Local Government: Municipal Demarcation Bill: hearings

This premium content has been made freely available

Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs

27 May 1998
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.

Meeting report

27 May 1998

Documents handed out:
Banking Council of South Africa (Appendix 1)
Department of Political Studies, UCT (Appendix 2)
Greater Pretoria Metropolitan Council (Appendix 3)
South African Agricultural Union (Appendix 4)
South African Local Government Association (SALGA) [Appendix 5]
Transvaal Agricultural Union (Appendix 6)
Urban Sector Network (Appendix 7)
Cape Bar Council (Appendix 8)
Central Drakensberg Ratepayers Association (Appendix 9)
Conservative Party of South Africa (Appendix 10)

Presentation by South African Local Government Association (SALGA)

SALGA, represented by Mr Shoots Naidoo, repeated points made at the Local Government White Paper hearings in April. They stated that the key problem in local government is the effect apartheid demarcation has on the country today. The negotiated settlement solved some problems, but not all of them. SALGA blamed structural problems, not financial management for the collapse of municipalities. SALGA agrees with the White Paper that in South Africa we need developmental local government. The demarcation process, where outer boundaries of municipalities are drawn, must enable and aid in creating developmental local government. The Demarcation Board is appointed by the President, this gives it legitimacy. The boundaries of municipalities must be drawn up by the end of 1998, which makes it impossible with such few members on the Board.

Regarding the actual drawing up of the borders, the Board must ensure that it does not fragment areas that historically and/or traditionally belong together. There is also a need to look at other types of borders, like health borders. SALGA argues for letting these borders be building blocks in the demarcation process.

-Mr Bhabha (ANC) raised the issue of public participation and consultation.
He also raised the issue of redemarcation, which might be required after the elections. How to redemarcate: there needs to be an awareness of the affected municipalities, and that if one municipality wants redemarcation, this will affect at least another municipality. There is a need for consent from the municipalities before redemarcation happens.
- Prof. du Toit (ANC) asked a follow-up question where he raised the issue of public consultation again. The municipalities need to be consulted because they are the units that will have to work within the boundaries set up by the Board.
- Mr. Rabie (NP) asked whether the Board would be competent or at least have enough knowledge to take important decisions about demarcation, when MECs for local governments will have closer ties, thus more knowledge about where to demarcate.

SALGA argued strongly for more than merely optional public and municipal consultation. There is a need to remove subjectivity from this consultation, and bring in more consistency in the process. SALGA stated that "the legal people" needed to oblige to take into account the opinions of local people in the demarcation process. The way consultation can be done, for example, is through meetings in community centres.

- The Chairperson stated that there is a difference of opinion regarding public consultation, and how this is going to be organised and structured. Should it simply be a part of the process of demarcation, or should it be a criteria for demarcation?

A few more questions followed regarding the legal implications and procedures around consultation.

- Prof. du Toit stated that there was a need for a subjective factor in the process. For example the municipality could decide its name in order to create a sense of belonging in the municipality.

At this stage of the hearing it was agreed upon that public consultation was to be part of the process, but not in itself a criteria for demarcation. [This issue was raised again by Prof. Cameron (Dept. of Political Studies, UCT) at the end of the hearing.]

Presentation by Banking Council of South Africa
Mr. Lincoln Mali of the Banking Council of South Africa argued for a transparent, well-managed process. He stated that the Board needed to be strong and independent in order to make difficult decisions. The Banking Council’s concern with the Bill is that it does not grant the Board unhindered access to information. It is difficult to make sound decisions when there is not sufficient information to do so. This relates to financial information as well. The Banking Council strongly criticised the strong powers of the Minister in urban areas, where the Board, under section 26, does not have any clear and certain functions, unlike in rural areas. The Banking Council recommends a smaller role for the Minister, where he can act upon the recommendation of the Board in urban areas.

Regarding Section 25(j) in the Bill, the Banking Council states that they think it is inappropriate because it pre-empts the determination of the Board by declaring a mega-city without the benefit of expert determination by the Board, public participation and scrutiny. The Banking Council also gave a presentation concerning technical amendments to the Bill.

The questions and debate centred around the committee members contention that the Banking Council had a misunderstanding regarding the powers of the Minister and the drawing up of boundaries. The committee members argued that the Bill provides for the Minister and the Board to draw up outer boundaries, and does not deal with inner boundaries. Whether an urban area decides to go with option 1 or 2 in the White Paper regarding metropolitan areas, according to this bill, is not provided for the Minister to decide.
-The department stated that section 25(j) has been dealt with thoroughly in the White Paper hearings, and is worded quite carefully.

Presentation by Greater Pretoria Metropolitan Council
Councillor S. Lebese's presentation included very detailed guidelines and a detailed action plan for Greater Pretoria. The Council argued for an independent Board. The process of demarcation should be strategically driven. It is important that all municipalities can operate fully in this process of demarcation in order to contribute to the very important task of determining the municipal boundaries. When determining municipal borders: existing and expected human settlement patterns, employment, commuting and spending trends, the use of amenities, commercial and industrial linkages, the financial and administrative capacity of municipalities etc. must be taken into account. Governance service delivery should be spatially decentralised to enable accessibility of citizens, and functionally centralised to attain economies of scale.

Presentation by Urban Sector Network
Richard Dyantyi stated that Urban Sector Network supports the Bill, but feel that there are several key issues that are lacking in the Bill. Urban Sector Network argues for a need for dynamism in the demarcation process. The Bill gives an outline of demarcation criteria, but it does not state how these will be analysed and assessed by the Board. A prioritisation process should, to some extent, be legislated. There is a need for inclusivity in the process, this meaning participation by local residents. The establishment of committees seems to be optional in section 18 and 19. It is important to have these committees, to enable the Board to complete its task in time. But it is not clear at what level these committees will work at, how many there should be, what type of committees there will be, the structure of these, and the accountability of these committees to the Board.

There was a debate about the structures and powers of the committees. If the Board will be able to check or oversee every recommendation made by the committees before actually demarcating. Mr Smith (IFP) stated that this has to do with impartiality of the Board if they cannot do much with what the committees suggest. Dr. Olver from the department stated that the issue here is workload, and not committee structure.

The issue of redemarcation came up again, and Dr Olver stated that there is a need for a filtering mechanism to ensure that a situation where very few members of an MEC can make a decision about the need for redemarcation does not happen.

