Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

The paper argues that while Gauteng's legislation provides a legal framework for restricting access to public spaces, the stringent requirements—specifically the prohibition of searching people or requesting personal information—render enclosed neighbourhoods ineffective for their intended security purposes.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • The creation of enclosed neighbourhoods in South Africa is generally illegal under the 1939 Ordinance and the 1987 Road Traffic Act, which require local authorities to keep public roads open and prohibit the erection of barricades.
  • Gauteng is the only province with enabling legislation, the Rationalisation of Local Government Affairs Act (10 of 1998), which allows municipalities to develop policies for restricting access to public spaces for safety and security.
  • The City of Johannesburg's policy requires high levels of community support for access restriction: the provincial Act requires two-thirds approval from affected persons, while the city policy mandates 80% approval.
  • Legislation in Gauteng prohibits security personnel at booms from searching vehicles or people, requesting personal information, or requiring visitors to complete registers; they are limited to monitoring and observing activity.
  • The author contends that the legal restrictions on security personnel make enclosed neighbourhoods practically useless for crime prevention, as guards cannot record entrants or stop suspicious vehicles.
  • The use of majority rule to determine the enclosure of a neighbourhood is described as constitutionally suspect because it can unilaterally change the nature of an individual property owner's environment.

Cite the original document

APA
Institute for Security Studies (2004). DO THE MEANS DEFEAT THE ENDS? https://issafrica.org/01-sep-2004-sacq-no-9/do-the-means-defeat-the-ends
Chicago
Institute for Security Studies. DO THE MEANS DEFEAT THE ENDS? 2004. https://issafrica.org/01-sep-2004-sacq-no-9/do-the-means-defeat-the-ends.
Wikipedia
{{cite report |author=Institute for Security Studies |title=DO THE MEANS DEFEAT THE ENDS? |date=1 September 2004 |url=https://issafrica.org/01-sep-2004-sacq-no-9/do-the-means-defeat-the-ends |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@techreport{instituteforsecuritystudies2004means, author = {{Institute for Security Studies}}, title = {{DO THE MEANS DEFEAT THE ENDS?}}, institution = {Institute for Security Studies}, year = {2004}, month = sep, url = {https://issafrica.org/01-sep-2004-sacq-no-9/do-the-means-defeat-the-ends}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated