opinion| In defence of Panyaza Lesufi: A practical response to the criticism of “ amaPanyaza”

The recent editorials in the press — in particular the piece in News24 titled “Hold Panyaza Lesufi accountable” and the analysis in Daily Maverick labelled “The amaPanyaza and the rising price of the temptation of populism” — have raised strong criticisms of Lesufi’s flagship crime-prevention programme, the amaPanyaza.
While some of the concerns merit discussion, a careful reading shows that Lesufi’s efforts deserve a fairer appraisal. Below are a number of points in defence of his position.

Gauteng is grappling with serious crime and community safety challenges. The public’s frustration with this situation is legitimate. Lesufi identified that waiting for the national policing apparatus alone to deliver results was not sufficient — and acted. His creation of the amaPanyaza demonstrates responsiveness to citizen concern, not mere grandstanding.

His announcement was made in the context of communities tired of crime, and the wardens initiative commanded popular support at the grassroots level.
It can be argued that, in this sense, Lesufi was taking leadership rather than waiting for perfect legal frameworks — a pragmatic stance given urgency rather than purely opportunistic.

Critics argue that Lesufi’s initiative lacked a complete legislative backbone, but innovation often means stepping into grey areas in practice while legal frameworks catch up.
In many jurisdictions worldwide, community-crime prevention initiatives evolve first in pilot form — then regulation follows. In this view, amaPanyaza can be seen as a pilot / innovation rather than a reckless violation of the law.

Yes, the editorials make valid legal points (noting that “the law, as it currently stands, neither empowers nor confers provincial government any authority to exercise policing powers” in respect of certain functions).
But it remains true that local innovation is necessary where standard structures are struggling — and Lesufi was pioneering that path.

Lesufi’s earlier promises (for example around the National Health Insurance) were criticised as unrealistic.
However, one must balance the criticisms with the fact that political leadership also has to offer hope and direction. In communities starved of hope, offering a vision matters. Abandoning such vision because it risks over-promise might risk paralysis rather than progress.

Lesufi’s creation of the wardens sent a message: “We are not passing the buck, we are stepping in.” In a system where inertia dominates, that counts for something.

Some commentators call for Lesufi to be held to account for “breaking the law, wasting public funds and unrealistically raising the hopes of unemployed young people.”
But a constructive approach would be to evaluate the programme, address the shortfalls, refine the model, and scale responsibly — rather than simply dismiss the initiative.
If indeed formal legal frameworks were lacking, then the remedy lies in legislating, clarifying roles, and converting the wardens into fully legitimate actors — which Lesufi has indicated by announcing retraining and redeployment of what was amaPanyaza.
Thus, instead of purely blaming the initiative, one can support the adaptation and maturation of the idea.

The Daily Maverick piece goes further and frames Lesufi’s moves as “the temptation of populism.”
Yet responsiveness to community concerns is not inherently populist in the pejorative sense. If leaders ignore voices of the people, they risk irrelevance.
Lesufi sought to deploy resources where people live and feel the pain of crime — that is a valid leadership function.
What matters is to ensure that the strategy is anchored in rule of law, sustainable funding, and measurable outcomes — and on those fronts, it is fair to call for strong oversight. But the starting point — listening and acting — should be commended.

Yes, Lesufi’s amaPanyaza initiative had legal and implementation shortcomings. The criticisms are not entirely without merit. But the broader narrative that his effort was simply a cynical populist stunt overlooks the dimension of leadership in difficult circumstances.
If we truly hold leaders to account, we should demand that the initiative be legislated, professionalised, transparent, measured — not that it be abandoned altogether. Lesufi’s approach embodies the aspiration of responsive government: to move beyond rhetoric, to attempt to do.
In that sense, instead of simply asking “Hold Lesufi accountable,” the better question is: “How do we support him in translating this idea into a fully accountable, legitimate, effective crime-prevention force?

By Siyabonga Skosana

Independent writer and social commentator