The City of Cape Town has said it has no immediate plans to introduce artificial intelligence (AI) traffic cameras on a large scale, despite the initial success of a pilot project using AI-powered cameras to detect drivers who commit violations such as driving without a seatbelt, using a mobile phone behind the wheel or crossing solid white lines.
Following the pilot, the city sought guidance from South Africa’s top prosecutor, the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP), on whether evidence collected through AI-equipped cameras is admissible and legally enforceable.
“We have no plans to deploy AI traffic cameras on a large scale, but we cannot ignore the possibility that AI could play a larger role in this and other enforcement measures in the future,” Cape Town Transport Services spokesperson Kevin Jacobs told TechCabal.
Cape Town’s cautious approach reflects the broader challenge facing governments around the world in balancing the efficiency of AI surveillance with legal and constitutional protections.
AI-powered enforcement tools are becoming commonplace, such as in China and some countries in the European Union, to support road safety and public surveillance systems.
However, regulatory frameworks vary widely across jurisdictions and shape how the technology is used.
In South Africa, expanding AI traffic cameras requires compliance with the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA). The law does not prohibit the use of AI-powered images, but it classifies facial images and biometric identifiers as “special personal information.” This means that authorities must provide a legal basis for collecting such data, limit collection to what is necessary, and ensure strong security protections.
“Continuous road surveillance captures far more people than just violators. Law-abiding drivers, passengers, and pedestrians are also recorded, so objectives, minimization, restrictions, and retention rules are important,” said Nerushka Bowan, technology and privacy attorney and founder of the Law Innovation Technology Tomorrow (LITT) Institute.
Bowan pointed out that in addition to the POPIA law, evidence collected through AI-powered cameras must comply with criminal procedure law and established evidentiary principles in order to be admissible. For example, the system must be reliable and accurate. A clear data storage process is required. The evidence must be challenged and tested in court. Human decision makers ultimately have to make the decision.
Fairness concerns arise when the accused person is unable to meaningfully challenge how the AI reached its conclusion. South Africa’s constitution emphasizes procedural fairness and the right to challenge evidence.
Local governments and prosecutors will need a technical understanding of how these AI systems work, standards for accuracy and auditing, implementation of clear lines of responsibility in the event of system failure, and the ability to explain AI evidence in court.
Cape Town is increasingly turning to technology to supplement limited human executive capacity. Jacobs said enforcement officials are facing increasing pressure as traffic violations continue to soar.
“Technology is becoming increasingly important in the enforcement field as we lack the talent to meet the many demands on city services,” he said.
The City currently operates approximately 77 fixed speed cameras in parallel with mobile speed enforcement operations in high-risk areas.
Jacobs said the use of technology is already producing tangible enforcement results. In one recent incident, authorities used surveillance tools to arrest three suspects. Two of the taxi drivers had about 80 outstanding warrants worth more than R300,000 ($17,700).
The city recorded more than 2.7 million traffic violations last fiscal year, but officials believe the actual number is likely much higher.
Distracted driving remains a persistent risk
In 2011, South Africa banned texting and using mobile phones while driving under the National Road Traffic Regulations. Cape Town has been one of the most aggressive municipalities in enforcing these rules, with local bylaws allowing the seizure of illegally used mobile phone handles.
But Jacobs said cell phone seizures and fines have decreased in the city over the past four years. He attributes this trend in part to increased driver compliance and the proliferation of hands-free technology in new vehicles.
“While the phenomenon of distracted driving continues to be a challenge, the weak statistics suggest that some drivers are heeding our pleas not to use mobile phones while driving,” Jacobs said.
Global regulations are diversifying
Cape Town’s wait-and-see attitude reflects the global regulatory fragmentation surrounding AI surveillance. The European Union’s AI law bans most forms of real-time facial recognition in public spaces, reflecting strong privacy protections. China’s 2025 regulations limit biometric surveillance in sensitive locations such as hotels and bathrooms, but still allow mass public surveillance.
In contrast, the United States does not have a comprehensive federal AI surveillance law. Instead, states like Illinois require explicit consent before facial recognition data can be collected or used.
For Cape Town, the next steps will largely depend on whether South African prosecutors consider AI-assisted traffic detection legally defensible. If approved, this technology could significantly expand automated traffic regulation and help address resource constraints.
For now, the city has suggested that while AI may eventually become central to road safety enforcement, its large-scale adoption will depend on legal clarity and public trust.
“If used carefully, AI-enabled cameras can improve safety and consistency. If used poorly, they risk normalizing opaque surveillance and weakening trust in enforcement systems,” Bowan said.
