The Gauteng Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs presented its programme of action linked to the request for extension of the intervention in the Emfuleni local municipality in terms of section 139 of the Constitution. The Gauteng provincial government is providing support to Emfuleni in terms of section 154 of the Constitution as a mechanism to help improve the financial viability and dire service delivery situation in the Municipality. The support, however, proved to be inadequate as the Municipality continued to perform poorly, and a number of systemic failures (financial, service delivery and governance) persisted. On 13 June 2018, the Executive Council accordingly resolved to invoke the provisions of section 139(1)(b) and (5)(a) of the Constitution. The presentation covered key achievements to date over various focus areas, challenges, terms of reference for the new Administrator and the programme of action linked to the request for the extension of the intervention in the Emfuleni municipality.
SALGA was concerned by the lack of detail of what the previous Administrator achieved in his two year tenure. This suggests the provincial government is acknowledging it made a blunder, and saved itself and not the municipality. It is important to go back to the terms of reference of the Administrator, and to find out what the mandate of the Executive Council of Gauteng was with the Administrator, and why the Administrator, through the Executive Council, failed to perform and produce a detailed report of his role. This is a worrying trend if it continues to happen because everyone is going to step down without providing a detailed report. The handover report can be interrogated to understand the new challenges going forward into the future. In SALGA’s view, the intervention made by the provincial government in the municipality created some serious legislative and legal problems.
SALGA was further worried about the status of the section 139 intervention, the desired outcome of the intervention and how the new Administrator is going to produce the results which could not be achieved in the last two years of the intervention. There must be a proper assessment of the 2018 intervention which will help identify the challenges the municipality continues to face, and what actions must be taken to respond to those challenges. SALGA disagrees with the approach of the Gauteng Executive Committee regarding the solution it brought. It is not a product of concrete analysis and is more of an idealistic approach. The question which needs to be answered is if the two-year intervention produced results. If not, the question is, who failed and what are the reasons for the failure.
The Committee questioned how it was possible that someone could be appointed as both Administration and Municipal Manager. It displayed concern for taxpayers money spent on this appointment and the fact that not much progress was made in the intervention over the past two years. Further questioned probed the solution for smart meters, outstanding debt since June 2018 and arrears on electricity and Rand Water debt. Members wanted to know how much wasteful and irregular expenditure was incurred as a result of the intervention over the past two years.
The Committee wanted to know when the Department realised there was a problem with the previous Administrator, when the last Council and MPAC meeting was and the 2020/21 budget approval. The Department was asked why it was not presenting quarterly reports on the intervention.
There was concern that the Mayor and accounting officer of the municipality were not present. Some Members were not happy with the provincial department’s presentation and felt the Committee should decide on the matter of the municipality on its own. The Committee agreed that based on what transpired in the meeting, there is a need for the Committee to intervene decisively. Regarding the way forward, the Committee will have a meeting on its own to reflect on this meeting and formulate a view of what must be done in the Emfuleni local municipality. Whatever is decided must be in the best interests of the people of Emfuleni as well as the stakeholders and role players in the municipality. This is to ensure it becomes a proper developmental municipality confronting its challenges and ensures it deals with issues relating to poverty, unemployment and inequality. As Parliament, the Committee is going to continue to do its oversight work and engage with Executives asking simple and difficult questions.
Presentation by the Gauteng MEC
Mr Lebogang Maile, Gauteng MEC: Human Settlements, Urban Planning and Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA), said there is no need to go through the report. The Select Committee has already seen it. Instead he gave an update on how far the municipality is, and said the decision-making in the municipality caused some of the challenges faced. One of the decisions taken in 2018 is for the Department to present quarterly reports to the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) and the Minister of COGTA. There was an election in 2019, when the former Administrator was appointed, and the same Administrator was also appointed as City Manager. This is one of the problems the municipality faced at the time. Although there is some progress since 2018, as shown in the report, the municipality still faces some challenges. MEC Maile asked the Administrator, who is newly appointed, and has been in office a week, to provide a quick summary of the Report.
The Chairperson asked when the new Administrator was appointed. He also asked the MEC to clarify what happened to the old Administrator and what happened during his period as Administrator, because it was two years before the Department appointed a new Administrator.
