Mzansi Now: Scanning, Scanning: South Africa’s Facial Recognition Policy - Another Form of Apartheid?

Widespread debate is spreading across South Africa that the implementation of facial recognition system is not only eroding the citizens’ privacy, it is also reinforcing the discriminatory practices of apartheid as black citizens are more likely to be the subject of surveillance than white citizens are.

The use of facial recognition systems, especially on a national scale, is typically regulated strictly as it is antithetical to human rights, so the question is how is South Africa implementing it and how objective can the use of this system be? 

Safety First

According to the Protection of Personal Information Act (Popia or POPI Act), the consent of the data subject is fundamental to the usage of the subject’s facial biometrics and that personal information can only be processed for specific and legitimate reasons that have to be clearly defined.

In Cape Town for example, the stated motivation for the use of CCTVs is to achieve a safer ‘smart city’, meaning a place where technology is used to automate surveillance, generating intelligence for companies and governments. The Gauteng Provincial Government similarly highlighted the capability of CCTVs to improve public safety and complement the work of law enforcement. More than 2,000 CCTVs had already been deployed across Cape Town and more than 7,000 across Gauteng province as of 2026. It is said that the function of the CCTVs is to tackle the rising crime rate in South Africa as the newest facial recognition system is capable of identifying features of individuals and license plates – an airtight surveillance of the South African’s movements. 

But What About Their Privacy?

In practice, the regulation surrounding the compliance of the POPI Act is loose and ambiguous, this means that the biometrics and movement of the South African citizens could be used for undeclared purposes.What’s worse, the merging of private entities and government initiatives has only induced concern over the invasion of citizens’ privacy. Vumacam, a South African private company, is the sole provider of CCTVs across South Africa and has unrestricted access to CCTV footage that is transmitted real time to Vumacam’s database. 

Vumacam is the first international reseller of Flock, a controversial surveillance camera producer based in the US. Flock had been caught sending private data to unauthorized entities It builds CCTV infrastructures across South Africa and private entities such as Fidelity, a private security company, are allowed access to the footage without court order by paying a monthly subscription fee. The availability of money-bought access to CCTV footage across South Africa exposes a shadow pocket in which private entities operate within to deprive the South African population of their locational privacy. 

Croock, the CEO of Vumacam has repeatedly emphasised that it complies with the Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) which the POPI Act is modelled after and is taking extra measures to ensure the usage of CCTV footage is privacy-compliant, though Vumacam’s practices are still largely unregulated by the government.

An Illegitimate System?

In addition, a 2019 report by the National Institute of Standards and Technology examining facial recognition algorithms by 99 developers found that it is up to 100x more likely for the algorithms to misidentify a coloured individual than a white individual. Thus, it raises questions about the suitability of deploying a facial recognition system across South Africa before the system is sufficiently mature for a predominantly black South African population.

The use of facial recognition systems has also prompted allegations of reviving the trauma and practices of apartheid. Reports have shown that CCTVs populate predominantly white areas with the distribution of the CCTVs reflecting the geographical boundaries of the apartheid era. This leads one to question whether safety is the fitting justification for the implementation of facial recognition system, or is profit the main concern when a private entity is involved. The clutter of CCTVs in privileged, predominantly white areas could potentially displace crime toward areas with less surveillance, undermining safety in financially deprived areas.

Besides, given the extensive network of CCTVs available in cities like Johannesburg, movement patterns of individuals are increasingly deprived of its rightful opacity which at least fragmentally resembles the complete control on movement during the apartheid era.

What Next?

The implementation of facial recognition systems across South Africa is irreversible; but South African government bodies are already responding. Vumacam has been investigated under allegations of violation of privacy under bodies like the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSIRA) – a body regulating the South African private security industry,  and the Information Regulator of South Africa. The outcome of these investigations will set a precedent for South Africa’s surveillance system, and whether the infringement of individual rights become recognised as a sacrifice for the purpose of safety.