Citizens of Mogalakwena Municipality Petition

Meeting report

The Chairperson welcomed the Portfolio Committee on Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs and municipal officials to a follow-up meeting regarding a matter that should have been resolved by the Mogalakwena municipality. When the citizens of Mogalakwena opted to petition this matter to have it resolved sooner, it indicated that these citizens were turning to their last resort. The issues of the community were falling upon deaf ears.

As a democracy, citizens of the country may petition Parliament on matters that they feel are of mutual concern that the assigned sphere of government had not attended to. The petition was sent to the office of the Speaker. Section 17 of the Constitution stipulates that everyone had the fundamental right to bring a petition to Parliament for consideration. This was a means to ensure that Parliament, as the highest decision making body, was able to offer relief where it was reasonably possible to the petitioners who had exhausted all other lawful and appropriate avenues of relief.

Parliament received the petition from the South African National Civic Organization (SANCO), the Mokopane Task Team (MTT) and the Mokopane Concerned and Affected Communities (MCAC) --organised groups in the Mogalakwena municipality. Upon further scrutiny of the petition, the Speaker decided that the matter had to be attended to by the Committee. The report by the Committee had been long overdue, due to the conditions of the previous programme which allowed the petition to be processed by November 2020.

The Committee included the districts in the meeting because under section 154, local governments must perform and offer support. This meeting process would champion the Intergovernmental Relations Framework (IGR) Act. 

Mogalakwena Concerned and Affected Communities’ Petition

Ms Rebecca Selomo spoke on behalf of the SANCO, MTT and MCAC organisations to voice issues of the Mogalakwena Municipality. These organisations had demonstrated their issues through campaigns and shutdowns to highlight the poor service delivery and corruption that these districts were subjected to.

The Municipality received their current intervention under section 139(1)(b), which had proved to be insufficient due to it being administrative when the problems arose from a political standpoint. The problems required political interventions. The organisations had sought legal advice to assist in obtaining legislative relief for the Mogalakwena community in terms of the Municipal Systems Act, the Municipal Structures Act, the Municipal Finance Management Act and the Constitution. The Municipal council had not been in compliance with their functions in terms of these Acts.

Issues Affecting Mogalakwena Municipality

-Fraud and Corruption

The Municipal Council had resolved to lease the land of a Sasol garage on the corner of Thabo Mbeki and Nelson Mandela Drive which was fraudulently altered by the Bid Adjudication Committee to last for 25 years instead of five. The contract was afforded to the former Mayor’s pastor, using the former Mayor’s home address as the business address of the company. This created suspicion of favouritism and corruption.

Though the Council suspended the previous Manager of Corporate Support Services, the interventions had been insufficient, as the contract was still in force. The community appealed to the Committee to reverse the fraudulent agreement. Parties involved in the process of awarding tenders should also face legal consequences, including the senior legal advisor and deputy manager. She noted that the Mayor’s sister formed part of the 400 illegal recruitments as a Senior Legal Advisor, for which she was not qualified. 

-Irregular Appointment of Staff

In 2018, the municipality embarked on a mass recruitment of staff where human resources (HR) processes were not followed. The organisations provided documents indicating communications between the Deputy Manager of Corporative Support Services and the head of HR deviating from normal HR recruitment processes for staff. Staff members were given appointment letters before submitting their curricula vitae (CVs) or attending interviews.

Poor appointment processes highlighted problems of nepotism, where certain staff members were elected for their close proximity to officials or political heads of the municipality. Examples of individuals with close proximity to those in leadership positions of Mogalakwena Local Municipality included the Senior Legal Advisor, who was a sister to the former Mayor, and the former Manager of Planning and Developmental Services, who had his relative working for the municipality.

This indicates an extensive problem of hiring unqualified staff members. The Public Protector had confirmed that the Deputy Manager of Corporate Services did not qualify for his position, and his case was still under scrutiny. The Deputy Manager had confessed that he had been the champion of the mass recruitment, though only the Manager of Corporate Services had suffered consequences. The Council’s failure to institute consequences or oversight duties exemplified the incompetence and lawlessness within these local governance structures.  

