Watching the watchers — the Mother City’s expanding surveillance network demands voyeurism scrutiny

Cape Town’s multi-million rand surveillance grid aims to ensure safer streets, but concerns over privacy and data protection persist. Mayor Geordin Hill-Lewis unveiled new policing and aerial surveillance units on October 7th, promising the city would go to great lengths to build its resources and powers. However, the question arises as to whether these measures truly enhance safety or infringe upon citizens' liberties.

The city’s expanded surveillance network includes a dedicated aviation unit with drones equipped with thermal and zoom cameras, joining the existing CCTV network, body-worn cameras, and automatic number-plate readers. The feeds from these devices are consolidated in a Joint Policing Services Operational Centre, with the justification for their use evolving alongside technological advancements.

While the cameras may deter crime, they also raise questions about their broader implications. Capetonians may have consented to the installation of surveillance equipment, but it is crucial to consider whether everyone in the frame shares this consent. The ease of installing cameras does not constitute valid consent for everyone being observed.

Despite the city’s claims of enhanced safety, a different perspective emerges. South Africa has long grappled with crime, with only 37.9% of people feeling safe walking alone after dark, according to the 2025/26 Statistics South Africa survey. Fear has become a common curfew, preventing individuals from exercising their freedom, even in the absence of official announcements.

The effectiveness of surveillance in preventing crime is also questionable. While the city reported 41,005 incidents detected and 541 arrests in the year ending June 2026, it is essential to question the meaning of an "incident," the correlation between arrests and convictions, and the extent to which such crimes were prevented. The true value of such surveillance lies in its ability to prevent crimes, rather than merely increasing the number of cameras and detections.

Moreover, the potential misuse of surveillance technology cannot be ignored. During the immigration protests of June 30th, officers streamed live body-camera footage to the City’s operations centre, augmenting drone and CCTV feeds. While such technology may be necessary to protect demonstrators and respond to violence, it also raises concerns about the potential for unlawful surveillance and the sharing of footage beyond its intended purpose.

South Africa must address these questions seriously, as the apartheid Security Branch had the capability to collect information on political opponents and maintain files on organizations it wanted to suppress. Although the current surveillance network does not resemble that apparatus, it is essential to acknowledge its potential dangers and the need for effective oversight to prevent abuse.

Ultimately, democracy alone cannot shield citizens from official misconduct. The history of surveillance abuse serves as a reminder of the importance of maintaining a critical perspective on these technologies and ensuring that they serve the public good, rather than infringing upon individual liberties.