A Johannesburg High Court judgment has reaffirmed that members of the public may legally photograph or record police officers performing their duties in public spaces, provided they do not interfere with law enforcement operations.

The ruling, handed down in Jacobs v Minister of Police (2025), confirms that recording police activity in public is lawful and that a person may not be arrested or detained merely for filming officers on duty.

The court emphasised that police officers, as public officials exercising public power, are subject to public scrutiny, particularly when operating in public spaces. Preventing or punishing lawful recording, the court found, undermines transparency and accountability.

What the High Court confirmed

According to the judgment and existing law:

  • You may legally film or photograph SAPS members on duty in public
  • No permission is required to record police in public spaces
  • Recording is not a criminal offence
  • An arrest solely for filming is unlawful
  • Lawfully obtained recordings may be used as evidence in complaints or court proceedings

Where a person is part of the interaction, the court noted that audio recording may be lawful under the Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-Related Information Act (RICA), as it does not constitute unlawful interception.

Clear limits still apply

The court was equally clear that the right to record is not unlimited.

Citizens must:

  • Not obstruct or interfere with police duties
  • Not physically impede officers
  • Not provoke or disrupt lawful operations

Interference with policing remains a criminal offence, regardless of whether recording is taking place.

Practical guidance

Legal experts advise that individuals who choose to record should remain calm and non-confrontational. Politely stating that you are recording “for personal safety and accountability” can help de-escalate encounters while asserting your rights.

Why the ruling matters

The judgment does not create new rights but clarifies and reinforces existing constitutional protections, including freedom of expression and the public’s right to hold state power accountable.

Civil rights organisations say the ruling strengthens trust in lawful policing by confirming that transparency protects both the public and police officers when the law is followed.