17/09/2026
Please add your voice to stop the DA from closing Sandy Bay for naturism
facebook.com/share/p/1Fh264…
In this space, the full extent of the DA’s alleged “conspiracy” will soon be exposed. It may turn out to be another foot-and-mouth debacle—except this time, the DA may find itself with its foot firmly in its mouth.
More importantly, taxpayers could once again be required to fund litigation arising from decisions that may have been taken without proper consultation with affected stakeholders and communities.
If the City of Cape Town changed its policy or administrative approach in a manner that materially affects a minority community and its established cultural practices, the legality of that decision will need to be examined carefully. This includes whether the City complied with the applicable statutory and constitutional requirements for public participation, consultation, procedural fairness and equality.
The Municipal Systems Act expressly provides for community participation in municipal affairs, while the Constitution requires municipalities to encourage the involvement of communities and community organisations in local-government matters.
There is also an important factual issue concerning Sandy Bay. Cape Tourism has itself promoted Sandy Bay as a clothing-optional/naturist destination and describes it as a beach known for the acceptance of naturism. Its website states that clothing is optional and that Sandy Bay has traditionally been recognised as a nudist beach, while also acknowledging that it is not formally designated as such by the local authorities.
That raises legitimate questions about whether the City adequately considered the established use of Sandy Bay, the interests of the naturist community, affected businesses and Cape Town’s tourism interests before making or implementing any significant change in policy or practice.
Were the affected communities, organisations and businesses properly consulted? Were their representations considered before the decision was taken? What legal authority was relied upon? And was the decision-making process consistent with the constitutional principles of equality, lawful and reasonable administrative action, and meaningful public participation?
These are questions that deserve clear answers—and, if necessary, proper legal scrutiny.