Most of the 400 employees who were mass recruited did not fall under the municipal organogram and were unbudgeted for. This had strained the available budget for service delivery improvements, as finances were going towards salaries. The municipal council had failed to fulfil their obligation to ensure that members complied with the code of ethics and conduct in the Municipal Systems Act. The two Councillors involved in business with the municipality were widely known about in the municipality and had been noted by the Auditor General (AG), but they had not suffered any consequences for their actions.

The municipality had been irregular in the issuing of tenders in numerous cases and had failed to complete infrastructure projects due to interference by these corrupt councillors. This council had proved that they had failed to provide an accountable government without fear and favour, as lawlessness continued to reign in the municipality.

-Lack of Service Delivery

Ms Selomo emphasised poor service delivery in Mogalakwena communities, in spite of there being available budgets. Specific examples included the state of the road infrastructure, poor water provision services, poor waste management and parks, dilapidated sewerage systems, an inaccurate municipal billing system, and inadequate stormwater drainage.

-Disorderly and Inconsistent Council Meetings

Members of the Mogalakwena Municipal Council often butted heads with one another, resulting in local governance often going back on agreements made. On 19 June 2019 at a Council meeting aimed at redeploying the slain chairperson of the Municipal Public Accounts Committee (MPAC), councillors were physically assaulting each other in the Council chambers. This exemplified the management crisis currently going on in the Council, where barbaric conduct had forced the community to lose confidence in the executive and the Municipal Council.

Ms Selomo asserted that the Member of the Executive Council (MEC) for Cooperative Governance, Human Settlements and Traditional Affairs (CoGHSTA), had not done justice to the people of Mogalakwena. The current situation was the consequence of a lack of intervention in the political issues at the expense of the community. The MEC had obtained a legal opinion which was contrary to the findings of the AG’s investigation, at a cost to the municipality. The MEC was supposed to dissolve the Council, as previously discussed with the organisations. The rapid assessment report drafted by the MEC demonstrated the instability in the Council, though it avoided placing the blame solely to the administrative structures. She expressed concern that the MEC had an interest in the municipality for his own personal gain.

Recommendations

Mr Mpho Tjale said that it was beyond reasonable doubt that the Council of Mogalakwena Local Municipality had failed the residents of the community. The petitioning organisations, on behalf of the community, proposed that the Mogalakwena Local Municipal Council should be dissolved. This proposal was based on allegations of corruption and missing finances within the Council proving to be true upon investigation. The former chief financial officer (CFO) had falsely stated that there were no available funds, further raising suspicion in the MEC’s interests in the community while failing to perform.

The organisations had raised issues through memorandums sent to the MEC’s office but had received no response regarding these problems. The MEC should honour the Mogalakwena community by dissolving the Mogalakwena Local Municipal Council without fear or favour.

Mr Tjale further recommended that a financial recovery programme be instituted to recover the 2018/2019 funds that went missing to the value of R84 800 and R912 687 while councillors contracted with the municipality. These recovered funds could contribute to ameliorating the conditions of the residents of Mogalakwena. The financial recovery programme should also plan to regain funding from salaries paid in the 2018/2019 financial year for the unqualified individuals hired.

Conclusion

Mr Tlou Sasa, SANCO secretary, said that the municipal and political problems experienced by the community were migrating into issues of administration. The role of district municipalities should be observed and promoted to assist the administrative issues within communities such as the Mogalakwena municipality. The biggest concern was regarding provincial management lacking oversight structures to enforce accountability. The current Municipal Council had failed in its role to hold the administration accountable, uphold good conduct by Council members, and provide acceptable services to the residents. These circumstances had not improved over the past nine years in this municipality, in spite of the changing members of Council. Section 139(1)(c) should be invoked to avoid reshuffling these members within the Council and preventing real change.

Municipality’s response

Mr Frans Mokwele, Mayor of Mogalakwena Local Municipality, said he appreciated the presentation of the petition. As the newly elected Mayor, he was not new to the council, having held various executive and council posts since 2014. The service delivery issues had been long standing ones for areas of this community. The Premier of the province had tried to address them prior to 2014, though he had constantly been prevented by the previous Council.

Regarding the current Council, the MCAC and MTT had a genuine concern of the agreement between the Municipality and a religious organisation’s holding of state land. He confirmed that the land may be held for a period of only five years. During deliberations on the agreement, officials had misrepresented the Council of Mogalakwena Municipality. The Council had dealt with this matter through adopting a resolution to rescind the legal decision made by a member within the Municipality.

