Cape Town’s controversial N2 wall project is moving forward, even as critics question what it says about poverty, safety and urban planning. The project, which is expected to cost about R107 million, is aimed at reducing attacks and dangerous incidents along high-risk sections of the road.

Speaking to CapeTalk, Cape Town Mayoral Committee Member for Safety and Security JP Smith defended the plan. He said the city is targeting areas identified through freeway management system cameras, recorded incidents and data gathered with SANRAL and the South African Police Service.

According to Smith, the wall is being planned around the sections with the highest levels of attacks and accidents, not as a blanket measure without evidence.

City says wall is based on risk, not optics

CapeTalk host John Maytham challenged the project, saying he struggled with the optics of “keeping the poor people behind a high wall” and questioned whether the structure would be continuous.

Smith responded that the wall would need to be continuous to work properly, but construction may start in the highest-risk areas first if the full project cannot be completed in one financial year. He said it would make no sense to begin in low-risk zones while the worst-affected areas remain exposed.

He also pointed to sections already built by SANRAL, saying those had resisted vandalism and had proved effective in reducing attacks nearby by cutting off quick escape routes.

Safety concerns drive the project

Smith said the city had already invested heavily in trying to improve safety along the route. He listed vehicles, officers on the ground and camera systems among the measures already in place.

But he argued that those efforts have limits. He told CapeTalk that officials had shown business group Accelerate Cape Town footage of children running from between informal structures, throwing bricks at cars and disappearing within seconds.

That, he said, showed how hard it is to stop attacks through patrols and surveillance alone.

City rejects claims it wants to hide communities

Smith pushed back strongly against claims that the wall is meant to hide nearby informal settlements from public view. He said that was never part of the discussion or intention.

Instead, he framed the project as part of a broader crime prevention and road safety strategy. In the city’s view, the wall is not a silver bullet, but an added physical barrier in an area where other interventions have not been enough.

The debate, though, is unlikely to fade soon. For supporters, the wall is a practical response to real danger. For critics, it remains a deeply uncomfortable symbol.