MEC Maile said the new Administrator was appointed about a week ago. The problem which transpired in the past two years is the intervention happened in a wrong way. This is because the Department appointed the Administrator who was also appointed as an Acting City Manager (ACM). When the City filled the post of City Manager in December last year, the Acting City Manager left office because he was only operating as the City Manager and never focused on his role as Administrator. It is fortunate - the newly appointed Administrator is also a Deputy Director General (DDG) within the Gauteng Department of COGTA. The reason he is asking the new Administrator to present is because he experienced what is happening in the Department in the past two years. The new Administrator in his new role will help with the assumption of the responsibilities, and the three areas identified. The Administrator may be new in the role of Administrator, but he is not new in the Department. He handed over to the Administrator presented a summary of the Report of the past two years in the Municipality.
Mr Willy Bila, DDG: Development and Planning, Gauteng Department of Cooperative Governance and Administrator for the Emfuleni Municipality, said he will provide a brief outline of the achievements of the previous work streams.
Key achievements to date:
- The Committee on Budget, Monitoring and Controls is doing great work to ensure expenditure and revenue it collects does not overlap. The Municipality will not spend more than it has
-the 2019/20 budget is compiled in line with the 2018/19 financial year adjustment budget. It targets were reviewed for realistically anticipated revenue and expenditure trends
-In the 2018/19 financial year, for the first time in the history of the Emfuleni Local Municipality, the municipality did not utilise conditional grants to fund operational expenditure, as it did in previous times. This trend is continuing in the 2019/20 financial year
-The Medium-Term Review Revenue and Expenditure Framework (MTRF) in 2018/19 was rebased in line with the principles of an affordable expenditure envelope and its listing revenue projection. The 2018/19 MTRF is radically reduced by R400 million with realistic revenue projections. The same principles are utilised in the 2019/20 MTRF
-implementation of a Procure to Pay System, enforcing an ordering system of payment which ensures the Department spends the budget within the available resources in its respective votes. This system was implemented in December 2018, but there was internal resistance to change and the Department had to conduct a workshop to make sure user departments are online with the new system
-the municipality is in the process of drafting a cost containment policy which will be presented in due course
-The municipality decided to appoint a service provider to conduct an in-depth tariff review which will be applicable in the 2020/21 financial year budget
-The Integrated Revenue Management Forum is established and is currently chaired by the Head of Revenue
-The review and implementation of revenue, credit control, tariff, free basic policy and indigent policies was approved with the adoption of the budget. One of the significant milestones is the change from allocation of 30kl of free water to 6kl according to the national indigent policy
-for the past years, the municipality had a single service provider to do meter reading, reconnection, disconnection and monitoring. This negatively impacted credit control governance and segregation of duties. From 1 October 2019, the municipality appointed separate panels dealing independently with meter reading, disconnection of water and electricity as well as reconnection. A separate service provider dealing with monitoring and evaluation is also appointed and the segregation of duties is expected to have a positive impact on revenue collection. This is because there will be competition among contractors
- The process of appointing a municipal valuer for 2020/21 is in motion and organisational development is assisting with the process of establishing an in-house governance system
-The appointment of Section 56 managers brought stability in the institution. It is only the Executive Director for Infrastructure or Technical Services who is not yet appointed
- Gauteng COGTA appointed a firm of attorneys to assist the municipality with assessing current labour matters. This includes, but is not limited to, suspensions and awards against the municipality. The firm commenced with its work, which includes the implementation of a structured skills transfer program
-Governance structures (e.g. LLF, MPAC) are functional and in place. Council, consisting of multiple parties, is able to do a monthly sitting to pass resolutions and provide oversight over the administration
-The development and implementation of internal controls intended to lead to the reduction of UIF&W is also in place
-The Emfuleni Local Municipality instituted forensic investigations from an independent forensic company to deal with corruption in the institution. The matter is currently with MPAC and the report with remedial actions must still be tabled in a Council sitting
-All Section 56 managers signed performance management agreements and the municipality is cascading this to level two and three of management. The quarterly reports are considered from Departments on the Service Delivery Budget Implementation Plans.