Presentation by Prof R Cameron, Political Studies Department, UCT
Prof Cameron stated that this bill is a coherent paper, and is the most advanced bill on demarcation in the world. He raised philosophical questions and issues regarding democracy. He further raised the issue of public consultation, and asked who does one listen to in the demarcation process? This is an important issue, because there are bound to be several different opinions regarding the drawing up of municipal borders.
The Board has final decision-making powers, and it is not the politicians that do this. In the Bill it must be inserted that not all criteria for demarcation need to be followed. This would be to allow demarcation to happen and to avoid filling up the courts with people or groups contesting the demarcation. Prof. Cameron suggested the Board change its name from Board to Commission, because a commission has more authority vested in it. He also argued for more inclusion of local government legislation in the Bill.

Dr. Olver stated that this Bill does not contain large amounts of local government legislation in order to clarify and simplify the Bill to some extent.
The chairperson stated that there is a clear need for "the legal people" to change the form of the Bill.

Appendix 1: Banking Council of South Africa


Oral submissions to Portfolio Committee on Constitutional Affairs

Parliament, 29 May 1998

The property of a bank consists mainly of loans, i.e. rights which the bank has against debtors. (Deposits are liabilities on a bank's balance sheet.)

These loans have a value - they can often be sold or discounted to third parties on various markets.

It is our view that this property is protected under section 25 of the Constitution. If Government were to substitute itself as creditor in place of an existing creditor, this substitution would - in our view - constitute an expropriation and be governed by section 25(2).

When two existing municipalities merge, the rights are not transferred. Instead, the creditor's right against an existing debtor is substituted for a right against the new debtor. If A and B are both municipalities, and A has assets exceeding liabilities of Rm 100 while B has liabilities exceeding assets of Rm 900, then the merged entity will have liabilities exceeding assets of Rm 800.

Clearly a bank which had an outstanding loan against A is in a far worse position in respect of the merged entity.

In our view this constitutes a deprivation of property in terms of section 25(1) of the Constitution.

The requirements are thus that the deprivation should be (i) in terms of a law of general application and (ii) not arbitrary.

In our view the Bill might not comply with these criteria, for reasons that (I) the criteria according to which the Board is to make its decision does include any consideration of the rights of creditors (this must necessarily result in a arbitrary decision as it effects the creditor's rights) and (ii) the deprivation may take place by way of a regulation under 32(2)(b) of the Bill which will be of "specific" rather than "general" application.

32 (1)The MEC for local government of a province may make regulations [regulating] dealing with the legal, practical and other consequences which arise when a municipality is wholly or partially incorporated, combined with or superseded by another municipality, including regulations -

(a) providing for the transfer of staff from one municipality to another and the retrenchment of staff;

(b) providing for the transfer of assets and liabilities from one municipality to another and the disposal of assets and liabilities; and

(c) limiting, extending or otherwise regulating or withdrawing the application of any existing by-laws, regulations and resolutions of a municipality to or in any specific area.

(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) may apply-

(a)generally to all, or any specific category of boundary determinations in the province concerned; or

(b) to a specific boundary determination.

(3) The transfer or retrenchment of staff in terms of a regulation made under subsection (1) must be effected in accordance with the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (Act No.66 of 1995).

(4) A transfer of assets and liabilities in terms of a regulation made under subsection (1) must be effected with due regard to any rights of creditors.

(5)[4](a)On production of a certificate by a municipality that immovable property was transferred to it in terms of a regulation made under subsection (1), a registrar of deeds must make such entries or endorsements in or on any relevant register, title deed or other document to register that property in the name of that municipality.

(b) No duty, fee or other charge is payable for a registration in terms of paragraph (a).


Chairperson, honourable members and local government stakeholders, I wish to express our gratitude to the committee for the opportunity to participate in this

important process.

Honourable members, the future boundaries of local authorities will have significant consequences for a wide range of interests, it is therefore absolutely vital that this process be well managed and regulated in an open and transparent manner.

We, as financial Institutions, involved in this sector, accept the need to establish, through legislation, clear criteria and well defined procedures for the determination of municipal boundaries. We therefore support the establishment of the Municipal Demarcation Board, and further endorse section 3 of the Bill, that such a body should be impartial and independent, and that it must perform its functions without fear, favour or prejudice. We are supportive of the unique features of this Bill which, we believe create a sound platform for an inclusive, transparent and interactive demarcation process.

What then are these features?

Section 3 which establishes the principle of impartiality, sections 6 and 8 which ensure that the Board is constituted in a manner which gives effect to this principle, sections 24 and 25 which limit the discretion of the Board by imposing certain objectives and considerations and, finally, sections 27 to 29 which provide for public participation. These features must not only be maintained, but should be strengthened through appropriate amendments. The amendments we have proposed should go some way to ensuring that the demarcation proce$6 has both integrity and legitimacy.

What then are our concerns with the Bill?

Firstly, section 5 of the Bill does not expressly grant the Demarcation Board unhindered access to any information, from any municipality, that is relevant to its work. We believe that this is a major weakness that needs to be addressed. The Board simply has to be empowered with relevant, accurate and up to date information in order for it to do its work properly. With regard to financial information, it is important that the Board makes its determinations on the basis of accurate and reliable financial information.

The Bill should further place a duty on municipalities to provide accurate up to date information to be verified by the Chief Executive Officer. It must also be in a format that allows for realistic and accurate assessment of those municipalities' financial position.

Such information could include audited financial statements, budgets, internal reports to council, an analysis of revenue by source, a cash flow forecast, Auditor General's report, debtor and creditor's age analysis, a list of liabilities and an analysis of revenue by source etc.

We further believe that this matter is so important that appropriate sanctions for non-compliance should be included in the Bill. The onus should be placed squarely on the accounting officers of municipalities to give accurate and updated financial information.

We propose that section 5 (h) be amended accordingly.

Secondly, while the Bill contains many commendable provisions aimed at achieving impartiality, limitations on discretion and community participation, these good measures can be easily circumvented with respect to demarcation of municipalities in all the major urban centres. In respect of these, the Minister may - in effect - undertake demarcation by proclamation. This power is limited only by the fact that the Minister needs to consult with the persons and entities mentioned in that section. There is no duty to act impartially, there is no duty to take into account all the many relevant factors which have been prescribed for the Board, and there is no provision for public participation in the process.

