Utrecht (Emdlangeni) Municipality (KZN) Intervention: MEC briefing
NCOP Cooperative Governance & Public Administration
23 October 2007
Meeting Summary
A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.
Meeting report
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND ADMINSTRATION SELECT
COMMITTEE
23 October 2007
UTRECHT (eMDLANGENI) MUNICIPALITY (KZN) INTERVENTION: MEC BRIEFING
Chairperson: Mr S
Shiceka (ANC, Gauteng)
Documents handed out:
Briefing Document on theIntervention In the Emadlangeni Municipality
Document pack from KwaZulu-Natal
Department of Local Government and Traditional Affairs:
Annexure A: Notification Letter to NCOP
Annexure B: Notification Letter to Minister Mufamadi
Annexure C1: Suspension letter to Mayor Cllr Khoza
Annexure C2: Suspension letter to Municipal Manager Mr Kubheka
Annexure C3: Suspension letter to Official Mr B Zungu
Annexure D: Letter of appointment to Mr T Tubane
Annexure E: Letter of designation in terms of Section 36(3) of the Local
Government Municipal Structures Act, 1998
Annexure F: Minutes of Special eMadlangeni Council Meeting held on 3
September 2007.
Audio recording
of meeting
SUMMARY
Following the intervention by the KwaZulu-Natal Executive Council in the
eMadlangeni (Utrecht) municipality, and its coverage in the press, the
Committee requested that the MEC of Local Government appear before them to give
an account of the intervention. The MEC presented a thorough document pack
outlining the action taken by the Executive Council under his oversight. He
informed the Committed that the court hearings and suspensions concerning the
investigated Councillors and municipal employees were currently under way, and
that there might be need for further intervention in the municipality if
political motivations continued to render its council dysfunctional. Committee
members asked questions concerning the total number of municipalities under
investigation in the province, the scope and duration of the Utrecht
intervention, the conduct of the councillors, and the allegations that the
investigation had political motivations. The Committee was preparing to visit
the municipality in November to hear from all the parties.
MINUTES
Provincial Executive Council Intervention into EMadlangeni / Utrecht Local
Municipality (the Municipality): MEC for Local Government Housing and Traditional Affairs, KZN
briefing
The Chairperson noted that this meeting would deal with intervention in the
eMadlangeni / Utrecht local municipality. This matter had been aired in the
media, and the Committee had decided that it would be best to discuss the full
matter with the MEC for Local Government from the Province, especially since
this was the second intervention of this nature during his tenure. The
Committee would also visit the municipality on 6 and 7 November.
Mr Michael Mabuyakhulu, MEC: Local Government, Housing and Traditional Affairs,
KwaZulu-Natal (KZN), thanked the Chair for the opportunity to meet the
Committee, and introduced the Senior General Manager of Local Government, Mr
Lionel Pienaar, who was also responsible for the intervention and the documents
before the Committee.
Mr Mabuyakhulu began by confirming that the Provincial Executive Council (PEC)
had intervened in the municipality according to Section 139 of the
Constitution. He tabled a briefing document that explained the background to
the investigation, and the irregularities within the municipality. On 14 May
PEC received the final reports of the investigation along with the
recommendations of action. The report seriously implicated Mayor Khoza (who was
also the Speaker) and four senior council employees. The PEC then passed the
report on to the Municipality for it to effect its own disciplinary actions
within 21 days. Mayor Khoza, either by omission or commission, made it a point
that the matter did not surface before the municipal council. After 90 days of
inaction, this was seen as complicity by those implicated in the report, and
the PEC, after extensive deliberation, decided to intervene. This intervention
was not to dissolve the municipality, but rather to take over the functions of
discipline.
A special committee was appointed to investigate the Mayor and other
Councillors, as well as municipal employees. The documents before the Committee
underlined the action taken in that regard. It also contained a report from the
Acting Municipal Manager, dated 18 October 2007, that provided a comprehensive
report on the practical operations of the municipality. The report detailed
numerous cases of maladministration, non-compliance with provisions of the
Municipal Finance Management Act (MFMA) and the dysfunctional state of the
present council. The continuing problems might require that the KwaZulu-Natal
PEC would have to intervene again in terms of section 139(1)(c),
but he stated that this would be seen as the last resort.
Discussion
The Chairperson noted that the Committee had not yet met with
KwaZulu-Natal for the state of the province report, but that the Committee
wished to be well briefed in anticipation of discussions on the report. Because
there seemed to be many situations where there was disregard for the law, and
because KwaZulu-Natal had 61 municipalities, he had to ask how many other
similar cases of mismanagement there might be in the province.
