[imagesource:deviantart]

Not to be upstaged by their ‘more equal’ VIP colleagues in Parliament, the Johannesburg council has voted in favour of a policy to allow councillors easy access to bodyguards.

The ‘adjusted’ VIP Risk Management System will now allow each of the 270 councillors and other committee members access to two VIP security guards without needing an SA Police Service (SAPS) risk assessment.

This additional perk will cost the Joburg taxpayers over R54,294.29 per protector per month.

The Johannesburg council has enhanced its security measures since Rand Water executive Teboho Joala was murdered at a school donation drive in Zakariyya Park on 29 January.

The event was held to donate uniforms and school shoes to pupils, but, before it began, gunmen stormed the stage where Joala was speaking to the children and fatally shot him. His bodyguard was also killed, while Johannesburg council chief whip Sithembiso Zungu was wounded by a stray bullet.

Zungu attended council for the first time on 20 March, when the new VIP protection policy was passed with 126 votes for and 68 against.

The council chamber is ordinarily open for residents, however, on 20 March only invited guests could attend and they had to have their IDs scrutinised.

The amended policy was debated at a February council meeting where many councillors said that they no longer felt safe when attending to their public duties.

Before the policy was tabled, the first draft was seen by the council’s safety committee members, who took issue with it because it stated that there would be no additional cost to allowing councillors access to VIP protection as this violated “upper limits” regulations –  a determination of maximum salaries, allowances and benefits of different members of municipal councils.

The Tools of Trade portion of the law stipulates that only the mayor, deputy, speaker and whip are entitled to two bodyguards. All other councillors have access to personal security only after being subjected to a threat and risk analysis conducted by the SAPS.

On 5 March, a draft of the policy was run through the Section 79 Public Safety Committee meeting, but all its members – including ANC councillors who form part of the Government of Local Unity (GLU, a coalition between the ANC, EFF and Patriotic Alliance) – rejected it.

It was rejected because it violated the Upper Limits regulations and because it states: “There is no financial implication to this report”.

Not everyone was happy with the new policy, and the DA raised its objection through caucus leader Belinda Kayser-Echeozonjoku, who said the party was writing to the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs about the policy as an “illegal, irregular decision passed in council”.

“We’re not sure how it came through to the council. Our view is that the policy is to ratify decisions already made. But it is not correct – there will be more financial implications. The City wants to spend more money on public office bearers when it is facing a water crisis.”

EFF councillor Saseka Zitha however said that the policy “underscored the EFF’s unwavering commitment to safeguarding the wellbeing of distinguished VIPs”.

Distinguished VIPs naturally only include people affiliated with a political party. Remember, although all animals are equal, some are more equal than others.

Once the policy was passed, DA councillor Leah Knott asked Council Speaker Margaret Arnolds to note the party’s dissent. She told the council that councillors were only exempt from an unlawful decision if their vote against the unlawful decision was registered. ActionSA then also noted its dissent.

As the less-equal suckers at the pointy end of violent crime in South Africa, we would also like to register our dissent.

[source:news24]