We believe that section 26 is anomalous to the spirit of the legislation and contradicts the statement in section 4, namely that "the function of the Board is to determine municipal boundaries for the whole of the territory of the Republic11. Section 26, undermines the authority and integrity of the Board and could reduce the demarcation process to a mere sham. It is disturbing that there are no clear and certain functions for the Board in urban areas.

We propose that all the limitations and measures that underpin the impartiality and integrity of the demarcation process, should apply equally in urban areas to prevent the demarcation process being dictated by political imperatives.


In relation to this issues, we propose this amendment:

The minister may, on the recommendations of the Demarcation Board, recognise an area as a metropolitan area, by notice in the Government gazette.

This amendment will still retain the Minister's role and discretion, but this will be subject to the Board's recommendation.

Thirdly, whether or not metropolitan areas should be run on a "mega-city" basis or

on a decentralised basis has been a topic of many political debates. While the Development and Public Finance Forum does not wish to support either of the two options, we are not in favour of legislation which is inherently predisposed to either alternative. We believe that section 25(j) is inappropriate as it pre-empts the determination of the Board by declaring a mega-city without the benefit of expert determination by the Board and public participation and scrutiny.

Our members have considerable financial exposure by way of mortgage finance in all the metropolitan areas. Their interests will be prejudiced if demarcations are determined by ideological preference rather than what is most viable in the light of local circumstances.

We propose that section 25(j) be amended appropriately.


Appendix 2: Department of Political Studies, UCT


Submission to the Portfolio Committee on Constitutional Affairs, 27 May 1998

Professor Robert Cameron

Department of Political Studies

University of Cape Town


I am busy completing a book that I have been working on for three years which deals with local boundary demarcation internationally and in South Africa. Furthermore, I have already been involved in the policy formulation process of the Municipal Demarcation Bill in a number of ways. This includes:

been contracted by the White Paper Technical Committee on Local Government to write an overview of both international and local demarcation experience;

providing comments on the Bill to the Department of Provincial Affairs and Constitutional Development and to the Provincial Administration of the Western Cape's Local Government Department;

providing comments to the White Paper on Local Government hearings on Demarcation.

It needs to be noted that this Municipal Demarcation Bill is based partially on my document A Framework for Local Government Boundary Demarcation which was submitted to the White Paper Technical Committee.


The Bill as a whole is generally well thought out and a coherent piece of legislation although I do have a couple of concerns which I will turn to later. The Bill is also a substantial improvement upon some of the unfocused previous drafts that I have seen.

The Bill, to my knowledge is the most advanced pieces of demarcation legislation that exists internationally. I have perused the legislation of a number of countries and most demarcation legislation is just part of a broader bill on local government restructuring (as will the South African Local Government Transition Act). The department must be commended in taking an innovative step in introducing specific demarcation legislation. This is a recognition of the fundamental importance of boundary demarcation in ensuring the long-term viability of local government structures which can enhance service delivery and promote development.


One of the principles underpinning good demarcation practice is that a demarcation authority be appointed by an independent body, be given specific independence, be protected from interference, be required to be impartial and do its work without fear, favour and prejudice. A commendable feature is therefore the attempt to establish the independence of the Board as required by the Constitution. Attempts by some politicians to gerrymander boundaries in 1994/1995 stirred up local emotions and delayed local government elections in some provinces. The appointment procedure makes provision for the independence of the board in a way consistent with the way other Commissions have been established in terms of the Constitution. The Board also has the right to appoint its own staff.

Section 21 is also a major innovation. Part of the problem for the previous local government elections was that Board decisions could be overturned by provincial politicians or alternatively that provinces could draw up boundaries and send them to Boards to rubber stamp. This legislation ensures that Boards should consist of competent professions will make the final decision in this regard. Provision is made for an appeal mechanism to Boards to reconsider decisions.

This provision is also more advanced than legislation in many countries. In some countries, such as in England, the Minister has the powers of modification only in that he cannot substitute the report with his views; he can only modify proposals. However, it is rare for politicians to abdicate final decision-making powers to commissions to decide boundaries which can determine spheres of power. The constitutional negotiators on local government need to be commended on this bold step.

The independence of the board does not whoever mean absolute independence. The Board is subject to the provisions of the constitution and any policy guidance from the Minister of Local Government in conjunction with the MECs. The categories (structures) of local government is an obvious policy prerogative of the Minister in this regard. Section 25 and 26 are attempts by the Minister to give policy advice to the Board, an issue to which I will return later.


Provision is made for an appeal mechanism for Boards to reconsider decisions (Section 21(3) and (4)). This provision is supported for two reasons. Firstly, it is doubtful whether legal provision exists for the review of substantial decisions of constitutionally created constitutions. Secondly, numerous appeals would be time-consuming and could well delay the 1999 local government elections.

However, a provision needs to be inserted in one of these sections stating 'The Board must apply the criteria generally in the performance of its duties'. This is to avoid court challenges to the Courts on the procedural grounds that the Board did not apply the criteria systematically. Such a provision should firstly, largely avoid such time-consuming challenges and secondly, ensure that the Board systematically applies its mind during its deliberations. Also, by inserting 'general application of the criteria' it would avoid court challenges arguing that the Board did not look at every specific criterion.


The proposal for having one uniform Board is supported. It should ensure uniform application of policy, better co-ordination, allow concentration of limited demarcated expertise and is less costly than the current system of a provincial Board. One of the problems of the previous round of demarcation was the unevenness in Board reports. Some Provincial Boards were technically very competent, while the recommendations of some other Boards were not of a particularly high standard. Some of the current problems of the non-viability of certain municipalities are due to poorly designed boundaries. The major criticism against a single board is that it will lead to centralisation of power. However, the fact that the national Board is independent, as required by the Constitution, means that there is no centralisation in the hands of the National Minister. The Bill also takes regional interests into account in Section 6(b) and (c) when it states that the Board must reflect regional diversity and collectively represent a pool of knowledge concerning issues relevant to municipal demarcation in each of the provinces.


Demarcation criteria are dealt with in Sections 24 and 25. Section 24 deals with demarcation objectives and section 25 deals with factors to be taken into account. International experience suggests that demarcation criteria should be simply short and easy to implement. The problem with Sections 24 and 25 are that these criteria are too cumbersome which could well lead to problems of implementation.

Section 24 is largely a repetition of Section 152 of the Constitution, the Objectives of Local Government. This is tautologous. There should be one list of factors (criteria) that need to be taken into account. The only thing that really needs to be said is that the Board needs to take Section 152 of the Constitution, the Objectives of Local Government, into account when demarcating boundaries.