Mr Mabuyakhulu answered that he wanted to avoid discussing generalities, but
talk of specifics. He insisted that, compared to other provinces, Kwazulu Natal
(KZN) was very strict in adhering to prescripts, and was able to identify
problem areas and act in accordance with the law. There had been 32
investigative cases, and information on the investigations had been given to
the NCOP, as the Province was not shy to do what was right and investigate. The
municipalities were highly sensitive to this, and now knew that if they did not
act in accordance with the law, action would be taken. In regard to the
investigations, he noted that there were several municipalities where the
forensic investigations were still being finalised. The PEC was busy with the
final audit, and if it was found that people had acted improperly, the PEC
would intervene in the same way as in Utrecht. He assured the Chairperson that
the Committee would be provided with the final audited number of “delinquent”
municipalities by the time of the state of the province report. Until then, he
could not give a specific number.
Mr A Moseki (ANC, North West) stated that it was clear that the provincial
government had resolved to deal with delinquency. The intervention had revealed
a number of problem issues within the specific municipality. He wished to ask
if there had been any criminal prosecutions, as there were not only illegal
political and administrative actions in the municipality, but some that
bordered on criminal actions too.
Mr M Mzizi (IFP, Gauteng) also asked why the cases were not being seen and
treated as fraud. He was speaking specifically to the item of the briefing
document concerning Mr R Stannard, and said that justice delayed was justice
denied.
Mr Mabuyakhulu responded that the report had set out what would have to happen
with regard to criminal activities. Criminal proceedings against individuals
were currently being instituted to achieve redress.
Mr Moseki inquired as to the current behaviour of the remaining six
councillors, and wondered what could be informing such a kind of behaviour.
Mr Z Ntuli (ANC, KwaZulu-Natal) was also concerned about the behaviour of the
councillors and wanted to check the political principles of these councillors.
He asked if they were opposed to corruption and willing to help resolve the
problem.
Mr Mabuyakhulu noted the unfortunate tendency in the council to “defend their
own” rather than work for justice. He explained that the conduct of the
councillors in question was informed by the public pronouncements of their
political leaders, who thought that the PEC investigation was a smokescreen to
take away the power of a certain party. This was untrue, as the PEC had
approached the matter completely within the rules and norms of national
justice. Even the suspensions were only cautionary, and it was unfortunate that
the political parties had not been able to see the real issues.
Mr J Le Roux (DA, Eastern Cape) noted that the problem of a split council arose
because there were only six councillors. He asked why the post vacated by the
speaker had not been filled.
Mr Mabuyakhulu said that PEC had to follow the code of conduct in relation to
councillors and could not fill the vacancy because the mayor was only on
suspension and not yet finally removed.
Mr Mzizi commented on the enormous amount of media coverage given to
this intervention. He also wanted to know how many other municipalities were in
similar problems.
Mr Mabuyakhulu replied that he wanted to avoid giving an “equal apportionment
of guilt” and that each municipality under investigation was to be dealt with
according to its own efficiency or deficiency.
Mr Mzizi raised the allegations that the Acting Municipal Manager had been
previously suspended from another municipality.
Mr Mabuyakhulu informed Mr Mzizi that the proceedings were still pending
against the Municipal Manager, who had been suspended, and as yet there was no
finality on the outcome. The allegations remained mere allegations until they
had been tested by the courts. In regard to allegations against the Acting
Municipal Manager, he clarified that he had been suspended pending an
investigation, but was completely cleared by the investigation. There was
nothing wrong with the Acting Municipal Manager, other than that he had become
unpopular for reigning in councillors that had received irregular payments.
Mr Mzizi also raised the allegations that Mr Mabuyakhulu was only targeting
municipalities controlled by political parties other than his own. He asked if
the authority to investigate came from motions tabled before the full PEC, or
whether there was any political motivation.
Mr Mabuyakhulu responded emphatically to these allegations by noting the number
of municipalities under investigation, and the myriad of reasons for those
investigations. There was no malice in his work, and every case had a justified
and non- political reason for investigation. The Utrecht municipality was one
of the smallest and poorest municipalities, with only had seven councillors,
and relied wholly on grants for its operation. He asked rhetorically what
advantage there would be in targeting this municipality.
Mr Mzizi queried the planned visit by the Committee, in light of the appeal
still pending before the Courts, and wondered if the intervention by the
Committee at this stage was correct.