The Chairperson asked for clarity as to whether the decision had been made, or if it was still in the process of being received.

Mr Mokwele responded that the Municipality was aware of the decision and was undertaking steps towards a resolution. A Council resolution had been undertaken in which it had to apply to the court in order to reverse the decision made. It was imperative for the Municipality to seriously discipline the senior officials involved in these corrupt dealings.

The Chairperson asked how many senior managers were involved.

Mr Mokwele confirmed that the former Manager of Planning and Developmental Services, the former Manager of Corporative Support Services, as well as the Deputy Manager and the Senior Legal Official were involved in these dealings. The Municipality had taken the decision to dismiss the most accountable person involved in this issue, which was the Manager of Corporative Support Services. At some point the other officials involved would face consequences, depending on their levels of involvement.

The Mayor confirmed that the 2015/2016 AG’s report had indicated that Councillors were doing business with the Municipality. A formal report had been requested from the administration, and would be dealt with in the next meeting. This issue had been repeatedly backdated without remedial action.

The Chairperson interjected and took issue with the Mayor’s phrasing, indicating that he was making the allegation sound as if it was up for dispute, even though it had been confirmed to be true. The Mayor should indicate a commitment through the verification in the AG’s report.

Mr Mokwele acknowledged that all the allegations regarding the two councillors, as well as the amounts of the missing finances, were true. He would deal with this issue so that it could no longer be resurrected each year, and institute the appropriate consequence management.

He urged that the perpetrator responsible for the death of the MPAC chairperson must be arrested, as this issue had the potential to bring instability to the Municipality. He had faith in the law enforcement services to arrest the perpetrator.

The Municipality had tabled the MPAC report, which had been accepted in the Council. Following the Committee’s intervention, the Municipality had returned to the Council and elected a new chairperson of MPAC. The MPAC report brought to the Municipality had been dealt with. He had encouraged the Committee and the Mogalakwena community to bring attention to reports that the Municipality may be unaware of. The Municipality had also created a municipal senior board to address the recommendations of the MPAC report.

Regarding dysfunctional structures of governance, he said that the Municipality had a functioning MPAC, an audit committee, risk management committee, portfolio committee and ward committee. The ward committee had been greatly affected by COVID-19, though the ward councillors had to follow all the relevant protocols to fulfil their duties and not use the pandemic as a scapegoat. Since the initiation of the lockdown, members of the committee had indicated that they did not have access to its meetings. Members had an obligation to ensure that work was being done within the Council. It had been prioritised that Councillors should have access to these meetings. 

The roads in Mogalakwena were not in a good condition, and had been worsened by the thunderstorms which had caused flooding in some areas. The Municipality had developed a road and infrastructure plan to respond to the challenges raised by the people of Mogalakwena.

In December 2020, the Provincial Executive Council of Limpopo had taken a resolution to impose interventions within the community as a response to the challenges. Since these interventions were imposed, he had noted an improvement within the Municipality. It had received support from the AG and the Waterberg community to stabilise its administration.

He raised concern over poor communication in the Municipality, which had led to unawareness of programmes and the support available to individuals. It relied on the community to pay for services in order to function and improve those services. The issue of the billing system would be dealt with by the accounting officer and reported on to the Committee. The Mogalakwena Municipal Forum was in the process of being created to address all stakeholders and ensure that services were being provided. This would allow the community to assist the Municipality and hold them accountable.

Regarding maladministration and corruption, it was imperative that all allegations and instances had to be reported to ensure that the community was not taken advantage of. He emphasised that the consequences of corruption would manifest themselves in the disruption of service delivery. All corruption must be reported. Everyone in Mogalakwena was eager to address the instability in the community. This included creating harmony within the Council to prevent infighting, and reinforcing the mandate of the Council to provide leadership and services to their communities.

The Chairperson asked the Mayor when the disciplinary processes for the councillors involved in corruption would begin.

