KZN SAMWU Petition; KZN CoGTA on termination, extension and progress report of sec 139 interventions

Meeting report

The Select Committee meeting was attended by representatives of the South African Municipal Workers’ Union (SAMWU) in Kwa-Zulu Natal (KZN) and KZN’s Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA). 

An apology was submitted by the MEC for CoGTA in KZN due to an emergency issue. He designated Dr Joey Krishnan, Head of Department, to deputise in his stead.

The Chairperson said the Committee would hear a petition presented by SAMWU KZN. He explained the course of presenting a petition.

The Committee would also receive a briefing by CoGTA KZN on interventions in municipalities in terms of section 139 of the Constitution.

Intervention in municipalities

Dr Krishnan said he would brief the Committee on procedural, constitutional and substantive matters related to the termination and extension of interventions at local and district municipalities in KZN in terms of section 139 of the Constitution.

Currently, there were section 139(1)(b) interventions at four: Mpofana Local Municipality, uThukela District Municipality, uMzinyathi District Municipality and uMkhanyakude District Municipality. 

An intervention at the Zululand District Municipality had not been implemented due to a court application which challenged the decision of the Provincial Executive Council to intervene in the municipality. Judgment was reserved.

A section 139(1)(a) intervention at uMhlathuze Local Municipality was challenged by the municipality. The court application was heard in the Pietermaritzburg High Court on 12 June 2024, and judgment was reserved.

On 31 October 2024, the Provincial Executive Council resolved to:

• Extend interventions in terms of section 139(1)(b) at Mpofana Local Municipality, uMzinyathi District Municipality, uThukela District Municipality, and uMkhanyakude District Municipality for a further period to 30 April 2025.
• Terminate the intervention in terms of section 139(1)(a) at Msunduzi Local Municipality.
• Terminate interventions in terms of Section 139(1)(b) at Umzumbe Local Municipality and Inkosi Mtubatuba Local Municipality.
• Await the court rulings on the interventions at uMhlathuze Local Municipality and Zululand District Municipality.

On 25 November 2024, the department received a report from the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) advising it of the following resolutions:

• The NCOP noted the discontinuation of the intervention at Umzumbe Local Municipality and requested that the Department table the termination and exit report on the intervention to the NCOP and the Provincial Legislature of KZN, and continue monitoring and supporting the municipality in terms of the Municipal Support Intervention Plan (MSIP) and section 154 of the Constitution.
• The NCOP approved the invocation of the intervention at Zululand District Municipality and noted that the decision to intervene was challenged in court by the municipality.
• The NCOP advised the department to table quarterly progress reports to the NCOP and the KZN Provincial Legislature on progress and challenges in interventions and decisions about determination or extension of interventions. It should provide an update on the outcomes of the court cases. i

Quarterly progress reports were submitted to the Minister, the NCOP, the legislature and the South African Local Government Association (SALGA). The last report was sent on 24 January 2025. This was in line with the department’s annual operational plan and the resolutions of the NCOP. 

The Department was in the process of drafting a framework for monitoring and support for municipalities in terms of section 139.

(See slide presentation attached for further details)

Discussion

Mr E Nzimande (MK, Gauteng) said the presentation made no mention of factors which resulted in municipalities being placed under section 139. 

He noted that rehabilitation spending at Mpofana municipality was 100 percent. That was insufficient, because Members wanted to know if the department had a strategy to turn things around instead of offering a temporary solution. 

He noted the weak oversight in more than two municipalities. What did it mean? What were the causes? What interventions were needed?

Mr F Badenhorst (DA, Western Cape) asked what mechanisms there were to prevent problems from recurring. What was the involvement of municipal stakeholders in the rehabilitation and intervention process?

Mr K Ceza (EFF, Mpumalanga) said that section 32 of the Municipal Finance Management Act (MFMA) held officials accountable for unauthorised and wasteful expenditure. It also had a provision to recoup lost funds. What was the timeframe for the implementation of section 32 at uMkhanyakude District Municipality?

