It said that the crime prevention wardens, officially referred to as the Gauteng Traffic Wardens (GTWs), were lawfully established and designated as peace officers under national law.
The Gauteng Provincial Government has hit back at KwaZulu-Natal Provincial Commissioner, Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi, following his explosive claim that Premier Panyaza Lesufi’s Crime Prevention Wardens, popularly known as AmaPanyaza, are “illegal” and “should not exist under current laws.”
Speaking before Parliament’s Ad Hoc Committee investigating allegations of police corruption, Mkhwanazi said he had warned his counterparts that the establishment of the Gauteng crime-fighting unit violated national legislation governing policing structures.
“I said this is illegal. It is against the law, and the premier must be advised. He has got good intentions but it cannot be done. The law doesn’t allow it,” Mkhwanazi told the committee, adding that he had raised the matter during a Board of Commissioners (BOC) meeting earlier this year.
The remarks have reignited national debate over the legality and role of Lesufi’s flagship AmaPanyaza programme, which the Gauteng government launched in 2023 to supplement visible policing in high-crime areas.
In a strongly worded statement on Thursday, the Gauteng Provincial Government rejected Mkhwanazi’s assertions as “misleading” and “uninformed.”
It said that the crime prevention wardens, officially referred to as the Gauteng Traffic Wardens (GTWs), were lawfully established and designated as peace officers under national law.
“The Gauteng Provincial Government notes recent allegations concerning the legality of the Gauteng Traffic Wardens following testimony by Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi,” the statement read. “We reject the assertion that the formation of these wardens is illegal.”
Premier Lesufi said the programme was not a parallel police force but a cooperative effort to bolster safety and combat crime in South Africa’s most populous province.
“In December 2023, the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services, Mr. Ronald Lamola, officially designated the Crime Prevention Wardens as Peace Officers in terms of Section 334 of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1977,” Lesufi said. “This legal designation granted them the same legal status as Gauteng traffic officers.”
Lesufi said the initiative was founded on constitutional principles of cooperative governance, which require national and provincial governments to “cooperate in mutual trust and good faith.”
He stressed that the wardens were established to assist the South African Police Service (SAPS), not to replace or undermine it.
“The Traffic Wardens were created to support the SAPS in their duties,” Lesufi said. “This was in response to a dire police-to-citizen ratio—one police officer for every 541 residents—in a province with nearly 16 million people and growing.”
He explained that the provincial government explored a policing model used successfully in other provinces, allowing local law enforcement structures to operate in collaboration with SAPS under legal authority and supervision.
“The Gauteng Government had always understood, even at the conceptual stage, that a legal pathway existed through Section 334(1)(a), which empowers the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services to confer peace officer status on any person by virtue of their office,” Lesufi said.
Lesufi pointed to other provincially funded law enforcement initiatives—such as the Western Cape’s Law Enforcement Advancement Plan (LEAP)—as evidence that decentralised, cooperative policing models were both legal and effective.
“The policing landscape in South Africa already demonstrates that decentralised structures with limited powers can coexist with the SAPS,” he said. “The Traffic Warden programme follows a similar cooperative framework.”
Lesufi added that the wardens were focused on township, informal settlement, and hostel (TISH) communities where high crime rates and slow police response times demanded urgent intervention.
“In these areas, the wardens provide visible policing, improved response times, and localised crime prevention strategies,” he explained.
Lesufi dismissed Mkhwanazi’s characterisation of AmaPanyaza as “illegal,” saying it ignored both constitutional provisions and formal designations by the national government.
“The Traffic Wardens are a legitimate, legally designated unit established out of necessity and in the spirit of cooperative governance,” he said. “Characterising them as illegal distorts the facts and undermines the constitutional duty of the province to protect its residents.”
He added that the Gauteng government continues to engage with national departments to finalise operational protocols that will enhance the wardens’ contribution to public safety.
“The impressive work done by the Gauteng Traffic Wardens as peace officers under SAPS supervision proves that structured cooperation is possible,” Lesufi said. “This model allows SAPS to be supported without being replaced.”
As tensions simmer between the Gauteng and KwaZulu-Natal provincial leaderships, the controversy has spotlighted broader questions about the boundaries of provincial policing powers—and whether South Africa’s security framework can adapt to the country’s growing safety demands without overstepping constitutional lines.
