately trained for crime-fighting functions, nor fully equipped for deployment in high-risk environments. Oversight and coordination with SAPS were weak and resulted in wardens being haplessly attacked by criminals as they operated in dangerous situations without proper backup, recourse or protection.
The public dispute over whether the unit is lawful undermined confidence in its operations. When senior police officials raise the alarm, it signals governance failure.
The abrupt shift to retrain them as traffic officers, signals that the original crime-prevention model did not deliver what had been promised. The “reassignment” acknowledges the model failed to meet expectations.
ActionSA calls on the Gauteng government to:
The Gazette of this announcement should not be the end of the story – it must be the turning point. The people of Gauteng deserve both lawfully empowered and well-trained frontline officers, not a programme that makes headlines for the wrong reasons.
A change in title does not automatically fix years of weak implementation and ineptitude. The provincial government must honour its responsibility to deliver public safety that is effective, lawful and sustainable.
ActionSA will closely monitor the implementation of this transition closely and hold the government to account. The promise of safer streets cannot be reduced to slogans – real work, clear governance and measurable outcomes are required.