Section 25 enshrines many of the criteria that can be used to fundamentally transform local government such as the interdependence of people, communities and economies, the need to share and redistribute financial and administrative resources, the need to ensure financial viability and the need to establish a single, cohesive, unfragmented area.

In Section 25 there are too many criteria, some of which overlap with each other. For example, criteria (b) and (c) which deal with financial/administrative capacity and financial viability respectively could be consolidated while criteria (f), (g), (o) and (p) all deal with functional boundaries. Likewise, (h) and (i) deal with land use and transport planning issues respectively. In reality, these functions are so closely linked that they could be included in one criterion.

The one argument is that if Boards are to be given so much independence, criteria need to be detailed to ensure that national government policy is adhered to. That may be the case, but there is still obvious overlap. Also, making criteria detailed could be a double-edged sword in that it would be more difficult for the Board to systematically apply all these criteria given the limited time-span for demarcation of boundaries for the 1999 elections. This could leave the Board open to challenges that it has not applied the criteria systematically.


Some concerns have been raised that the 'will of the community' which is a criterion in terms of the Local Government Transition Act, is not a criterion in terms of the proposed Bill.

However, this exclusion is supported. This criterion is too problematic to be included in the Municipal Demarcation Board Act. Firstly, there are different views within the community. Secondly, in the case of amalgamation whose will do you listen to, the community that is annexing and the community that stands to be incorporated, or alternatively both? International experience has shown that this criterion could be a major obstacle to the rationalisation of local government boundaries in that recalcitrant communities have an effective veto against being incorporated. In England overreliance on community opinion led to the abolition of only four of the 39 county councils (it was the governments original intention to abolish all of them). Finally, an overemphasis on a simple snapshot of public opinion at a given point of time in determining long-term boundaries is hardly ideal.


Section 25 contains not only recognised boundary criteria, but also specific policy instructions from the Minister. The argument well may be that given the extensive independence given to the Board, there is need to ensure that national policy is adhered to. This is a reasonable proposition. However, an attempt to muddle policy and criteria is only going to lead to confusion and possibly distorted boundaries.

It is suggested that the current Section 22 'work programme' be changed to be called 'policy and procedural programme/guidelines' and any reference to policy be included in this section.

However, while the Board should be given a well-defined purpose and clear guidance it must be given reasonable discretion in how it discharges its functions. Ministers must be willing to stand back and allow such a Board to operate independently. Boards should be given clear policy and procedural guidance, yet it cannot be too prescriptive, because it may compromise the Board's independence.


Section 26(1) states that the Minister acting in consultation with the MECs for local government and after the Board has been consulted, may recognise an area as a metropolitan area if that area fulfils certain criteria such as strong social and economic linkages between its constituent areas and had a high population density.

Section 26(a) states that when recognising an area as a metropolitan area, the Minister determines the area in general but may not specify the exact outer boundaries of the area.

This Section is probably the weakest part of the Bill as a whole. On the one hand, the Bill gives the Board final decision-making powers to determine boundaries in terms of the criteria of Section 24 and 25 which in turn reflect national priority and policies. However, on the other hand, the Minister may recognise a metropolitan area, after consultation only with the Board (and MECs).

Consultation does not mean concurrence. What happens if there is a difference between the boundary demarcated by the MEC and that by the Board? Seeing that the Constitution gives the board final decision-making powers, this section could well be bordering on unconstitutionality. The Minister has the right to determine demarcation policy, but not the boundaries themselves. At the least, it is a case of overkill. If the Board has to determine boundaries based on criteria reflecting national policy, why is it necessary for him to attempt to de facto determine metropolitan boundaries? Also, the true extent of a metropolitan area can only be ascertained through proper demarcation by the Board based on criteria. So, if the Minister does come up with a different metropolitan boundaries it can only be due to (provincial) political interests.

This section has the potential to undermine some of the more progressive factors of the Bill, in particular the independence of the Board, and needs to be revisited.


It is suggested that this body be called the Municipal Demarcation Commission instead of the Municipal Demarcation Board. There are three reasons for this suggested amendment:

Almost all such bodies are internationally called commissions rather than Boards;

A Commission has a higher status than a Board in the hierarchy of investigating committees;

The Treasury pays commission to members at a higher rate than Boards. Part of the motivation for the creation of a single natural 'Super Board' (see my report to the White Paper Working Committee) was that provincial board members were poorly remunerated (R450-500 a day). This was unsatisfactory for a number of reasons;

- some competent people did not apply to become members because of the low pay scales;

- Board members did not always apply themselves to their task because of other commitments e.g. the daily allowance could not sustain self-employed consultants sitting on Boards.

It was argued in my report that if 9 provincial boards are abolished, this would lead to substantial savings and would more than compensate the costs of paying Board members market related allowances. This should ensure dedicated application by members to the task of demarcation.

Appendix 3: Greater Pretoria Metropolitan Council





The White Paper on Local Government as a policy document has the intention to guide and initiate all spheres of government to a strategic process of designing a detail support programme and legislative mechanisms to empower actions for transformation.

In order to achieve the above, an intensive support programme including all strategic operational and developmental issues will be required to develop; transform and restructure in our case the metropolitan environment for proper and efficient municipal service delivery and development.

Flowing from the aforesaid the Municipal Demarcation Bill and Municipal Structures Bill has seen the light emanating from the White Paper process.

It is therefor our submission that the whole process of transformation, including demarcation should be strategically driven. The process therefor should further allow for advise and support programmes to be compiled to achieve a comprehensive and justifiable transformation strategy that would allow for proper alignment with legislation and political guidelines to be enacted.

To carry forward the transformation process and especially demarcation from legislation to implementation, a specific strategy with objectives needs to be determined. Our constitutional mandate provides for certain overall policy and legislation to enhance or speed-up the transformation and especially in this regard, the demarcation of municipal government in South Africa.


2.1 Municipal Demarcation Bill

The envisaged demarcation legislation covers the establishment of an independent Demarcation Board as well as criteria and procedures for the determination of municipal boundaries.

The Bill envisaged a goal to provide for criteria and procedures for the determination of municipal boundaries by an independent authority and to provide for matters connected thereto. The aforesaid Board will only be established after the promulgation of the Municipal Demarcation Act and the Demarcation Steering Committee will provide support services to enable the Demarcation Board to perform its function It is therefore of the utmost importance that all municipalities can operate fully in this process in order to contribute to the very important task of determining the municipal boundaries.