Ms Pheladi Oliphant, Speaker of the Municipality, said that the 2017/2018 AG’s report and the management report of the Mogalakwena Municipality had detailed the incidents involving the two corrupt councillors. The report which was supposed to be shown to the Councillors had been subjected to correction by the managers. Only one report had been submitted last year, and no other reports had been submitted to the Council. She assured the Committee that the Municipality would consult with the relevant stakeholders to ascertain why none of the relevant reports had been submitted to the Council. The AG’s report had still not been brought to the Council to date. The Council was willing to rectify the mistakes and failures of oversight on the matter by consulting the Ethics Committee in order to deal with the matter within the prescripts of the law.

The Council had not received any reports from structures or managers regarding service delivery. The Council verbally communicated issues, especially those concerning road maintenance, to the structures. She would ask what the managers planned to do regarding road infrastructure, as expressed by the community. She acknowledged the flaw in conducting all of these meetings verbally without written records, preventing the Council from having a tangible testimony of their efforts to present the Committee. The managers concerned must be accountable for service delivery.

Ms Oliphant said that the Council had asked the managers what their precautionary measures were to ensure that there was sufficient water for the community. Following an instance of water shortages recently, the Council had communicated the problems, but had received no support from the administrative staff. She expressed particular dissatisfaction in the current provisioning for road maintenance and water service delivery.

The Council had requested that the appropriate precautionary measures be put in place, and that maladministration would be challenged. The Municipality could not have a management team that did not care about the community. This frustration with poor management could come across as a political issue to individuals from Mogalakwena. The Municipality acknowledged that many of the issues from the past were not in the interest of communities. The Council had said it would take drastic measures to ensure that communities were satisfied with the service delivery and local governance.

The Chairperson asked Ms Oliphant to indicate which communities had been threatened during the Integrated Development Plan (IDP) roadshows. Public participation was crucial in a democracy, and the Council had to hear the needs of the community.

Ms Oliphant agreed that it was important to hear the needs of the community, though she was unsure which community members had been threatened during the IDP roadshows.

The Chairperson said, on behalf of SANCO members, that ward committees or community members were threatened by security teams during IDP roadshows. She asked whether the public participation processes were inclusive.

The Mayor responded that members of the community had been threatened during the IDP roadshow by a security officer. He personally had never witnessed an incident of a threat or altercation with the security officers. Ward committees were meant to support the work of the ward councillors at the ground level. During the IDP meetings, the Mayor found that the ward committees had poor communication with ward councillors, especially in instances of cancelled meetings. Ward committee members were paid stipends from local governance to assist the work of the ward councillors. He found that ward committees were often unaware of the role that they were expected to fulfil, though they wanted to participate in meetings, which was the responsibility of ward councillors.

Ms Beverly Gunqisa, Municipal Manager, Mogalakwena Local Municipality, said that it had been a rollercoaster ride with the Municipality to provide services, especially water. It had been greatly compromised in terms of the provision of water due to their reliance on groundwater supplies. The Municipality was predominantly dependant on boreholes to distribute water to villages and townships. The ongoing drought had made it difficult for it to provide sufficient water in various areas within a reasonable time.

The Municipality acknowledged the stress placed upon communities, and had assured them that they were trying their best to provide water to them during this drought. Lepelle Northern Water was the distributor for water, though the dam level had been reducing rapidly over the past few months. In January, the Council had reported that the dams were at 7% capacity. Boreholes were solely relied on for water, and were in the process of being equipped through projects funded by the conditional grant. Since 15 February, the Municipality had reported that dams were at 13% which was still very low, hence the continuation of water restrictions in the Municipality. Ms Gunqisa suggested that the Municipality could increase the level of communication from an administration level. It had initially provided communication on the matter, but had since failed to indicate when the water restrictions would be removed and when water would become easily accessible again.

The Municipality had collaborated with Anglo-American Water Services to assist with identifying and financially resourcing the borehole equipment to extract water. It was planned to extract five to ten  megalitres per day should the partnership be successful. Discussions with Anglo-American were still in progress, but were expected to be concluded in the near future.

The Industrial Welfare Development contract, which started in 2020, focused on extracting or re-equipping boreholes to extract 1.5 megalitres of water per day. One of the industrial firms within the Municipality was consuming 1.5 megalitres per day to redirect the water from the dam to various affected areas. The contracts were soon to be finalised. The firm had agreed to utilise boreholes, instead of drawing water from the dam.