-all electrical related works, including but not limited to MCCs level controls, overload protectors, high mast lighting and general lighting are in progress
-The scheduled pump stations under the Water and Sanitation Infrastructure Grants (WSIG) are cleaned. The remaining pump stations will be cleaned under the intervention funded under the Regional Bulk Infrastructure Grant (RBIG). The appointed implementing agent is ERWAT. The pump station 10 is cleaned under the Emfuleni local municipality internal operations budget. ERWAT is terminated by the Department of Water and Sanitation and the Department is in the process of appointing a new service provider to replace ERWAT
-Replacing leaks in Sharpeville to eliminate extraneous flows within the sanitation networks is in progress. To date 1 467 households, out of 1 600, were retrofitted under the program. Progress increased from 90% to 92%. The project has 13 locally qualified plumbers
-Emfuleni serviced 80 pressure-reducing valves and installed remote monitoring devices on the key pressure-reducing valves (PRVs). Maintenance of PRVs is an ongoing process managed by the municipality using its own internal teams
-Regarding large power users, 56 properties were audited in Powerville.
On public participation, Mr Bila said the municipality has functional ward committees in Emfuleni. Its effectiveness continues to be a challenge because about 17 are not functional and only 25 are functional at the date of the report. COGTA is building the capacity of municipal officials from the Office of the Speaker to address these challenges. In the current ward-based war room approach, the municipality is doing very well regarding activation of war rooms in the wards. The capacity focuses on the development and application of practical strategies on an asset based approach. This is to stimulate an active asset-based community-led development around what the municipality does. The approach is strength-based and provides participatory content to local governance processes, especially around the Integrated Development Plan (IDP). The approach will be tested in three wards and will be scaled and replicated as positive results grow. The project will be co-delivered with the University of Johannesburg over the next year.
There are challenges in implementing workstreams. The only workstreams active are mainly the finance workstreams - the other workstreams are poor. Some of the challenges include poor revenue collection, cancellation of contacts, overdue outstanding creditors, especially of Eskom and Rand Water, lack of maintenance and upkeep of the municipality’s assets, unauthorised and wasteful expenditure, and delays in filling some of the senior management positions.
There is a continuation of sewer spillages and electricity provision interruptions, especially in the areas supplied by Eskom. It is also due to aging infrastructure in the municipality, lack of meters in the former Black townships, pollution, significant backlog in refuse removal, deminishing land-filled air space, various municipal grants withheld due to low expenditure, non-submission of new projects and the lack of knowledge, and capability in the municipality to implement the tools for effective public participation.
Mr Bila then outlined the programme of action for the new Administrator. The plan will address most of the issues identified as challenges. The programme of action is in alignment to the seven Back to Basics B2B pillars. In line with good governance, the new Office of the Administrator will address key areas such as identifying pending litigation cases and labour matters, unfinalised disciplinary and unreported criminal cases, pending cases against and by the municipality and fraud and corruption cases.
The new Administrator’s Office will also assess contractual obligations. Some of the work is already in progress, specifically with Eskom and Rand Water, to assess some of the contractual obligations previously agreed upon by the municipality and Eskom. The Administrator will also assess all irregular, unauthorised, and fraudulent contracts agreed upon when it is not supposed to be. It will approach the High Court to have those contracts deemed null and void. The Department will also address all the Auditor-General’s findings from the years 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019, and will come up with an implementation plan and remedial actions to address those issues. It also intends to roll out a communication strategy to inform the public about this intervention and the support it receives from the province. The Administrator seeks support from trade-based organisations, business associations and other community stakeholders. Looking at basic service delivery and infrastructure, the Administrator will address interruption of key infrastructural projects, failing and collapsing electricity, wasted water and road infrastructure. It will also address non-revenue water and electricity losses. It has appointed a project manager and established a Project Management Unit (PMU) which looks at all infrastructure projects and the involvement of the private sector such as Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA), and other private sector institutions around the issue of funding.
The Administrator will deal with the issue of sewer spillages in the Vaal River Pollution Intervention Project. It hopes to work together with the Department of Water and Sanitation and the Municipal Infrastructure Support Agent (MISA). It will finalise and facilitate the appointment of an implementing agent to proceed with the outstanding work done by ERWAT. It will need to ensure it is in alignment with Water and Sanitation on the national level. It is in the process of appointing a service provider after terminating ERWAT’s work.
Mr Bila said regarding sound financial management, the municipality experienced unfunded budgets and to make sure it does not occur, it aims to develop a fundable and realistic budget in line with the MFMA regulations. A turnaround plan will be developed for credit control, debtor’s collection, and payment of creditors.
