Is it politics, or is it a matter of enforcing bylaws?
This thorny question was brought to the fore in the past few days as a political storm erupted over Johannesburg’s M1, where the city removed Solidarity’s banner that boldly declared South Africa “the most race-regulated country in the world.”
The standoff, described by an analyst as a "clash between two ideological forces," has ignited a far deeper ideological fight over race, power, and who gets to define the country’s political future.
The city has repeatedly denied that politics or the upcoming G20 summit played any role in the decision. Officials insist the banner came down for one reason only: it was put up illegally.
“The past few days have seen incorrect messages circulating about the reasons for the removal,” the city said, stressing that it has a constitutional duty to enforce its bylaws “consistently and transparently.” It added, “Adherence to these prescripts is essential to the effective and orderly functioning of the city.”
Under Johannesburg’s Outdoor Advertising By-Laws, any organisation wanting to install signage on city-owned property must submit a formal application. The city says Solidarity never applied, meaning the massive banner was erected in direct contravention of the law.
Officials insist its message had no bearing on the decision. “Any insinuation of bias or ulterior motive is categorically rejected. The city cannot stand by while its bylaws are flagrantly disregarded.”
The city said that despite Solidarity’s clear and deliberate breach of bylaws, the organisation went straight to the High Court seeking the banner’s return and reinstatement.
Officials added that the city had already offered to return the banner on the condition that Solidarity refrain from reinstalling it anywhere in the city until it complied with the proper legal procedures.
The city added that Solidarity rejected that compromise and insisted the city concede it had acted unlawfully, a demand officials categorically refused. Once the city filed its answering affidavit outlining what it described as serious flaws in Solidarity’s case, Solidarity approached the city on November 17 to accept a settlement “virtually identical to the offer it rejected days earlier.”
Officials agreed, emphasising that its stance had never changed: “The City reiterates its unwavering commitment to ensure the enforcement of its bylaws, consistently and transparently, regardless of the identity of the perpetrators of such illegal conduct. The rule of law enjoins the city and everyone, including Solidarity, to act in accordance with the law at all times.”
With the court-ordered settlement now in place, Solidarity said the banner will be collected and its campaign will intensify.
The organisation is also finalising an agreement with the advertising company for its refund and is preparing litigation if necessary.
“We met every requirement. We’re getting our banner back, we want our money back, and we are continuing with the campaign,” said CEO Dr Dirk Hermann.
Hermann insists the issue was never about by-laws: “There’s no doubt our banner was unlawfully removed because of its message.” He points to Gauteng Premier Panyaza Lesufi’s post on X calling for “anti-transformists” to be defeated, and a video shared by MMC Mgcini Tshwaku showing the banner being taken down.
Solidarity has also stated that it had erected 38 more billboards across Johannesburg displaying the same message.
“Solidarity is continuing its campaign. The fact is that South Africa is the most race-regulated country in the world. The banner and 38 other billboards are shining the spotlight on it and have sparked a national and international debate. At least South Africa’s radical racial dispensation is now being talked about,” said Hermann.
Political analyst and MEARI research fellow Kenneth Kgwadi said the uproar has exposed the country’s unresolved racial tensions and the growing contest over economic and political power. He argues that the saga reaches far beyond advertising regulations.
Kgwadi said the backlash reveals “a far more volatile standoff,” arguing that Solidarity’s campaign mirrors a battle for influence in a country still defined by structural inequality.
“Solidarity is a white conservative organisation that exists to preserve white power. It is not surprising that they are behaving more like AfriForum, which went all the way to the US to insult the country they claim is theirs.”
He said the pushback against affirmative action ignores a global awareness of South Africa’s inequality: “Those countries are very much aware that SA is the most unequal country in the world, where white represents wealth and black represents poverty.”
He added that the core issues of land ownership and economic exclusion in South Africa remain unresolved, noting that land still has not been returned to its rightful black owners and that the ANC has failed to accelerate the transfer of economic power to the black majority, a reality that is widely acknowledged internationally, including by the US.
Kgwadi warned that South Africa cannot remain suspended in this contradiction.
“This situation cannot be like this forever. There will have to be some drastic change to level the ground.”
He framed the battle as a clash between two ideological forces, describing it as more than just a dispute between Solidarity and the city. According to Kgwadi, it is a struggle between white conservatives, who have been unhappy about losing power, and black radicals pursuing a revolutionary cause, a conflict he said is inevitable.
He further criticised organisations like Solidarity and AfriForum for denying their racial posture while defending historical privilege: “They merely exist to protect the property which they unduly accumulated from the majority of black people who are now living in squalors.”
He argued that as long as black people are excluded from the mainstream economy, there will be continued pressure for policies that ensure their dignity and equity.
Kgwadi pointed out that South Africa's racial policies differ from those of former colonies where settlers returned to Europe, emphasising that the country's unique history necessitates a different approach.
The Star