The envisaged Demarcation Board must determine municipal boundaries in order to enable municipalities to provide democratic and accountable municipal government for local communities, provide municipal services in a sustainable manner, promote social and economic planning and development and a safe and healthy environment as we I as to have a tax base as inclusive as possible of users of municipal services in their municipal areas.

In determining municipal boundaries the Board must take certain criteria into consideration. The criteria inter alia include existing and expected patters of human settlement, employment, commuting and spending trends, the use of amenities, commercial and industrial linkages, the financial and administrative capacity of municipalities, the need to share and redistribute financial resources, existing boundaries, existing and proposed service and administrative systems land usage, town planning, transport planning, topographical, environmental and physical characteristics of municipal areas, the need to co-ordinate municipal, provincial and national programmes and services and the administrative consequences of the boundary determination on the implementation of policy, existing municipalities, their members and staff.

2.2 Demarcation Guidelines

To achieve the principles of municipal democracy, accountability and responsiveness, as well as efficiency, effectiveness and economy of scale, governance service delivery should be spatially decentralised to enable accessibility of citizens and functionally centralised to attain economies of scale. This specifically is a process applicable within the Greater Pretoria Metro Area.

* Spatial decentralisation

Geographic business units (substructures) consisting of approximately 200 000 people are envisaged which are accessible to the community. These substructures should facilitate contact between the citizens and local government structures. The powers and duties of these substructures should include amongst others:

-local decision-making powers

-specific functional areas

-organisation/administrative support.

-Techno-support services, etc.

* Functional centralisation of Bulk and Support Functions

Centralisation of bulk functions should be most effectively, efficiently and economically performed on a metropolitan basis, for example bulk services, major roads, regional parks and regional planning. Many functions are most efficiently performed on a metropolitan and large scale, i.e. water purification, sewage treatment and waste disposal. Area-wide social services such as fire, ambulance services, traffic and public transport can also be more effectively performed on a centralised basis.

Centralised support services should amongst others include the following services:

-Financial services

-Legal & secretarial services

-Human Resource services

-Logistical services

-Techno advisory services

-Management Information Services

-Corporate services

-Property evaluation


-Liaison and communication

-Strategic Management

-Governance Services.

In order to achieve the above said spatial decentralisation and functional centralisation, the following important issues needs to be addressed in the demarcation process:

* There needs to be political acceptance of the outer boundaries and area of functional jurisdiction.

* The demarcated area needs to be grouped in accordance with its economic inter-dependant character.

* The boundaries must depict logical economic movement within the area of jurisdiction.

* Different standards of development be stract between urban and rural areas not deteriorating from engineering standards.

* The demarcated area should be developed on a systematic basis taken the above standards in consideration through a balanced approach.

* The demarcated area be political represented and functionally assisted by a flat organisational structure.

* The organisational structure for administrative and governance support services must be supported by geographical business units (substructures) and technologistic support services that1s economic viable.

* The economic viability of the municipal area, especially with reference to the urban and rural density within the envisaged Greater Pretoria area, should be directly linked to financial contributions from National Government (including inter governmental transfers).

* Ownership for demarcation should be established.

* Consultative forums should be established for proper communication and support. This process should be initiated and spearheaded by a Party Political Demarcation Team.

2.3 Action Plan for Greater Pretoria

The purpose of our action plan is to outline the proposed demarcation process. The goal is to determine the demarcation objectives in accordance with the statutory stipulations as well as to compile a demarcation action plan which includes the Data Action Plan.

The demarcation action plan is divided into the following steps:

Step 1:Finalization of demarcation criteria in accordance with the envisaged legislation

Step 2:Submission of Action Plan to Tap Management and Chief Executive Committee (CECOM) for confirmation.

Step 3:Submission of Action Plan to a Party Political Demarcation Team as well as Co-ordinated Executive Committee.

Step 4:Discipline orientated working sessions (compilation of Data Action Plan)


2.Roads & Physical Development

3.Land-use and Transport Planning

4.Community Services

5.Community Safety

6.Metropolitan Economic Development

7.Water and Environment

8.Legal, Secretarial and Corporative Management

9.Human Resource Management


Step 5:Drafting status quo report and scenarios

Step 6:Financial, organisational and legal evaluation of scenarios

Step 7:Consultation with Politicians and Stakeholders

(Neighbouring municipal structures and Gauteng Provincial Government). The consultative process will be community driven, managed by the Party Political Task Team.

Step 8:Approval of final Demarcation plan/document by the existing metropolitan government structures.

Step 9:Submission of demarcation proposal to Demarcation Board.

Step 10:Implementation of approved demarcation.


Transformation in our case within the Greater Pretoria Area is viewed as "a change of direction" on all metropolitan levels, within the existing area of jurisdiction of how we work, how we think, interact, participate and perform. From the Demarcation Bill it is very clear that focussing on the new vision of municipal government implicates radical change.

According to the Bill, successful demarcation ultimately rests in the hands of each metropolitan government structure in liaison and support of the statutory mandate of the Demarcation Board. For us demarcation is not a choice - it is an obligation in order to fulfil our constitutional mandate and play a role in the development of our nation All councillors, officials and community members should be involved in the demarcation process and potential members of the Demarcation Board should therefor be nominated through organised local government structures and organised local community structures by mutual support of the metropolitan structures concerned.

In view of the above, we within the Greater Pretoria Area recognise our envisaged area as a metropolitan area.

It is an area that can reasonably regarded as:

* A functionally integrated area

* A centre of economic activity

* A single area for which integrated development planning is desirable, and

* Is characterised by -

Strong social and economic linkages between our constituent units; and

A high population density.

We therefor can in accordance with our strategic approach confidently submit our demarcation proposals to the Board for consideration in consultation with our MEC for Development Planning and Local Government in the smart Province, Gauteng.

We believe that the aforesaid has given some meaning to the practical approach and implementation of the municipal demarcation process in accordance with the legislative framework to be provided by the Demarcation Act.

I thank you!

Appendix 4: South African Agricultural Union


21 May 1998


Your letter and friendly invitation dated 6 May 1998 refer.

The following submission on the Bill is provided herewith:

The White Paper in Local Government makes provision for a system of proportional representation. The SAAU supports this system which is structured on an basis of ward and proportional representation.

To make this system work, ward representatives are nominated and elected by the community which resides within the relevant ward In the delimitation of wards care must be taken to avoid the inclusion of areas with widely different circumstances and needs as this could impact negatively on the effective delivery of services in such a ward.

