South African Courts Face Major Security Equipment Gaps As Hundreds Of Devices Remain Out Of Service

By JD GLOBAL MEDIA

South Africa’s court system is facing significant security equipment challenges, with hundreds of X-ray machines, walk-through metal detectors and surveillance devices reported to be out of service across courts around the country.

The figures, disclosed in response to a parliamentary question, provide a detailed picture of the equipment available at lower and higher courts and show that the security infrastructure supporting the justice system remains uneven. The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development has acknowledged the problems and says it is implementing a phased replacement and repair programme based on available funding and identified security risks.

The disclosure comes at a time when security at court buildings remains an important operational issue because courts bring together judges, magistrates, prosecutors, defence lawyers, witnesses, accused persons, victims, court staff, police officers and members of the public.

Security screening equipment is intended to provide an early layer of protection by detecting weapons and other prohibited items before people enter court facilities. Surveillance cameras and monitoring systems provide another layer by allowing security personnel to observe movement within and around court buildings.

According to the latest figures, however, substantial portions of that equipment are currently not functioning.

Hundreds Of Screening Devices Are Not Working

At lower courts, the department has 294 X-ray machines in total. Of those, 105 are functioning while 189 are not working.

The situation is similar with walk-through metal detectors. There are 378 such devices at lower courts, but only 176 are operational, leaving 202 listed as non-functional.

That means that, across the two categories at lower courts, 391 of 672 devices are reported as not working.

The figures do not necessarily mean that every court without a functioning machine is operating without any security measures. Court security can involve physical searches, security personnel, access controls and other procedures. However, malfunctioning electronic equipment can reduce the speed, consistency or effectiveness of screening and place greater reliance on personnel and manual procedures.

The issue is particularly important because the purpose of X-ray machines and metal detectors is not simply to control queues. They form part of the security architecture designed to identify weapons and other prohibited items before they enter sensitive areas.

Where electronic screening equipment is unavailable, security personnel may have to depend more heavily on manual inspection. That can increase pressure on guards and may make screening more time-consuming, particularly at busy courts where large numbers of people arrive for hearings every day.

High Courts Also Face Equipment Problems

Security challenges are not confined to lower courts.

The information provided on high courts also identifies non-functioning equipment, although the proportion varies between different categories.

There are 29 X-ray machines listed at high courts, of which 19 are working and 10 are not.

For walk-through metal detectors, 38 units are listed, with 26 operational and nine reported as not working. The figures supplied also include handheld metal detectors, with 88 of 94 functioning and six not working.

The surveillance picture is broader.

Across the high-court network, 2,366 security cameras are listed. Of these, 1,697 are functioning while 669 are not.

There are also 130 CCTV monitors, of which 74 are operational and 56 are not.

This means that the challenge involves more than entrance screening. It also extends to the ability of security personnel to monitor court premises through cameras and associated surveillance systems.

One example highlighted in the latest information is the High Court in Thohoyandou, where all 42 listed security cameras were reported as dysfunctional.

The Johannesburg High Court has 150 security cameras, but only 35 were reported to be functional. At the Constitutional Court, nine of 53 cameras were working.

These figures illustrate how equipment conditions can differ significantly between individual court facilities.

Why Court Security Matters

Courts occupy a special position in the criminal justice system. They are places where disputes are resolved, accused persons appear before judicial officers, witnesses provide evidence and prosecutors and defence lawyers perform their duties.

Security problems therefore have consequences beyond the physical buildings themselves.

A court security failure can potentially affect the ability of officials to perform their responsibilities safely and can disrupt proceedings. In serious circumstances, security incidents can also affect witnesses, victims, accused persons and members of the public.

The Department of Justice has previously described court security as an important component of maintaining safe and accessible court facilities. In earlier parliamentary responses, the department outlined measures including security assessments, additional personnel, infrastructure improvements and coordination with other criminal justice institutions.

The department has also used a risk-based approach, meaning that courts considered to have higher security risks can receive priority when resources are allocated.

This approach is relevant because replacing or repairing every piece of equipment simultaneously would require substantial financial and operational resources.

Department Plans Phased Replacement

The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development says it is addressing obsolete equipment through phased replacement.

According to the department's response, equipment that has become obsolete or is considered beyond economical repair is being replaced according to available funding and security-risk priorities.

It also says contract and supplier management are being strengthened to improve the speed of repairs and ensure that service standards are met.

The department is further planning training for security personnel covering equipment operation, basic troubleshooting and inspections.

Another planned intervention is the introduction of a centralised asset monitoring system.

Such a system is intended to track the condition of security equipment, its maintenance history and whether individual devices are functioning.

The proposed monitoring system could provide the department with a more centralised view of equipment failures across the court network.

Instead of relying on isolated reports from individual facilities, a centralised system could allow officials to identify recurring problems, monitor maintenance requirements and determine where replacement equipment is required.