The Municipality had initiated many programmes related to water which were being funded, and sought funding. She stated that almost 80% of the conditional grants contributed towards financing water provision. The community was yet to see the fruits of these interventions, as they were still experiencing droughts. She believed that in the near future, water would be distributed evenly and efficiently to all of the affected areas.

The Municipality acknowledged that sewer management was a continuous problem, and it had seen first-hand the compromising position experienced by communities. It was of great concern to the Municipality that there were many sewage spillages surrounding the extensions. A service provider had been contracted to assist in ensuring that sewage spillages were contained and corrected. The Municipality had asked community structures for support by not polluting the drainage system with foreign objects. Without the drainage system being taken care of by the community, they would experience many more blockages. The Municipality was aware of the affected areas, and extensions and were under way with the service provider to correct pipes that were not aligned properly. The Housing Development Agency (HDA) was busy currently in extension 20, where the sewer network was initially not constructed properly. The Municipality was hopeful that before the end of the financial year, extension 20 would have a proper sewerage system functioning.

Regarding the poor state of roads, Ms Gunqisa said that the Municipality had initiated a project to develop new roads in Mogalakwena which was set to be completed in three months. Teams were on the ground to ensure that potholes were being patched. The Municipality was in the final stages of outsourcing a service provider to assist in speeding up the progress. Under COVID-19 alert level three, it had not been able to provide services speedily due to rotating schedules. It was hopeful that the state of the roads would improve.

She reported that the billing system was working functionally, and was obtaining the correct amounts to be billed. The only issue was that meter readers had not been able to read the meters in some of the households. Some instances of intimidation of meter readers in certain areas had been reported. In these instances the Municipality had had to estimate the costs for a number of months. Collaborating with community structures would help to ensure the safety of meter readers, allowing them to successfully perform their readings. Correct readings allowed for more accurate billing of households in the surrounding areas.

Referring to the budget for a robot, she said she had witnessed the budget for the traffic light being retracted without mention. Money allocated for the Mahwelereng Community Hall -- about R7 million to R9 million – had been retracted due to the financial constraints of the Municipality, under the advice of Municipal Treasury while considering the budget. The Municipality had found that there were many planned projects that could not be afforded with the available revenue. This meant that expenditure on infrastructure and maintenance projects was being reduced. It was in the process of creating a draft budget to put other measures in place to accelerate and improve its revenue. The hall and traffic light would be brought back into the budget once this was feasible.

Ms Gunqisa referred to the allegations of irregularities against the Deputy Manager of Corporate Services, especially those raised in the Public Protector’s report. Management had since taken the report to Council, where it was determined that the manager should revert back to his original position. The manager had invoked his rights to receive an interdict from the court to review the report of the Public Protector. The matter was supposed to be heard by the court on 28 January, though it had later been postponed. The Municipality was now awaiting the new court dates. The Deputy Manager had since gone back to his original position.

The Municipality was aware of the gap in having the community involved in public participation at Council meetings. It had originally struggled with issues of how to coordinate these meetings. Since then, the Council had opted to coordinate and distribute information regarding the meeting and provide a schedule of council meetings. There would be a community coordination process to determine who would be a part of the virtual Council meetings.

Waterberg Municipality’s response

Mr Morris Mataboge, Executive Mayor of Waterberg, said that the Waterberg Municipality consisted of five local districts. It was not actually the water services authority, as all the local municipalities within the districts were water service authorities. The issues concerning governance were related to poor oversight, political instability and no consequence management. The service delivery challenges involved non-compliance to policies and procedures, delays when implementing projects, poor project management, poor contract management, non-reporting by project managers, community unrest and limited budgets for service delivery and maintenance work.

Administrative concerns included high vacancy rates in senior management positions, low staff morale, poor organisational structures, a lack of trust with organised labour, and utilization of legal funds for minor cases. There were perpetual extensions of contracts, leading to irregular expenditure and deeds processes not finalised within the specified time. Mogalakwena experienced high rates of irregular expenditure and overuse of consultants.

Mr Mataboge said that the Waterberg Municipality coordinators and chairpersons used forums to discuss matters of mutual interest in the districts. The district had also established a district command council and technical command council in line with the Disaster Management Act. At local levels, there were local command councils dealing with issues pertaining to COVID-19.