It must be pointed out that different areas has their specific needs and conditions and that bringing clashing interests together in the same ward would cause problems, for example farming areas and mining areas and/or residential areas.

The demarcation of wards must take piece in consultation with the relevant local communities in order to avoid the demarcation of non viable areas.

The key to success is that only areas which are distinctly similar should be grouped together.

I wish to confirm our willingness to appear before the Portfolio Committee but we will regard these few points as of vital importance to be taken into account.

Yours faithfully



Appendix 5: South African Local Government Association





We would like to record our thanks and appreciation to the portfolio committee for affording us this opportunity to make a submission on this very important piece of legislation. This public hearing comes at a very important time in the life of SALGA. Over the last weekend SALGA held its Annual Conference. The theme of the Conference was:

"Local Government For A Better Life For All". This theme would inform the work of SALGA over the next year. We look at the Municipal Demarcation Bill against the backdrop of deliberations and resolutions taken at the Conference.


A few weeks ago we made submissions before this committee on implementing the Local Government White Paper. We would like to preface our submission by reflecting on a few points made the last time we were here. We touch on three aspects of the White Paper:

+ Current Reality

+ Developmental Local Government

+ Co-operative Government

This Municipal Demarcation Bill is the first piece of legislation that flows directly from the Local Government White Paper.


Comments here are restricted to demarcation issues. Apartheid boundary determinations resulted in municipalities being created without regard to very important factors like viability, efficiency etc. This resulted in fragmentation along racial lines. Municipalities created during the current period of transition attempted to integrate municipal areas. In a number of cases negotiated seillements did not produce the desired results. We therefore see a situation where Project Viability reports a large number of municipalities on the verge of collapse. In a number of instances we believe this is not the result of poor f;r~anciaI management, but structural problems related to the way in which municipalities were established.

The White Paper defines Developmental Local Government as follows:

"Developmental local government is local government committed to working with citizens and groups within the community to find sustainable ways to meet their social, economic and material needs and improve the quality of their ilves"

The White Paper also sets out four inter-related characteristics of Developmental Local Government as follows:

+ Maximising social development and economic growth

+ Integrating and co-ordinating

+ Democratising development

+ Leading and learning

Provisions in the Municipal Demarcation Bill will be judged by the extent to which it advances the objective of creating Developmental Local Government.


Chapter three of the constitution and the white paper deals extensively with co-operative government. We would like to stress that we in this instance view co-operative governance as the three spheres of government working together to make local government in our country work well.

The Municipal Demarcation Bill is seen in the context of national government putting in place legislation to facilitate the creation of viable municipalities.


The establishment of an independent board to determine municipal boundaries for the whole of the Republic is supported. This would result in the desirable consistency absent from the current demarcations.


The fact that the board would be appointed by the President after a transparent selection process would give the necessary legitimacy and stature to the board which has to undertake a very sensitive exercise. Boundary demarctions have always been fraught with problems.

The appoint procedure, in particular the composition of the Selection panel is fully Supported.


In order for Municipal Elections to be successfully held before 1st November 1999 in most provinces, boundary determinations must be made before the end of this year. A Board of up to 15 members acting alone would not be able to fulfill this responsibility. The provisions that allow for the creation of committees to support the work of the board is very important.

The board must have at its disposal sufficient administrative support.


The bill provides for the board to conduct its work in such a way that people affected by boundary determinations are given an opportunity to make submissions prior to determinations being made and some opportunity to review determinations.

This has the potential of slowing down the process of determining boundaries, but we think this is a very important principle - given the sensitivity of this exercise.


Historically demarcation legislation was vague when it came to issues of objectives and criteria for demarcation. This resulted in fragmented municipalities that were unable to perform their functions.

The success of the policy proposals in the local government white paper is dependent on, amongst others, how municipal boundaries are drawn. People drawing boundaries must not see this as a mechanical exercise but must be sensitive to what these municipalities are being created for.

The idea of specifying objectives of demarcation and factors to be taken into account is fully supported. The list of factors in section 25 of the bill places sufficient guidelines before the board to create municipalities that would be placed on a sound footing to play their developmental role and create viable municipalities.


The procedures set out in the bill make adequate provisions for all stakeholders to be involved in the demarcation process.


Making boundary determinations are not just drawing lines on a map. This is about establishing new municipalities from old ones. This might mean merging of municipalities or even splitting of existing municipalities. These are municipalities that have staff, assets, liabilities etc. How we handle these complex issues of transfers to the new entities is critical to the establishment of the new municipalities. Its importance must not be underestimated.


10.1 A number of sections provide for the Minister to act "in consultation" with the MEG. The Bill does not provide for dispute resolution mechanisms if there is a deadlock.

10.2 An elaborate process of determining municipal boundaries is being established. It would be important 0 see all other boundaries (Eg Health, magisterial etc) being contiguous with municipal boundaries.


This bill takes forward the vision for local government as set out in the local government white paper. It provides the independent demarcation board with tools to draw boundaries that can be used to implement

developmental local government that transforms local government to provide a better life for all.

Appendix 6: Transvaal Agricultural Union


21 April 1998


With reference to the Demarcation Bill which will be considered by your Committee in the near future, the Transvaal Agricultural Union would like to propose the following amendment to section 25:

25 (j)ii Include words "the option" in order to read as follows:

25 (j)ii: In areas other than metropolitan areas, the option to include any rural area in a municipality which has a town as it's core if that town has a strong social and economic linkage with that rural area and functions primarily as a service centre for that rural area.


1.The ideal is to create autonomous rural municipalities in the Quickest possible manner that can govern the rural areas according to its own character needs and aspirations without being linked to other bodies (municipalities) that have different priorities and do not understand the upliftment process of the rural areas.

2.To a certain extent existing structures in the rural areas can already be of valuable assistance to a rural municipality in rendering some services (functions) on an agent basis. Thus meaning that a rural municipality delivering basic services can be implemented immediately in some areas.

3.Only when these proposed alterations are in place, section 25(j)ii would be in line with 25(h) meaning that separate entities are operating separately without interference of bodies of no concern.


1. Due to the unique circumstances of the rural areas, kindly include a person from this sphere of the economy on the Demarcation Board in order to represent and accommodate the aspirations of the rural area.

2. We would also like to motivate our proposals personally and would appreciate it if you could inform us as to when a public hearing will be arranged by your Committee.