Mr Mabuyakhulu clarified the nature of the appeal. The challenge by the
councillors related to the cautionary suspension they had received for
interfering with the investigation process. Mr Mabuyakhulu, acting on the
Municipal Systems code, had sought cautionary suspension, and the councillors
had appealed against the court ruling. The investigation had been finalised in
May, and the councillors were now suspended fully pending the investigation of
the main charges. The full suspension was not under appeal, and the suspension
would not change.
Mr Mzizi wanted to know which year the deadlines were given.
Mr Mabuyakhulu said that the deadline of 21 days for disciplinary action was
given on 14 May 2007.
Mr Mzizi asked whether the suspension of the mayor and councillors was
suspension with or without pay.
Mr Mabuyakhulu said that only in extreme circumstances would suspension without
pay applied. They were still receiving their pay.
Mr Mzizi inquired as to the number of “ghost employees”, and how the lost funds
would be recovered.
Mr Mabuyakhulu noted that the “ghost employees” was a new development being
dealt with by the Acting Municipal Manager. The Province, through a provincial
Management Assistance Programme, was assisting him to resolve all of the
identified problems.
Mr Mzizi sought clarity on the possibility of a Section 139(1)(c)
intervention if the council continued to be ‘dysfunctional’. He wanted to know
if there was a deadline for the Council, after which it may be wholly
dissolved.
Mr Mabuyakhulu answered that there was no deadline, but this was rather a
caution to the councillors that he would have no option other than to bring a
Section 139(1)(c) intervention if they did not
co-operate. He appealed to Mr Mzizi and other party representatives to talk to
their respective councillors and urge them to stop hindering the work of the
PEC.
Mr Mzizi also made the comment that the report was one-sided at the moment.
Mr Mabuyakhulu did not accept the idea that the report was one-sided. This was
the only report available, and it was presented after independent
investigation. It contained findings independent of himself
and other provincial councillors. The findings were clear; it was only the
reaction to them that could differ.
The Chairperson noted that the report made mention of Councillor N P Stannard
as well as a Mr R Stannard.
Mr Mabuyakhulu clarified that they were father and son; Mr R Stannard was the
son, and Mr NP Stannard, a councillor and speaker, was the father.
The Chairperson asked how long the PEC would continue to intervene in the
municipality.
Mr Mabuyakhulu answered that the PEC would take their executive obligations
seriously, and fully implement the recommendations of
the investigation. The disciplinary actions against individuals should have
been finalised in mid-November, but the legal representatives of the suspended
individuals had requested extensions. The process should be finished by the end
of January 2008, when the PEC’s executive powers would come to an end.
The Chairperson then asked what executive obligations the Executive Council
had.
Mr Mabuyakhulu responded that the terms of reference of the intervention were
to set up a special committee and deal with disciplinary hearings and matters.
All the other normal council business would be run as usual by the Acting
Municipal Manager and the existing council members. The PEC was not usurping
their powers in any way. The Department was giving support via the Management
Assistance Programme, which was a limited scope intervention. He urged
Committee members such as Mr Mzizi to help the PEC in ensuring that the
intervention would have to go no further.
Mr Ntuli raised the question whether there was a need for the Committee to
visit the municipality, in view of the limitations on the intervention, and the
fact that there were still pending investigations and hearings.
Mr Mzizi commented that he did not think there was any problem in holding the
visit, but that the only dilemma would be that the Committee would want to
speak to the suspended public officials in the public arena.
The Chairperson noted that it was the responsibility of the NCOP that whenever
there was a Section (1)(b) intervention the committee
should go and listen to all sides concerned and verify the issues. They would
not be interfering in the ongoing judicial process, but would be obliged to
visit to get information.
Mr N Mack (ANC, Western Cape) agreed that it was the Committee’s job to visit
and see if they approved of the intervention.
Ms M Mdlalose (NADECO), a member of the Portfolio Committee on Local Government
said that it was the duty of parliament to do oversight and consider whether it
agreed with the outcome. She would think it was early to reach that agreement.
The Chairperson explained that the duty was to visit, and gain sufficient
information to decide whether the intervention, in the Committee’s opinion, was
justified. He gave a ruling that the visit would proceed.
The Chairperson noted that he was satisfied with the report given by Mr
Mabuyakhulu. The Committee would
continue with the state of the province reports and meet with Mr Mabuyakhulu
later again to hear about the state of all the municipalities in his province.
He noted that the MEC would be running a Global Conference on Traditional
Leadership on Friday and Saturday, and encouraged his colleagues to attend.
The meeting was adjourned.
Audio
No related
Documents
No related documents
Present
- 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.