As a result of the instability and the number of vacant positions in Mogalakwena, the district had provided support by seconding officials to build capacity. The Municipality had seconded divisional managers to act as managers of technical care capital projects. The chief financial officer (CFO) was seconded to act as the CFO of Mogalakwena and the manager of corporate services. The secondment had ended in January 2021. The secondment of officials to Mogalakwena was supposed to complement the interventions made by the provincial government through CoGHSTA, which had introduced section 139(1)(b), though this formed part of the intergovernmental support to this community. The Municipality would continue to provide support as and when requested to do so by local municipalities.

Regarding administrative support, corporate managers were working on the strategy management of the department, the effective management of finances to improve sustainability, the development and implementation of government systems in Mogalakwena, the improvement in administration and governance capacity, and the retention of investment capital.

Key achievements to included approval of the information communication technology (ICT) governance framework, approval of ICT policies, employee qualification verifications, a review of the organisational structure, implementation of arbitration, the advertisement of legal services, implementation of the AG’s action plan, and contributing towards the finalisation and adoption of the financial recovery plan for Mogalakwena.

The financial achievements included the 2021 special adjustment budget, development of the Mogalakwena funding plan, implementation and monitoring of a post-audit action plan, preparation of the financial statement for submission by the end of October 2020, development of an Unemployment Insurance Fund (UIF) introduction plan, and the reinforcing of conditional grants.

He said that he hoped the community was able to stabilise and ensure that the necessary leadership could address all of the challenges facing the institution. He emphasised that the challenges in Mogalakwena were more political than administrative. This had resulted in hindrances to service delivery. The Municipality recommended that staff be placed in relevant positions, improved relations with organised labour, utilisation of provincial panels instead of law firms, training of staff members, finalisation of the disciplinary cases of suspended individuals, and the filling of critical positions, especially section 56 managers.

Mr Mataboge recommended in terms of finances that there be an improvement in the funding plan and budget funding plan, implementation of a UIF reduction strategy, a review of all budget related policies, finalisation of the development of financial standard operating procedures and the implementation of a credit control and debt collection policy.

Concerning technical recommendations, he suggested strengthening contract management, proper implementation of conditions of contracts, strengthening weekly reporting by project managers, political assistance when dealing with community unrest, improved procurement processes, regular site visits and confirmation of work done, and an increased budget allocation for maintenance work.

He said that the Waterberg Municipality was a category C1 entity, implying that the community relied solely on grants for operations. This created a constrained budget for municipalities. The district municipality was ready to assist Mogalakwena Municipality upon request. The full implementation of the district development model would be a permanent solution in building skills and capacity among municipalities.

The Chairperson said that the progress noted was very important.

CoGHSTA’s response

Mr Rogers Makamu, Limpopo MEC for Cooperative Governance, Human Settlements and Traditional Affairs (CoGHSTA), said that the structures should present specifics regarding issues of conflict within the Municipality before the Committee to assess the interventions thereof. He requested that the Chairperson clarify misinformation regarding corruption. He appreciated the efforts of the interventions. Forensic audit reports and reports of the MPAC had been submitted following the creation of interventions, which he considered notable progress. He requested clarity of the allegations, with substantiations for considering the event a conflict.

Ms Ngaka Dumalisile, Head of Department (HOD), Limpopo CoGHSTA, said that the Department had observed four municipalities very closely, including Mogalakwena. Executive members of the Council made the decision with the Department and the MEC to establish a multi-disciplinary committee to complete a thorough reassessment. Factors from the first petition issued to the Municipality had been included in the reassessment criteria. She said the outcome of the report had found issues of administrative and political challenges which would be elaborated on at a later date. She felt that the issues raised by the community solely acknowledged political instability, while failing to consider the administrative role in this instability. Once all of the structures in the administrative department were in order, issues of service delivery would consequently be corrected. 

She pointed out that over the past four years, Mogalakwena had not allocated more than 61.1% of its finances for water projects. The Department had had to respond rapidly to dedicate money for infrastructure in and around Mogalakwena to assist and correct the water problems. The Department had paid for the bulk water and sewer infrastructure in extensions 50 and 20 respectively. The Municipality should expect change from these interventions, provided that the Department could source financing for it. The MEC had the long-term plan for the Department to assist with a water allocation from the De Hoop Dam, provided that funds were available.