He expressed concern about the length of interventions and questioned the effectiveness of the administrators. Why did it take them so long and what warranted their request for extensions?

He enquired about the skills and expertise to manage large infrastructural projects in those municipalities. Were skills audits and filling of vacancies happening?

He requested more details on action taken against officials in terms of section106 of the Municipal Systems Act. How many were there?

Ms M Makesini (EFF, Free State) referred to intervention at uThukela District Municipality and uMkhanyakude District Municipality. Despite that, protests persisted. What was the progress in providing boreholes? 

What led to the irregular appointment of contractors at uMkhanyakude District Municipality in the first place? What progress was there with the court case? Community members still struggled to access water despite the project.

Mr M Peter (UDM, Eastern Cape) said there was a crisis but he did not note any action by SALGA.

He questioned the leadership in the province and suggested that a closed meeting of the Select Committee, the national minister of COGTA and the provincial MEC be convened to discuss the issue.

Dr I Scheurkogel (DA, Free State) asked what the 100 percent spending had been for. 

He asked about Eskom rental payments to the municipalities. Did they bill for electricity or did they have pre-paid metres?

He asked Dr Krishnan to provide a political party breakdown in those four municipalities. What role did political instability play? 

Mr K Mmoiemang (ANC, Northern Cape) expressed concern that the interventions had taken place during the previous administration and highlighted the preparations for the next local government elections.

He acknowledged the improvement that had been made since implementing section 139 at Mpofana municipality in terms of the appointment of municipal senior managers. However, more work had to be done on capacity and skills in those municipalities. The Select Committee had to ensure that at some point the Department of Water and Sanitation assisted in dealing with triggers such as infrastructure, technical capacity and skills.

Ms R Molokomme (ANC, Limpopo) noted that interventions at some municipalities had started way back in 2016. She was concerned about whether they would be ending as soon as 30 April 2025. Would the triggering factors be dealt with independently? From the Select Committee’s oversight experience, some municipalities had committees which were not convening, some had unstable municipal councils, and so on. 

There had been minimal improvement since the commencement of the interventions, so she was uncertain whether those municipalities would function independently post-intervention.

She concurred with Mr Peter on the role of SALGA and asked what role it played in assisting struggling municipalities.

Mr Nzimande asked if the Select Committee could give Dr Krishnan a target of removing half of the triggers by the time the department submitted its next report.

Responses

Dr Krishnan said that the department had shifted its approach from measuring mere compliance to examining the effectiveness of outcomes. It emphasised the outcomes of audit committee sittings. For instance, if a council merely convened but did not address unauthorised, irregular, fruitless and wasteful expenditure (UIFWE), then the department would not be satisfied that the oversight was effective.

Across all four municipalities, with the direct support of COGTA, UIFWE had been reduced. Going forward, the department would provide more support for the technical portfolio committees and project management teams. 

Intervention by the department could not be longer than necessary, based on various court matters. However, it must also exit with the comfort that the municipality would sustain itself post-intervention. It was unlikely that interventions would end on 30 April 2025. When the Department reported to the provincial executive council, all progress would be reported and the council would determine whether extension would be needed.

The department was keenly aware of section 32 of the MFMA. Mpofana Local Municipality had no UIFWE, uMzinyathi District Municipality had reduced its UIFWE from R2.4 billion to R1.5 billion and uMkhanyakude District Municipality reduced its UIFWE by nearly R3 billion. The time taken was lengthy because of the investigations that had to be done on those matters. The UIFWE at uMkhanyakude District Municipality had not been addressed since 2011/12.

The performance of administrators was being reviewed and monthly reports were submitted to the department. There were instances where administrators were not accepted by municipalities. However, the administrators had worked well in those four municipalities since their appointment in October 2024. They received support from experts and departmental support.

Regarding intervention by the national minister in terms of section 63 of the Water Services Act, Dr Krishnan commented that significant progress had been made in uThukela District Municipality. Her department had engaged with the Department of Water and Sanitation and the municipality to provide technical guidance on providing water to the residents there. A R74 million plan was developed to incorporate small water treatment plants. A tripartite legal agreement was signed between uThukela Water, the Department of Water and Sanitation and the local municipality. Ninety percent of the project had been completed. A dispute about non-payment of contractors was under investigation.

