South Africa is spending substantially more on VIP Protection Services than on specialised police units dealing with family violence, child protection and sexual offences.
According to a report by The Citizen, Parliament’s police portfolio committee chair Ian Cameron said about R2.46 billion is allocated to VIP Protection Services. By comparison, the Family Violence, Child Protection and Sexual Offences (FCS) policing environment receives about R1.614 billion.
That leaves a difference of roughly R846 million between the two allocations.
Calls for greater investment in prevention
Teddy Bear Foundation clinical director Shaheda Omar told The Citizen that funding should not focus only on policing after violence has already happened.
She said greater investment is needed in prevention programmes for children and young people. These could include education around healthy relationships, consent, boundaries and positive parenting.
Omar also highlighted the need for school and community programmes that challenge the normalisation of violence.
She cautioned against reducing the discussion to a simple comparison between VIPs and women and children. Instead, she argued that government spending should be assessed through proportionality, transparency and accountability.
Questions over resources for GBV services
Omar said that if gender-based violence and femicide are treated as a national crisis, this should be reflected in the resources provided to police investigators, social workers, forensic practitioners, prosecutors and victim support services.
Child protection expert Robyn Wolfson Vorster also raised concerns about the resources available to specialised services.
She told The Citizen that despite violence against women and children being declared a national disaster in November 2025, the budget response has not matched the seriousness of the issue.
Vorster said inadequate funding for the FCS environment has contributed to gaps in services and differences in how those services are delivered across provinces and regions.
The debate comes amid continued scrutiny over whether government spending reflects its stated priorities on gender-based violence, femicide and child protection.