Regarding the financial mismanagement claims, Ms Dumalisile highlighted the flawed processes taken up by the Council. The Council had adopted very specific resolution methods which were never followed or adhered to when requiring a legal firm to conduct the processes. The processes of tabling reports were seriously flawed, which had raised concerns by the head of interventions. The MEC had deployed the services of senior legal counsel to advise the Municipality, and this was paid for by the MEC. The legal opinion had been received and required tabling by Council before going back to the MEC. She said this legal opinion was necessary due to the allegations not being properly tested.

The HOD said that Mogalakwena had been hindered by under-expenditure on Municipal Infrastructure Grant (MIG) projects. For the past four years, the Municipality had not spent the entire budget, with the exception of 2016/2017, when 98% of the funds had been spent. The Municipal Infrastructure Support Agent (MISA) was brought in to assist with these infrastructure projects. Mogalakwena was one of the five Municipalities in the province that continued to receive a MIG allocation of more than R100 million much of which was lost due to underspending. In one year, the Municipality had lost R20 million to underspending. In 2018/2019, 83% of the allocation was spent and in 2019/2020, 51% was spent. This money was returned to the National Treasury, which led to projects being uncompleted, and to service delivery and administrative challenges.

The Municipality had been commissioning financial forensic investigations which were not tabled to Council, or had had the resolution omitted from the investigation. As part of the interventions, the Municipality was requested to table and implement the resolutions from the investigations. Some reports were tabled, while others were referred to the MPAC and were in the process of being audited before going to Council. She acknowledged that the Municipality was on its way to performing functionally. From now onwards, the Municipality was going to promote service delivery to ensure that the community saw a difference.

Ms Dumalisile agreed that communication was a challenge for Municipalities. Community feedback was not being conducted throughout the province. A resolution was made that requested the ward councillors hold the feedback meetings and to communicate the issues in Mogalakwena to the Council.

In December 2020, a report indicated that invoices were paid on the basis of affidavits signed, as opposed to work completed. This had been stopped since the intervention process began. This had created tension with service providers, and some had even threatened to take the Municipality to court. The Municipality was not in fear of this, as there were no contracts in place to prove that there was an agreement between the Municipality and contractors entitling them to payment. Money had not been paid to these contractors.

She felt that the Municipality had made great improvements in terms of the key performance areas, which were informed by the findings. Labour relations-related matters had been resolved and structures for management and organised labour were under resolution. The Municipality would continue to provide feedback on their progress to the Committee.

The Chairperson voiced the concerns of Ms Selomo. The company service provider that CoGHSTA had appointed to construct paving infrastructure in Mahwelereng was the same company that had left the Moshate stadium project incomplete. She had called for CoGHSTA and the Municipality to blacklist such companies and to recover the money lost during these processes.

The HOD responded that further investigation would be conducted on the matter. The Housing Development Agency had been appointed as the implementing agent for bulk water, not paving, as mentioned.

Petitioners’ responses

Ms Selomo said that the structures elected by the ward committees were non-functional. For as long as the ward committees did not adhere to their tasks and the office of the Speaker did not provide oversight, the structures would remain ineffective.

On behalf of the represented communities, she did not accept the reasons why managers had not addressed the report concerning the two councillors involved in corruption. Management did not have the authority to dictate the issues that Council should engage in. She felt that there was no interest on the part of the Council. If the Council was committed to deal with the publicised issues of the AG’s report, the matter would have been resolved by now without placing blame on the administration. She felt that the Council should have instructed the administration to table the issue to be addressed in a meeting.

On issues of security, Ms Selomo said that the former Mayor and his executive had intimidated her, as well as other members of SANCO and the community who were coming to raise the issues mentioned in the petition. Security companies were used to intentionally intimidate community activists. She recalled an IDP meeting where activists were threatened by security officials bearing guns and using threatening language. Activists had had many altercations with security and officials on account of communities raising awareness to issues that these structures may profit from at the expense of the community.

She asked how the Council would ensure that money paid to service providers was going towards the provision of those services. The water carting services mentioned had not been received by the community. She asked how this would be monitored, and whether the community could assist in this monitoring process so that money would not be wasted on undelivered services. She asked the Municipality to take responsibility for the households affected by the poor provisioning of services. Communities would offer communication regarding these issues, though the Municipality must acknowledge the health effects that were being placed on them.