A small town rehabilitation grant was used for street lighting, internal municipal roads and a taxi rank. 

The municipalities, with the exception of uThukela municipality, had relationships with Eskom. There was an anomaly because uMkhanyakude District Municipality was given an electricity licence in error and it should be retracted.

She confirmed that no rental was paid to municipalities for servitudes that Eskom utilised. That was an aspect that could be explored for the sustainability of municipalities.

The department had given directives to ten municipalities to fill senior manager positions within three months. Three had completely complied, a further four were almost at the conclusion of the processes and the remaining three were expected to comply in the next three months.

A skills audit was undertaken and the outcome was shared with all municipalities. The department ensured that workplace skills plans were responding to the actual needs of municipalities.

Further discussion

The Chairperson highlighted concerns about the capability of the officials deployed to the municipalities. Small municipalities were unable to attract critical skills in areas such as finance. It was something the Select Committee was discussing with the national minister.

The Select Committee planned to engage directly with uThukela District Municipality, uMzinyathi District Municipality and their mayors so they could explain why not much progress had been made.

Mr Ceza asked what had to be done to ensure that the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) and the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) also adhered to timeframes to ensure efficiency and avoid unnecessarily prolonged interventions.

He enquired about the involvement of the National School of Government (NGS) in capacitating struggling municipalities.

Dr Krishnan indicated that the department did use the NSG to capacitate municipalities. She guaranteed that it would try its best to turn those municipalities around.

SAMWU KZN petition

Mr SJ Mbuthuma, SAMWU Local Chairperson, Prof Sibankulu Region, could not attend the meeting because of a meeting clash.

Mr Nkosingiphile Mpanza, SAMWU representative, presented a petition SAMWU had sent to various authorities concerning alleged management irregularities and racism at uThukela Water Board.

He said SAMWU was not receiving reports on the case. He emphasised that there was a strong trend of racism at uThukela Water.

(See attached petition)

Discussion

The Chairperson enquired about the latest developments after a merger involving uThukela Water Board and the effect at the managerial level.

Mr Mpanza said he was not aware of any merger that had taken place and that the status quo was unchanged. 

The Chairperson sought advice from Adv Mkhuseli Mbebe, Procedural Officer, Parliament, on whether the Select Committee was the appropriate authority to deal with a petition of such nature.

Adv Mbebe confirmed that it was the correct authority in terms of rule 118 of the NCOP Rules.

The Chairperson said he was satisfied with the explanation and opened the floor to Members.

Mr Badenhorst raised questions about procedures outlined in rule 118(1), rule 121 and rule 213. He suggested that the Select Committee did not have the authority. The NCOP Chairperson had to publish the petition in Parliament’s Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports (ATC) and refer it to the Committee on Petitions and Executive Undertakings for consideration and a report. If there was a different interpretation of those rules, he requested it in writing.

Mr Ceza said the primary committee to which the petition had been referred was this Select Committee. The NCOP did allow joint committees. It was common practice. What was important here was the issue of racism that was affecting people. Racism was not allowed in terms of the Constitution. The Select Committee had to deal with racism and incompetence. That was what Members were deployed to do.

Dr Scheurkogel emphasised the importance of adhering to correct NCOP procedures as per rule 213. Had this petition been published in the ATC? If so, there were other procedures to be followed. Additionally, had the Chairperson of the Committee on Petitions and Executive Undertakings been made aware of this petition?

The Chairperson responded that this matter was referred to the Select Committee by the NCOP during the sixth administration.

Adv Mbebe explained that the matter had been tabled in the ATC and referred to the Select Committee. He had heard Members’ inputs on the words may and must. He maintained his view that the rules allowed for the NCOP Chairperson to refer the matter to any of the NCOP Committees. The Select Committee was the appropriate authority to deal with the matter.