There will be revival of work stream to ensure implementation of the Financial Recovery Plan (FRP) which was established previously, and assess all existing contracts and categorisations thereof, ensuring it deals with poor revenue collection by strengthening revenue enhancement plans. It must also ensure proper implementation of the Property Rates Act, including the Municipal Valuation Roll. It must ensure there is adherence to proper and acceptable supply chain management processes.
Regarding spatial planning, the Administrator intends to work in a coordinated and coherent manner for alignment of existing plans towards “one plan”. This includes reviving the Evaton project and facilitating the Sedibeng District Economic Revitalisation Programme to improve the local economy.
Mr Bila highlighted the challenge of a bloated organisational structure. The municipality must ensure it reduces it by going through a strategic planning session.
It must also have a service delivery model ensuring it reviews the organisational structure, so it can be in line with the organisational strategy. There must be strict adherence to the approved municipal human capital recruitment policy.
The municipality also has a problem of delegation of power of authority and has established there is chaos surrounding the issue of delegated powers of authority. There must be development of a delegated powers of authority of the Administration by the Cogta MEC. There should be review of existing powers of authority of the Municipal Manager and Section 56 Managers in terms of the original authority.
There has also been a problem of Council resolutions which were not implemented for a long time. There must be review of the Register of Council resolutions to ensure implementation of all outstanding resolutions. A comprehensive municipal turnaround strategy for the municipality must be developed to address the fragmented approach to service delivery implementation.
There was low staff morale due to unimplemented LLF resolutions. A functional LLF must be enhanced and strengthened. The organisational culture collapsed. This negatively affects productivity of employees, and human capital diligence and commitment. The programme of action was presented to the Executive Mayor as well as the MMCs. The MEC approved the Programme of Action and instructed the Department to go and break it down, working together with the Municipal Manager and his Section 56 managers on weekly targets monitored every Monday by the MEC and the Mayor, for progress on operations.
MEC Maile said there is some form of progress in the municipality. It is improving. Based on the Tshwane Model, there is major progress and the reason for progress is that it has weekly targets and briefings. This means it is hands-on.
The Chairperson asked where the Executive Mayor is as he was invited to the meeting.
MEC Maile said the Department was not told to invite the Mayor to the meeting.
The Chairperson said it might have been an oversight. The Select Committee works via the departments and provincial departments who help coordinate with municipalities. If there is no one from the Emfuleni Local Municipality, it is something which must be scrutinised at the end of the meeting.
Presentation from South African Local Government Association (SALGA)
Mr Bhekumzi Stofile, SALGA NEC member, said the provincial government is intervening. It appointed an Administrator through the Executive Council of Gauteng and the Administrator acts on behalf of the provincial government. After two years there is no detail about what the Administrator did in his period. This suggests the provincial government is acknowledging it made a blunder, and saved itself and not the municipality. It is important to go back to the terms of reference of the Administrator, and to find out what the mandate of the Executive Council of Gauteng was with the Administrator, and why the Administrator, through the Executive Council, failed to perform and produce a detailed report of his role. This role was intended to be turning around the municipality, as aspired to by the provincial government.
There is a debate about the intention of the provincial government in Gauteng. To fail to perform its duties is to usurp local government powers. This is a worrying trend if it continues to happen because everyone is going to step down without providing a detailed report. The handover report can be interrogated to understand the new challenges going forward into the future. In SALGA’s view, the intervention made by the provincial government in the municipality created some serious legislative and legal problems.
Mr Lance Joel, Chief Operating Officer (COO), SALGA, said there are three main concerns raised with the letter the National Executive Committee (NEC) dispatched to the municipality and to SALGA on 8 June, communicating the appointment of the Administrator.
The first issue is about the status of the Section 139 intervention according to the 13 June 2018 appointment of the Administrator. Mr Nkoane was appointed as the Municipal Administrator and as Acting City Manager. This is very problematic because in its nature, an Acting Municipal Manager is appointed by a Municipal Council and is accountable to that Council, and has to execute the responsibilities given to him/her. An Administrator is appointed by, and accountable to, the Provincial Executive. An Administrator acts according to the terms of reference which would have been given to the Administrator. It is problematic when an individual acts in both capacities. He said the NEC of SALGA also wants to know the progress made by the Administrator/Acting Municipal Manager since the 13 June intervention as it will assist everyone to know the status of the Emfuleni Local Municipality. The MEC made reference to the term of office of the Administrator/Acting Municipal Manager ending in February with the appointment of the Municipal Manager. The question SALGA is asking is what happened to the intervention since February 2020 to date, and what is the status of it.