Regarding the billing system, Ms Selomo said that meter readers did not come to the communities, nor were the amounts that had been requested by the Municipality quantified. She recalled a previous meeting where the Municipality had promised to address this same problem, but it was never followed-up on.

On the issue of Mahwelereng Community Hall, the community had upheld that the budget for the infrastructure project must be used. She requested that the Municipality account and provide evidence of where the budget had disappeared to. The issue about the visual public participation in virtual council meetings had been raised, and that they would be on the lookout and wait for the relevant interventions.

The District Mayor had been asked to assist the local command council due to the small town of Mahwelereng having to deal with the second wave of COVID-19 by themselves. It was said that there was no leadership due to the leaders dealing with their own private matters. Ms Selemo asked that there be some assistance due to the third wave coming along, and said that communities were compliant. In these communities it was stated that the problems in the Mahwelereng community were more political than administrative. This went back to the efforts of the interventions of the MEC being insufficient when dealing with the challenges, and that she did not have the political will to deal with the challenges at hand. The Municipality would still be facing the same challenges that they had been subjected to for years, despite the interventions that had been put in place.

Ms Selemo said the forensic report had exonerated the municipal management, but she was actually exposing some of the shenanigans that were currently being spoken of. The Council had to investigate some of the foul play that had been occurring, but the benefit of the doubt would be given when the document was gone through. She urged for prior consultation in order to validate how genuine the applicants were in ensuring that the people of Mahwelereng got what they deserve.

With the community projects, could they be considered as a community of Mahwelereng for monitoring, because they were being subjected to projects where money was being spent but not being verified?  She asked if the Municipality could assist in monitoring because of the lack of faith in community leaders who had the responsibility to interact with the community.

The Chairperson said that this meeting embodied democracy in action through active citizenship. She felt truly embarrassed due to the lack of leadership in the Mahwelereng community. 

Mr Mpho said a great example of what had been spoken about, was the Municipality allowing the issue of the garage to escalate until it had to be presented in court. The municipality had to hire an advocate or counsel to fight for the reversal of that contract. This added a wasteful expenditure.

He said that the newly elected mayor had indicated he had been in the Council since 2014, and he questioned whether he had contributed positively to the downfall or failure. Due to the maladministration and corruption, he had contributed to the failure of the municipality, and now that he was a mayor, there would be money paid for a lawyer although it should actually be used for something better, especially for the community.

During the presentation, the MEC had said something that they were not aware of – that he had opened a Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) house that had been started in 2017 and completed in 2020. The house was opened only after the beneficiary had passed on. He had come with his bodyguards and blue lights to open the RDP house. Then he had been called by the counsellor who the petitioners were saying had benefited through doing business in the community. This had led the community to lose faith and question who the local leaders were that they had elected.

Mr Tlou referred to collaborating with mining houses, and said the last time the Municipality were doing a sewerage purification plant in Mahwelereng it had not been finished, although R400 million was spent on the project. There was another issue of collaborating with these people and supplying grey water to other mining houses. The Municipality was inconsistent with reporting on the progress and plans of projects.

He referred to two projects that were designed so that they could have the pipe laid to get running water for Paula Park and Mountainview. These two projects were to build steel tanks, a reservoir of about 2 000 megalitres in each village, and pipe laying. The boreholes in Paula Park and also in Mahwelereng had been refurbished, and connected the pipeline to Mountain View -- but there were no tanks there. What had happened to those 2 000 megalitre tanks that were supposed to be built in Paula Park and Mountainview?

Regarding sanitation and the pipelines, CoGHSTA had reported conflicting information regarding the sewer extensions. There was a pipeline that ran between extensions 18 and 19 but there was a problem from not using the same size pipes. The contractor had used a small pipe leading to a big one, and that had caused some major problems. This issue had been reported to CoGHSTA. There was an allegation that the money budgeted for Phase 1 of the extension was not completed, and then for Phase 2 the very same company that was doing the job never finished that either. The money for each phase was not there. He requested that CoGHSTA investigate this.

For there to be justice for these topics that were spoken on, the Committee must arrange a date to reconvene and deliberate in another meeting. 

The meeting was adjourned.