Metsimaholo Municipality section 139 intervention: Committee Report

Meeting report

The Chairperson thanked and welcomed all Committee Members present. The purpose of the Committee meeting was to consider and adopt the report of the Select Committee (SC) on Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (Cogta) on the Section 139 (1) (b) intervention in the Metsimaholo Local Municipality (MLM)

Draft Report of the Select Committee on Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (Cogta) on the Section 139 (1) (b) intervention in Metsimaholo Local Municipality (MLM)

The Chairperson took the Committee through the observations and recommendations of the report. Observations included:

7.1 The SC has noted and observed with concern that the communication of first notice of intervention in the MLM on 25 February 2020 to the Chairperson of the NCOP and the Minister Cogta did not comply with the constitutional requirements and was procedurally flawed.

7.2 The SC has also noted that in order to ensure constitutional compliance, the Free State Provincial Executive Council (EXCO) took a decision on 10 December 2020 and delegated the MEC of Cogta to re-table the notice of intervention in terms of Section 139 (1) (b) of the Constitution to relevant stakeholders as prescribed by the Constitution.

7.3 Subsequent to the decision of the EXCO, the Free State MEC of Cogta communicated the re-tabling of the notice of intervention in terms of Section 139 (1) (b) of the Constitution to the Minister of Cogta on 23 December 2020 and to the Chairperson of the NCOP on 24 December 2020.

7.4 In terms of the presentation by the Free State MEC of Cogta, the SC had noted that the substantive matters leading to the invocation of Section 139 (1) (b) of the Constitution in the Local Municipality did not change as the result of the re-tabling and communication to the Minister of Cogta and the Chairperson of the NCOP.

7.5 The substantive matters that the SC had noted include abandoning of the scheduled council meetings, vacant position of senior managers, alleged political interference, regression in governance oversight, deterioration in systems of internal control, concern on financial viability and possible irregularities.

7.6 Having noted the re-tabling, communication of the notice of intervention and non-change of substantive matters, the SC had however, observed with concern, the financial implication of the first notice of intervention communicated on 20 February 2020.

7.7 The SC had further noted that the presentation by the MEC of Cogta did not provide information on the issuing of directive in terms Section 139 (1) (a) of the Constitution as well as timeframes of the re-tabling of the notice of intervention in the Local Municipality.

Recommendations
8.1 Having interacted on a virtual platform with the Free State MEC of Cogta on re-tabling of the notice of intervention in terms of Section 139 (1) (b) of the Constitution in MLM, the SC recommends as follow:

8.1.1 The NCOP approves the re-tabling of the notice of intervention in terms of Section 139 (1) (b) of the Constitution

8.1.2 The Free State MEC of Cogta should provide evidence on the issuing of directive in terms of Section 139 (1) (a) of the Constitution in MLM.

8.1.3 The appointed administrator by the Free State Department of Cogta should fast-track the process of filling outstanding vacant positions of the senior managers in the Local Municipality (LM).

8.1.4 The MEC of Cogta should provide progress and exit reports on the interventions in terms of Section 139 (1) (b) of the Constitution in MLM.

8.1.5 As part of monitoring, the SC of Cogta should coordinate a joint proactive and follow-up visits with the relevant Portfolio Committee in the Free State Provincial Legislature in order to interact with internal and external stakeholders so as to solicit their opinions on the progress made in respect of the implementation of Section 139 (1) (b) the Constitution in the LM.

Discussion

Mr S Zandamela (EFF, Mpumalanga) referred to observation 7.5 and said that no oversight was conducted and suggested that the Committee must not adopt the report. He suggested that the Committee must first conduct oversight and interact with the relevant stakeholders in the MLM. [Due to poor connection, further points made by the Member were not captured]

Ms Z Ncitha (ANC, Eastern Cape) moved to adopt the report [Due to poor connection, further points made by the Member were not captured]  

Mr I Sileku (DA, Western Cape) said he raised the same matter previously that when the Committee deals with reports, it only listens to one side of the story. The Committee either listens to the Department or only to the MEC and this Department has a history of fruitless and wasteful expenditure. The Department continues with its interventions without involving the Committee. The Committee does not have the views of the different party members that were elected in the MLM. Where has the Department been for the last few months because the Committee is now rushed to adopt this report? There are a number of questions that are still unanswered that the Committee has. It is frustrating because he is in the minority and the majority always outvotes the minority. He then indicated that the Committee will be in the same situation like the Tshwane Municipality (TM), where the opposition pleaded with the Committee to apply itself and make the correct decision. The only positive outcome was when the court ruled that the decision taken in the TM was not the correct decision. The Head of Department (HOD) requested that the Committee grants it an extension because it wanted to appoint senior managers. The Department thinks that the official will do a good job in the MLM but this is not guaranteed. The Department in the Free State did not follow the correct procedure and he suggested that the Committee did not adopt the report.

Ms C Visser (DA, North West) agreed with Mr Sileku and Mr Zandamela and suggested that the Committee makes an objective decision. The MEC in the Free State has a history of lifting interventions and using Section 154 of the Constitution as his argument. The Committee did not have an opportunity to engage with the relevant stakeholders in the MLM. The budget was adopted for the integrated development plan (IDP) and the service delivery and budget implementation plan (SDBIP) by the MEC. She asked whether the Committee trusted the decisions that were taken because tomorrow senior managers will be appointed. She suggested that the Committee did not adopt the report but have a virtual engagement with the relevant stakeholders and conduct oversight in the MLM.
  
Ms S Shaikh (ANC, Limpopo) said it is not the first time that the Committee is confronted with MLM issues. It is a concern that the Committee has not engaged with the relevant stakeholders and the manner in which the interventions have been conducted for the current and previous MLM issues.

Due to load-shedding and poor connection, the Committee was in agreement that the meeting must be rescheduled.

The meeting was adjourned.