The second broad concern the NEC has relates to the desired outcome of the Section 139 intervention. The NEC concluded the intervention did not produce the desired outcomes. The question the NEC is asking is, what informed the conclusion reached, and is there a report available outlining the expectations of the Administrator and how the Administrator executed those expectations.
Mr Joel said because the Municipality is under intervention since 13 June 2018, the question was, what the Municipal Council and the Administrative Council contributed, to result in the desired outcomes it did not achieve. The NEC, and SALGA, is asking this question because it noted the terms of reference of the new Administrator, taking all executive functions of the Council and the administrative heads of the municipality.
The last question the NEC is asking is how the new Administrator is going to produce the results which could not be produced in the last two years of the intervention. The other problem relates to the notification sent in, saying the NEC needs a detailed analysis or assessment of the Section 139 intervention, and the status of the implementation of the financial recovery plan. What is presented by the MEC, and the newly appointed Administrator Mr Bila, is not a status of the implementation of the financial recovery plan as it is, but just throwing around the indicators of a potential financial recovery.
He brought up the link between the legislative obligations to be assumed, and the terms of reference for the new Administrator. The broader question the NEC is asking is, after two years, what is the continued relevance of the 2018 intervention according to the plan introduced and the progress made up to date. This is important so that the NEC can take an informed decision about things changing.
In SALGA’s interaction with the municipality, the municipality is painting a picture indicating there are challenges, but not to the extent the powers of Council and the administration must be taken over. SALGA wants to propose a different approach to what the province suggests it is executing. SALGA’s approach is to solve the problems of the Emfuleni municipality and to ensure the municipality completes its constitutional mandates. There must be a proper assessment of the 2018 intervention which will help identify the challenges the municipality continues to face, and what actions must be taken to respond to those challenges.
Councillor Thami Ngubane, SALGA NEC member, said SALGA disagrees with the approach of the Gauteng Executive Committee regarding the solution it brought. It is not a product of concrete analysis and is more of an idealistic approach. The challenges as presented by the Executive Council show the majority of issues relating to finances, maintenance, and service delivery, are there before 13 June 2018. The question which needs to be answered is if the two-year intervention produced results. If not, the question is, who failed and what are the reasons for the failure. There are still discussions about the state of affairs and other issues which were there before the intervention without a report from the municipality. This speaks to the state of affairs, and is a problem on its own. The report must be the starting point to generate solutions according to what must be done to transform the current problem situation.
Ms M Mmola (ANC, Mpumalanga) asked how it is possible that the MEC said the intervention in the Emfuleni local municipality is done incorrectly. She asked how Mr Nkoane was appointed as an Administrator and Municipal Manager at the same time, and wanted clarity about the service provider appointed for the multiple roles it was appointed for. Lastly, she asked about the progress made in the two interventions.
Mr S Mfayela (IFP, KZN) asked the MEC to clarify how the appointment of the Administrator/Acting Municipal Manager went wrong, and how much of the taxpayers’ money is spent on the Administrator who is wrongfully appointed. He also asked if the wrongful appointment of the Administrator is the main cause for the intervention taking over two years.
Ms Z Ncitha (ANC, Eastern Cape) asked the MEC to clarify who resists against it applying consequence management, and to clarify the law used to appoint a single person as both and Administrator and City Manager.
Mr D Ryder (DA, Gauteng) asked what the solution is when it comes to the smart meters. He also asked for an indication on how much the outstanding debts of June 2018 were compared to now. He wanted the MEC to clarify the plan regarding arrears on electricity, and the Rand Water debt.
Mr S Zandamela (EFF, Mpumalanga) asked for clarity on irregular and wasteful expenditure on the intervention.
Mr E Mthethwa (ANC, KZN) asked what kind of report the MEC and Mr Bila are doing and what they expect to be done with it.
Mr I Sileku (DA, Western Cape) asked when the MEC realised its predecessor made the wrong intervention and how long it took to correct it. He also asked how long the LLF was lying with MPAC, when the last Council meeting was, and when the last MPAC meeting was. He asked about the new budget for the 2020/21 financial year and if it is funded or unfunded.
