The Public Protector’s ruling declaring the AmaPanyaza crime-prevention wardens “irregular and unlawful” has been seized upon by predictable political actors to discredit the entire initiative. But this response ignores the reality on the ground: the AmaPanyaza programme was born out of necessity, delivered visible safety benefits in many communities, and — rather than being scrapped — should be refined, legally formalised and improved.

Instead of asking, “What went wrong?”, opportunistic critics are asking, “How can we weaponise this for political gain?” The debate must shift back to public safety — not party strategy.

Gauteng is a province that lives under daily assault: hijackings, extortion, informal settlement crime, smash-and-grab hotspots, and overloaded police resources. It is an open secret that SAPS alone cannot effectively police every street and every risk zone.

AmaPanyaza filled critical gaps by:

• Increasing visible deterrent presence in high-risk communities
  
  

• Providing fast localised response before incidents escalate
  
  

• Acting as eyes and ears for overstretched SAPS
  
  

• Building community interface and intelligence gathering
  
  

To reduce this to a mere “jobs project” is dishonest. Communities felt a difference.

The outcry is not purely about governance law; it is also about scoring political points against the Gauteng Premier. Opposition parties have framed the programme as “illegal”, “populist” and “patronage-driven” — without acknowledging its operational necessity.

If this exact same model had been introduced by a party they support, the narrative would be different.

Safety should never become a casualty of election messaging.

The Public Protector’s findings identified procedural and constitutional defects — not proof that the programme itself is harmful or illegitimate in purpose. There is a crucial difference between:

A bad concept
and
A good concept implemented with legal gaps

The Gauteng government is already moving to retrain, restructure, and properly designate wardens through lawful frameworks, rather than abandoning the entire model.

That is what responsible governance looks like: correct — not collapse.

It makes no sense to discard a programme that:

• Addresses real crime worries
  
  

• Is welcomed by vulnerable communities
  
  

• Reduces police load
  
  

• Has shown visible presence and deterrence
  
  

• Can be legally corrected and professionalised
  
  

South Africa cannot afford to weaken safety structures to satisfy the political appetites of critics who offer no alternative.

AmaPanyaza is not a scandal — it is a necessary safety innovation that must be legally refined, not politically buried. Real leadership is not measured by the absence of mistakes, but by the willingness to correct them without abandoning the mission.