Appendix 7: Urban Sector Network

Urban Sector Network (USN)

Local Government: Municipal Demarcation Bill

Submission in Response to the Bill

25 May 1998

I. Introduction

In general the intention of the Bill seems to be to simply outline the offical structure within which demarcation takes place. The Bill lacks depth on the actual demarcation process, in particular:

how the Board will decide on a new boundary (beyond listing a number of variables), and through proposing an inadequate consultation process.

II. The Need for Dynamism in the Demarcation Process

Serious thought should be given to a mechanism which the Board can employ to decide on a new boundary. There are two primary factors which should make up this mechanism: the process of prioritising and analysing demarcation procedure and the way in which outside input is considered (this is discussed at length in the next section).

i. Demarcation Criteria

The Bill outlines a set of Demarcation Criteria [in Part 2] but fails to say how these criteria will be analysed and assessed by the Board. A prioritisation process should be legislated, at least to some extent.

The criteria for determining boundaries seem somewhat vague in that many are not quantifiable, they can therefore be applied subjectively to each municipal case. Also, there is no mechanism for including local stakeholder input in priorising these criteria.

The factor expressed as the financial viability of the municipality is a case in point. Many small towns throughout the country are financially unviable. However, one cannot simply shut down these municipalities. If we were to do this a province like the Eastern Cape would end up with only 10-15 municipalities in the whole province which currently has 94 local authorities. Given that most of the Eastern Cape is unviable, is there a limit to how much rationalisation is allowed? The potential level of re-centralisation is very worrying for small towns that are just learning to stand on their own feet. In section 25 (g), mention is made of considering existing and proposed service and administrative systems provided or to be provided by or on behalf of the national and provincial governments. Should the service areas of District governments not be included in these considerations? On the issue of district government, is the demarcation board planning to review any of the district councils boundaries?

Section 25(j) lists what appears to be three ideal settlement boundaries to create: a single metro, a core town including its rural surrounds, and a large city or town with its peripheral townships or industrial areas included. Does this imply that combining two small towns and the rural surrounds would be an unusual or exceptional case? Will already completed LDOs and IDPs which have been done for combined localities be taken seriously as a motivation for drawing the boundaries around the area planned for? For example Peddie/Hamburg TRC combined LDO/IDP.

III. The Need for Inclusivity in the Boundary Demarcation Process

i. Participation of Local Residents

Part 3 of the Bill dicusses the Demarcation Procedure. In essence the Board will simply be responsible to publicise their intentions locally through publication of a notice in a newspaper being circulated in the area and other means [27.(i)(ii)(iii)]and then review written submissions to it [28(a)]. It will decide whether or not to simply take a decision on the determination of a boundary [28(b)], or whether to hold a public meeting [28(b)(i)], conduct a formal investigation [28(b)(ii)], or do both [28(b)(iii)].

The ability of the Board to decide the terms under which it will include participation of local residents is problemtatic for the USN. Forthcoming legislation should make participation of residents in this process mandatory. The Board cannot simply move through communities dictating the terms of their effective boundaries. A sense of ownership of this process by communities is crucial to the success of this process. The alternative will be a continuation of the sporadic incidents of local conflict over boundaries.

Ultimately we feel that there is very little to ensure that communities views are heeded, that there is no clear undertaking to change or amend boundaries upon objections. It seems to rely on the good will and judgment of the Board to act in good faith on behalf of community interests.

ii. Establishment of Committees

The section on committees [18,19] seems to be suggesting that creating committees is entirely optional, and it is left up to the Board to determine their composition and specific functioning. This raises two issues:

Without committees the Board will never complete its task properly in time. At the same time a dangerous way to fast-track demarcation in a locality would be to bypass the committee system and thereby simply declare the boundary for comment and effectively ignore local complexities and sensibilities.

Also in relation to committees, it is not clear at what level these committees will work, for example should there be a committee for each province. Other than financial constraints, what are the other factors limiting the number of committees that the board chooses to create?

IV. Decisions on Boundary Demarcations

Clarity on the demarcation process (as discussed above) would lead to the Board being able to make an informed decision on new boundaries and this decision being adhered to by local residents.

i. When Boundary Determination Takes Effect

The section on when boundary demarcations take effect is confusing. With regard to the two options under section 23 (2) a and b, is it being suggested that these boundaries could become effective at any time other than at the time of local government elections? Can they at any stage become effective before or after elections? We feel that declaring new boundaries effective at any time other than at the election date, would be unmanageable in terms of local government administrative systems and particularly in terms of financial control.

In terms of redemarcation after the elections of 1999, the bill is not very clear. What would precipitate review of the demarcated boundary of a municipality? Would it be a request from the MEC, civil unrest etc? Given that the term of office for the demarcation board is 5 years, we assume that they will have redemarcation work to do after the elections of 1999.

Appendix 9: Cape Bar Council




DATE: 13 MAY 1998

1. Section 155(3)(b) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, No. 108 of 1996 ("the Constitution"), provides as follows:

"(3) National legislation must -

(a) ...

(b) establish criteria and procedures for the determination of municipal boundaries by an independent authority; and

(c) ..."

2. Although the Local Government Municipal Demarcation Bill, 1998 ("the Bill") allocates this function to the Municipal Demarcation Board ("the Board"), cIause 26 provides that the Minister for Provincial Affairs and Constitutional Development, acting in consultation with the MEC's for local government and after consultation with the Board, may recognise an area as a metropolitan area if certain characteristics exist (subclause (1)).

3. Sub-clause (2) seemingly attempts to address the difficulty posed by the constitutional requirement that municipal boundaries must be determined by an independent authority by providing as follows:

(2) When recognising an area as a metropolitan area, the Minister determines the area in general but may not specify the exact outer boundaries of the area" .

4. The GCB is of the view that notwithstanding the provisions of subcIause (2), clause 26 will in effect empower thc Minister to determine the boundaries of metropolitan areas and that it is accordingly rendered unconstitutional by the provisions of section 155(3)(b) of the Constitution.

5. In this regard it is pointed out that the fact that the Board has to be consulted does not mean that its concurrence is required See Colonial Secretary v Molteno School Board 27 S.C. (1910) 96: Allie v Union Government (Minister for Native Affairs) 1911 C.P.D. 312; Benoni Town Council v Mallela 1930 T.P.D. 671 to 677; Rollo and Another v Minister of Town and Country Planning 1948 (1) All E.R. 13; R v Mbete 1954 (4) SA 491 (E); Rex v Ntleneza 1955 (1) SA 212 (A)

6. It is suggested that the requirement in clause 27(3) to the effect that the Board must send (in the prescribed way) a copy of the notice of its intention to consider the determination of a municipal boundary to each Municipality that "will be affected by the Board's consideration of the matter" should preferably refer to Municipalities that "may be" so affected.

