Hon Chairperson, the intervention into the Mamusa Local Municipality was plagued by irregular procedures. The administrator appointed to lead the intervention was not properly qualified and the failure of the intervention was a direct consequence of cadre deployment.
During the committee proceedings, the DA indicated that dissolving the municipality would not solve the problem or service delivery and that would merely lead to further political instability taking into account that the by-election would have to be held in the coming months and then followed again by a local government election in 2021.
The MEC of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs had send a request to dissolve the municipality in terms of section 139(1)(c) to the council on 09 October 2019. This was while the process of
approving the intervention in terms of section 139(1)(b) has not even been fully considered by the NCOP.
However, during the committee the DA had proposed an administrator who was properly qualified to assist the municipality to be appointed. Alternatively, the DA further proposed that the NCOP veto the decision of the MEC pending a report that shows that exceptional circumstances do indeed exist and then the provincial government can apply for approval to dissolve the municipality again.
It is evident that the real motivation behind this is that the dissolution of the municipality is for the ANC to solve its internal faction battles. It can never be allowed that internal party issues of the ANC be solved by misusing the Constitution, at the taxpayers expense which would lead to more political instability as opposed to better service delivery.
We have a duty to act in the best interest of the people of Mamusa, where best interest will be served by the appointment of properly qualified persons for the jobs, whether it is an administrator or any other management position in that municipality.
We agree that intervention is necessary, but has to be done properly and that section 139(1)(c) would be unconstitutional and premature if everything possible was not done to ensure that section 139(1)(b) succeeds. It is with this in mind that the Western Cape cannot support this report.
Question put: That the Report be adopted.
IN FAVOUR: Eastern Cape, Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal, Limpopo, Mpumalanga, Northern Cape, North West.
ABSTAIN: Free State.
AGAINST: Western Cape.
Report agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.