The effectiveness of that approach, however, will depend on implementation, funding, maintenance contracts and the accuracy with which equipment status is recorded.

Equipment Failures Have A Wider Operational Impact

The condition of court security equipment also has implications for the daily operation of courts.

A malfunctioning X-ray machine or metal detector may require staff to use alternative screening arrangements. Depending on the court and the volume of people entering the facility, this can affect the time required to process visitors.

CCTV failures create a different problem.

Where cameras are not functioning, security officials may have fewer visual records available when monitoring activity or investigating incidents. Cameras can also assist with identifying movements, establishing timelines and reviewing events after a security incident.

However, cameras are only useful when they are operational, properly positioned, adequately monitored and supported by functioning recording and storage systems.

The disclosure that hundreds of cameras are not working therefore raises questions about maintenance as well as equipment replacement.

The same principle applies to screening equipment. Purchasing new machines does not by itself guarantee long-term security if maintenance arrangements are inadequate or equipment is allowed to remain out of service for extended periods.

Previous Security Incidents Have Highlighted Vulnerabilities

The latest disclosure comes against a background of previous concerns about security at South African courts.

The Department of Justice has previously reported measures implemented at the Wynberg Magistrate's Court following security incidents, including additional private security guards, additional court orderlies, inspections, security gates and functioning walk-through metal detectors.

In September 2025, the department reported that a woman had been arrested after allegedly attempting to bring a firearm and ammunition into the Wynberg court. The department said the firearm was detected through the court's metal detection system.

The incident demonstrated the practical purpose of screening technology: when functioning properly and supported by trained personnel, such equipment can contribute to preventing weapons from reaching sensitive areas.

At the same time, it also illustrates why reliability matters.

A security system cannot depend entirely on one component. Effective court security requires a combination of functioning technology, trained personnel, access controls, physical infrastructure, procedures and coordination between responsible institutions.

Funding And Maintenance Remain Central Issues

The department's reference to funding availability highlights one of the central challenges facing large public infrastructure networks.

Court facilities are spread across all nine provinces and range from major high courts to smaller magistrates' courts serving local communities.

Maintaining equipment across such a large network requires procurement, installation, technical support, replacement parts, inspections and periodic upgrades.

Security technology also becomes obsolete over time. Older cameras, scanners and monitoring systems can become difficult to repair when manufacturers discontinue components or when replacement parts become expensive.

That creates a situation in which repairing an old device may eventually cost more than replacing it.

The department's stated approach of replacing equipment that is obsolete or beyond economical repair is therefore intended to address both immediate functionality and longer-term sustainability.

However, the scale of the current backlog means that implementation will be important.

What Happens Next

The department has identified several areas for intervention: phased equipment replacement, stronger contract and supplier management, training of security personnel and the introduction of centralised asset monitoring.

The immediate challenge is to translate those measures into functioning equipment at individual courts.

For court users, the most visible difference would be working screening equipment and reliable surveillance systems. For court officials and security personnel, improved equipment could reduce reliance on manual processes and provide stronger support when managing security risks.

For the justice system as a whole, reliable security infrastructure is part of ensuring that courts can operate without avoidable disruptions.

The figures also provide Parliament and the public with a basis for monitoring whether the department's planned interventions produce measurable improvements.

Future assessments could examine how many machines have been repaired or replaced, how long equipment remains out of service, whether maintenance contracts are being honoured and whether the functionality of surveillance systems improves across individual courts.

A centralised monitoring system could make such information easier to track if it is implemented effectively.

A Security Challenge That Extends Beyond Court Entrances

The latest figures show that court security is not simply a question of putting guards at entrances.

It involves a network of screening devices, surveillance cameras, monitoring systems, physical security infrastructure and trained personnel working together.

The fact that hundreds of devices are currently not operational means that the department faces a substantial maintenance and replacement task.

At lower courts alone, 189 X-ray machines and 202 walk-through metal detectors are reported as non-functional. At high courts, the figures also show equipment failures, while hundreds of surveillance cameras and dozens of CCTV monitors are listed as not working.

The department has acknowledged the shortcomings and outlined a phased response.

The next stage will be implementation: restoring equipment, replacing obsolete systems, improving maintenance arrangements and ensuring that security personnel are properly trained to operate the technology.

As South Africa's courts continue to handle criminal trials, civil disputes and other proceedings involving thousands of people, the reliability of their security systems will remain an important part of maintaining safe and functional justice facilities.

The latest disclosure does not establish that every court with faulty equipment is unsafe, nor does it mean that security measures are absent where machines are not functioning. It does, however, document a substantial equipment-maintenance challenge that the Department of Justice has said it is working to address.

The effectiveness of the response will ultimately depend on whether the planned interventions reduce the number of non-functional devices and establish a sustainable system for maintaining court security infrastructure across the country.