The Mayor and the Accounting Officer of the Municipality were not present at the meeting and he said this concerned him. He asked the MEC to clarify if he is aware there must be quarterly reports for every intervention, and if he knew why there are no quarterly reports.
Mr K Motsamai (EFF, Gauteng) asked why the Mayor did not attend the meeting and why the MEC says the Administrator is wrongfully appointed.
The Chairperson shared the same sentiments as the Select Committee Members and asked the MEC for further clarity.
MEC Maile said when the Department presented its report it never spoke of its predecessors because it understands it is the successor in law. It assumed the Select Committee Members understood that in 2018, there was a different team in the municipality. The MEC did not know why there is an Administrator who is also made a City Manager. Section 139 (b) means the resumption or assumption of certain responsibilities. SALGA’s suggestion about the provincial government usurping the power of Council is not true. SALGA must engage with the provincial government if it has issues it needs to discuss. SALGA is misrepresenting the provincial government by saying it wants to take over power from the Council – this projects the provincial government as reckless and as if it does not know what it is doing. The letter from the Select Committee did not ask the MEC to invite the Mayor to the meeting. One of the things the letter said is the Department must report on the progress made in the municipality since 2018. Perhaps some of the Select Committee Members did not read the report because if Members read it Members would see progress made in the municipality. the MEC said he did not say Mr Nkoane is wrongfully appointed, but that the decision to intervene is not properly implemented. Over time, he was able to deduce there is something wrong and something has to be done differently. Mr Nkoane is already a Municipal Manager. This means he ceased to be an Administrator.
Mr Zandamela said he is not happy with the presentation the MEC gave. He suggested the Select Committee must decide on its own on the issue of the Emfuleni Local Municipality.
The Chairperson made a ruling that the MEC should be given an opportunity to explain and give responses to the questions that were asked.
Mr Mthethwa said the Select Committee read the report and the weakness in it is caused by the presentation. He suggested the Select Committee must analyse the report on its own and look at it according to delivery being compromised and debt in the municipality being too high. He asked the Chairperson to give the Select Committee Members an opportunity to submit its own observations about the municipality.
The Chairperson asked the MEC to give an overview of the Gauteng provincial government in relation to the issues raised by the Select Committee Members.
MEC Maile said he finds it unfair that the Department is not given enough time to respond to issues raised by the Select Committee Members. It is also inaccurate to accuse the Department of irregular expenditure because it was already a problem in the municipality before the provincial government became involved.
The Chairperson said, given what the MEC presented in the meeting and what SALGA presented in the meeting, there is a case to intervene decisively. He said he agrees with Mr Zandamela and Mr Mthethwa about the meeting not continuing. The MEC was afforded ample opportunity in the meeting to address the Select Committee and the Committee listened.
Regarding the way forward, the Committee needs to hear from the MEC on how to salvage the situation in the Emfuleni Local Municipality, because it is not good. The Select Committee, just like the MEC, was appointed in 2019 and is experienced in working with municipalities. Its concerns with the Emfuleni local municipality are valid. He gave the MEC another opportunity to reply to the Select Committee’s questions.
MEC Maile said there are many inaccuracies in how the situation is understood. The municipality’s debt to Eskom was R2.3 billion before the intervention. Currently it is at R2 billion.
Regarding irregular expenditure, the Department can provide this information to show the difference between before the intervention and now. It can also provide details relating to corruption and which actions are taken in the municipality. There is a weakness in how the intervention is made, but it does not mean there is no intervention which happened. The intervention was also read in line with Section 154.
The people who resisted consequence management are people in supply chain and finance who are doing the wrong things.
He did not say there are weekly meetings in Emfuleni, but there are such meetings in Tshwane. The weekly meetings are bearing fruit. This is why there is a desire to implement it in Emfuleni. COGTA did not appoint any consultants in the municipality.
The Chairperson suspended the engagement and said the Select Committee will have a meeting on its own to reflect on this meeting and formulate a view of what must be done in Emfuleni Local Municipality.
Whatever is decided must be in the best interests of the people of Emfuleni as well as the stakeholders and role players in the municipality. This is to ensure it becomes a proper developmental municipality confronting its challenges and ensures it deals with issues relating to poverty, unemployment and inequality. As Parliament, the Committee is going to continue to do its oversight work and engage with Executives asking simple and difficult questions.
The meeting was adjourned.
Download as PDF
You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.
See detailed instructions for your browser here.