Mr Ceza referred to the progress report on KZN municipalities earlier in the meeting and highlighted the roles of racism, whiteness and discrimination at workplaces and the dysfunctionality of those municipalities. In light of that, the Select Committee should recognise the alarming message of petitions that showed the mischievous behaviour of municipal employees. In this case, he wanted to know about the bidding process in awarding tenders in terms of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA).

Mr Badenhorst disagreed with Adv Mbebe’s interpretation that the Chairperson of the NCOP had the authority to delegate a petition to any other committee. He requested that the Select Committee adhere to rule 213 and not be selective in complying with the rule.

Ms Makesini said the Select Committee was the relevant committee to deal with water and sanitation and all related matters. The Select Committee should deal with this petition.

Mr Mmoiemang concurred and emphasised the thrust of the petition. The Select Committee should instil confidence so petitioners would have trust in the work that Parliament did. 

Mr Peter said the Select Committee should convene a closed meeting with the stakeholders, including the department, and listen to all sides of the story.

Ms Molokomme said it was unfortunate that the Select Committee had to discuss procedural matters in front of petitioners. Ultimately, the role of the Select Committee was to resolve the challenges which the petitioners faced. The Select Committee needed to know what the position was. She requested that Adv Mbebe return to the Committee with a more comprehensive legal opinion.

The Chairperson offered the Select Committee’s apology to the petitioners, saying that it had to have a discussion of such nature in front of them.

He suggested reconvening the meeting to receive legal advice. Members were welcome to ask the petitioners clarifying questions.

Ms Makesini asked that the Committee request a report from COGTA within seven days.

She was concerned that the timeframe of this petition was so long, as people continued to face racism on a daily basis. The Select Committee had to engage with the management of uThukela and get to the bottom of the matter.

Ms Molokomme concurred with Ms Makesini’s suggestion on a report from Cogta on forensic investigations and on those things that had not been implemented.

The Select Committee could not tolerate racist treatment of people. The issue of water affected all the provinces that the Select Committee had to deal with.

The Select Committee should come up with a solution to deal with this matter the next time it convened, given this matter had been ongoing for two years.

The Chairperson apologised to the petitioners for the prolonged waiting period for the petition to be processed. The Select Committee was committed to resolving the issue, given that racism was involved. The Select Committee would keep the petitioners in the loop. He thanked them for bringing the matter to the Select Committee’s attention.

The petitioners were excused.

Discussion: Extension of interventions

The Chairperson sought Members’ opinions on whether extensions of the interventions at municipalities should be granted.

Mr Nzimande said the report by KZN COGTA was not convincing about the impact. He supported extensions, but highlighted that COGTA needed to show the Select Committee how it planned to address the causal factors.

It was agreed that extensions could be granted but the Select Committee had to closely monitor the implementation. Quarterly reports had to be submitted to the Committee.

Adv Mbebe cautioned the Select Committee that the interventions had been in place for more than five years. He highlighted that spheres of government were provided for in the Constitution, and local government had the right to govern its own affairs. Since 2021, those municipalities had not yet had the chance to govern on their own.

The Chairperson pointed out that the Constitution also said that government could not leave municipalities in a dysfunctional state.

Mr Peter pointed out that the issue under discussion was from the previous administration. The seventh administration should focus on the work it was supposed to do. The Select Committee should not be played by the technical people.

Mr Ceza reiterated the prolonged period of the interventions. The Select Committee should be committed to changing the dire situations in those municipalities and bringing the issue to a satisfactory conclusion in the seventh term.

The Chairperson reiterated that the Select Committee had a consensus that uThukela District Municipality and uMzinyathi District Municipality should account to the Select Committee so that Members would get a deeper understanding on the triggering factors in the report. Those two municipalities needed to demonstrate more effort to show progress.

The Committee agreed with that approach.

The Committee Secretary informed the Select Committee that three municipalities had been identified for oversight visits. Those were Matjhabeng Local Municipality, Mafube Local Municipality and Nala Local Municipality. He suggested that the Select Committee should get a report from the Nala municipality on a forensic investigation before going to the municipality.

The meeting was adjourned.