7. Clause 30(1) seemingly (wrongly) assumes that committees cannot comprise Board members as well as other persons. See in regard clause 18(3).

8. As far as the provisions of clause 31 (which deal with powers of investigation committees) and those of clause 43 (which deal with offences and penalties) are concerned, it is recommended that provision be made that the law regarding privilege shall apply in relation to questioning and that no evidence regarding questions and answers (with the customary exceptions) shall be admissible in criminal proceedings. The Investigation of Serious Economic Offences Act, No. 117 of 1991, contains good examples of appropriate statutory provisions to this effect.


Appendix 9: Central Drakensberg Ratepayers Association


In response to your invitation to comment on the contents of 'The Green Paper on Local Government' and the 'Information required from Municipalities for Determination of Municipal Boundaries.

We request the National Demarcation Board to consider the unique circumstances and the economic and social structure of the regulated area which is presently administered by the Cathkin Park TLC.


a) 150 Rateable properties including: 6 Hotels, 6 Time Share Resorts, 2 Caravan resorts, a number of smaller self catering holiday resorts and three schools.

b) The economic activities are essentially concerned with holiday and tourist trade; and to a negligible extent with farming. Farming is allowed on a small scale only mainly to enhance the peaceful rural atmosphere for holiday makers.

c) The Area is situated along the foothills of the Central Drakensberg Catchment and any development is regulated by the Environmental Conservation Act and the National Planning Commission.

d) The area is populated by only 2776 local residents but attracts an estimated 1 million visitors and tourists per annum.


a) Every person legally residing in the area does so either as a property owner, or as an employee of that property owner.

b) The housing areas are completely integrated.

c) Every property owner is responsible by law to provide the following services:-

i) suitable and approved housing for employees,

ii) water and sewage facilities.

d) One school educates children up to primary school level, the other two schools up to standard 7 and matric level.

e) We have a clinic with qualified sister arid staff nurse.

f) We have in house expertise and the necessary laboratory facilities and test and control the pollution of the water resource in this catchment area on a regular basis.

g) We have efficient privately run security services. and make very few requests for assistance from SAPS Station in Winterton, 30 Km away.

h) We have the lowest crime rate in the area if not in KZN.

i) We have active Residents' and Ratepayers' associations.

j) We have democratically elected councillors on the TLC.

IN SHORT we have a completely integrated and peaceful community which is completely self-sufficient.

It is run efficiently and operates successfully in accordance with the principles of the VISION for the CATHKIN VALLEY as per attached publication which has been adopted by the inhabitants of our area.

3.Our 'VISION' promotes social and economic development within the following parameters

i) Because of the rate of urbanisation a minimal increase in population is expected.

ii) Economic growth is limited to the growth in the Tourist industry.

iii) The application of the Environmental Conservation Act will limit development.

iv) Should the Drakensberg Mountains be declared a World Heritage Site, further economic development in this ecologically sensitive area will most certainly be very limited.

v) The ultimate aim for the area (Cathkin Park) is the creation of a 'BIOSPHERE' with links to U.N.E.S.C.C. and the Natal Barks Board.


We consider the functions and responsibilities of any Body administering the Cathkin Park area, so unique that it would he impractical to combine it with other local governments.

Our unique character requires management and supervision beyond the Vision of the Green Paper.

Our area should be declared a special case area and planning should N0T be in the hands of local owners alone, although it would be foolish not to consult them, since they have so ably and successfully established a good track record over past years.

Considering the emphasis placed on conservation, environmental control, the protection of limited water resources etc. by the various Acts, we recommend that the CATHKIN PARK area should be placed into the hands of a Board made up, for example, of the following bodies:-

-Department of Water Affairs

-Natal Parks Board

-Ecological and Environmental bodies

-Representatives of the Local Residents' and Ratepayers' Associations

-Representatives of the Local Resorts Association

This Board must also ensure that the Planning, Health and Building functions such as presently provided by the Development & Services Board are controlled effectively.

We would welcome the opportunity of one of our representatives to address the Demarcation Steering Committee in Cape Town on the scheduled dates of 26th and 27th of this month and will contact you by phone to establish If you can accommodate us.

Yours faithfully

J.Elves - Chairman

[Ed note: "Vision for the Cathkin Valley in Central Drakensberg Kwazulu-Natal" has not been included]

Appendix 10: Conservative Party of South Africa


15 MEI 1998


ARTIKEL 6(3) (a):Die bree verteenwoordiging van die Suid.Aftikaanse samelewing verwys sekerlik weer net na getalle en sal dus nie die belange van minderheidsgroepe en inheemse volke verteenwoordig en beskerm nie.

ARTIKEL 12(2):Dit word nêrens gespesifiseer wat die straf of remedie vir wangedrag is nie. Die wet behoort daarvoor voorsiening te maak.

ARTIKEL 13(3)(b):Hier word verwys na 'n ampsdraer. Laasgenoemde behoort in die woordomskrywing gedefinieer en omskryf te word. Is bv. 'n addisionele lid van n tak 'n ampsdraer?

ARTIKEL 18(1) (a):Politieke partye behoort regverdige verteenwoordiging in hierdie komitees te verkry.

ARTIKEL 18(2)(d):Die kriteria vir die ontheffing van 'n lid van 'n komitee ontbreek. Daarenteen word art. 13(4) (A) die kriteria vir die ontheffing van 'n lid van die Raad duidelik gespesifiseer. Indien die kriteria nie in wetgewing vervat word nie, kan arbitrêre ontheffing plaasvind.

ARTIKEL 18(5)(c):Volgens hierdie artikel sal sodanige persoon geen vergoeding/toelae ontvang nie. Dit is onbillik. So 'n persoon moet die verskil in sy toelaag en die toeing van 'n komiteelid ontvang indien laasgenoemde hoër is as eersgenoemde.

ARTIKEL 20 (1):Hier word na administratiewe en sekretariële dienste verwys, maar daar word nie verwys na finansiele vergoeding vir hierdie dienste nie, en hierdie dienste moet vergoed word.



No related


No related documents


  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

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.

Share this page: