SALGA; MDB & CRL Rights Commission 2022/23 Annual Performance Plans; with Deputy Minister

This premium content has been made freely available

Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs

04 May 2022
Chairperson: Mr F Xasa (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Video

Municipal Demarcation Board

CRL Rights Commission

In a virtual meeting, the Portfolio Committee on Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs was briefed by the South African Local Government Association (SALGA), the Municipal Demarcation Board (MDB) and the CRL Rights Commission on their Annual Performance Plans for 2022/23.

The entities reported on their progress in achieving their targets in 2021/22 and their strategic plans for 2022-2025. They outlined difficulties in fulfilling their mandates because of funding constraints.

Members asked SALGA why it was spending more than half of its revenue to pay its employees rather than on service delivery.

The Committee asked the MDB about its programme of action to deal with the after-effects of the demarcation process in municipalities. Members also asked if the MDB based its work on research or political pressure.

Members questioned whether the CRL Rights Commission had the Jurisdiction to act in Phoenix in KwaZulu-Natal following the violence there. The Committee also questioned the Commission on its footprint in rural areas and its efforts to create public awareness and provide public education.

Meeting report

The Chairperson opened the meeting and welcomed all those in attendance. He hoped the officials had read the guide sent to help them prepare their Annual Performance Plans (APPs).

South African Local Government Association Annual Performance Plan 2022/23

The President of the South African Local Government Association (SALGA), Mr Bheki Stofile, led the presentation. He was assisted by Mr Lance Joel, Chief Operations Officer. The presentation highlighted SALGA’s project plans and timelines, its programmes for delivering on its targets and its strategic plan. The presentation focused on a diagnostic analysis of the root causes of problems in local government and SALGA. 

(See the SALGA slide presentation for details.)

Municipal Demarcation Board Annual Performance Plan 2022/23

Mr Thabo Moses Manyoni, Chairperson, Municipal Demarcation Board (MDB), opened the presentation. He was assisted by Mr Aluwani Ramagadza, Chief Operations Officer. The presentation highlighted the progress in achieving the 2021/22 targets, the 2020-2025 strategic plan and the APP for 2022/23. The presentation also highlighted that MDB remained significantly under-resourced and its ability to do thorough research when making decisions about boundary re-determination was constrained.

The MDB reported on its limited financial resources and said it remains significantly under-resourced. For this reason, its ability to conduct thorough research when making boundary re-determination decisions is constrained. The previous reduction in the baseline for 2023/24 will have a significant impact considering that MDB will be conducting the municipal outer boundary re-determination process in this period. Further, MDB will be conducting boundary re-determinations that will require significant funding in 2022/23.

Summary of matters of concern for the MDB:

-The MDB remains financially constrained even though it continues to function with its available financial and human resources

-Regional representation remains a distant ambition.

-Lack of understanding of the municipal boundary re-determination process hence the MDB will continue with its education and awareness programme

-A sizeable number of municipal boundary re-determination proposals are motivated by matters which cannot be addressed by change of a municipal boundary:

Poor municipal service delivery;

Allegiance to tribal or traditional leadership;

Party political instability and contestations in local areas;

Long-standing dissatisfaction with provincial boundaries;

Perceived benefits for re-categorising a municipal area into a Category A municipality etc.

 

(See the MDB slide presentation for more details.)

CRL Rights Commission Annual Performance Plan 2022/23

The Chairperson of the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities (CRL Rights Commission), Prof Luka David Mosoma, led the presentation. He was assisted by Mr Edward Mafadza, Chief Executive Officer. The presentation highlighted progress in achieving the 2021/2022 targets, the 2020-2025 strategic plan and the Annual Performance Plan for 2022/23. The Commission told the Committee that budgetary constraints were still an impediment to accessing all communities to achieve the CLR Rights Commission’s mandate fully.

(See CRL Rights Commission presentation for more details.)

Discussion

Mr K Ceza (EFF) asked the CRL rights Commission when it would have regional offices for engaging with local communities. Most of the complaints came from communities, while the Commission operated at a national level. How would it use media to promote tolerance among cultural groups? Had the Commission met with the Dudula vigilante group? It was not promoting unity.

Mr Ceza asked the MDB about their programme of action to deal with imploding municipalities which resulted from the demarcation process. He suggested that the MDB consider the wasteful duplication of municipal structures. There was a need to challenge the Eurocentric view of municipalities because of the difference in context between Africa and Europe. This view led to capturing the African mind in all spheres of development. What had stopped the government from establishing special economic zones? How did the MDB influence decisions relating to district municipalities versus local municipalities to have strong municipalities? What action had it taken to scrap social structures that were not useful?

He commented that SALGA’s presentation reflected challenges faced by local government. There was a need to identify the actual problems and challenges in a simple but effective manner, which would allow the necessary solutions. SALGA had to perform their function as mandated by the legal framework. There were many simple challenges, such as service delivery, that SALGA had to deal with without going further to deal with complex situations. There was a need for industrialised municipalities with thriving revenue bases where citizens were employed, and where they could deliver services of the highest order.  

Ms E Spies (DA) said the Committee had a role to play in SALGA’s implementation of what it had presented. It had identified the root causes and effects of problems. The concern was that there was poor political leadership. The leadership within the councils did not understand what was expected of them. Councillors needed to buy into projects or strategies, or visions. The buy-in could only be achieved if the councils formulated constructive resolutions that would give effect to what was presented. To achieve that, they had to make sure that the political leadership understood their roles so that, in due time, there was a change in local government.

She asked the CRL Rights Commission what their footprint was in the rural areas, especially in the Western Cape, where most communities did not know that there was such a commission. Were there efforts to ensure public awareness and public education?

Mr A Matumba (EFF) said that though the CRL Rights Commission was justifying its involvement in Phoenix in KwaZulu-Natal following the violence there. The Commission was not meant to be there because what happened there had nothing to do with them. People had not been killed because they spoke Zulu but rather because of their skin colour. It was purely racism and criminality and not a war between two communities. He asked for an organogram of their staff, saying the Commission was spending more on the compensation of employees than service delivery.

He asked the MDB if it succumbed to political pressure. Did it do its research when it came to demarcation? He asked about the staff structure because the MDB was spending half of its operating expenditure on the compensation of employees while also highlighting financial challenges. There was a need to see what it was spending on. Was it spending on public awareness because of the general outcry about the MDB from communities? What was its evidence regarding public participation?

SALGA could not tell the municipalities to budget properly if it itself could not. SALGA was spending more than half of its revenue to pay its employees. There was a need for a report to explain why it was spending so much on salaries. The Committee had asked for a report before, but it had never received it. The entities before the Committee were not breaking down their expenditure on contracted services. How much were they spending on these services? 

Mr X Msimango (IFP) commented that though the three entities had complained about not being funded enough, their spending patterns said otherwise. He congratulated SALGA for a clean audit outcome for five consecutive years. He asked the CRL Rights Commission if it was aware that it was not known in the rural areas. Most of the work was meant to take place in such communities. What was its footprint in rural areas?

Responses

SALGA

SALGA’s president, Mr Stofile responded that there was a misconception that SALGA was intended to operate as a municipality. SALGA was helping municipalities with any difficulties they faced. Their mandate was to lobby, advocate and represent, which involved costs in compensating people of stature in various matters. The main reason for the leadership problem was that municipalities were too underfunded to obtain expert research. SALGA was at the forefront in correcting mismanagement issues, which was why they had been able to achieve a clean audit for five consecutive years. One way to improve municipalities was to hire new people who could play an advisory role in the local government leadership. SALGA was a service institution that was capacitating the municipalities with people who were well able to respond to the challenges that they were facing. It was important for them to retain and improve their capacity to benefit local government.

SALGA’s CEO, Mr Xolile George, said SALGA’s mandates were direct charge programmes which meant that it was directly providing its employees to do programmes and provide support to the municipalities. SALGA’s costs were for the specialists and those who would deliver the programmes. 

SALGA’s Chief Financial Officer, Ms Thembeka Mthethwa, reiterated that if SALGA were in the private sector, it would be called a consulting company that hired employees. It hired skilled employees to support municipalities as it lobbied and provided the research required. It was natural to expect the SALGA employee cost to be 70 to 80 percent of the operating costs because of the nature of the work.

MDB

The chairperson of the MDB, Mr Manyoni, commented that SALGA had already raised the problems in local government and the proposals to address them. The MDB could not address them in  making boundary demarcations. In response to the question of district versus local municipalities and the suggestion that other levels were unnecessary, he said the local municipalities would always be there. They were the point of accessibility and were close to the constituencies.

Regarding research, the law was compelling in that all applications were to be considered and if not, the MDB could be taken to court. It would do research. Regarding public awareness, it intensified public participation by using local radio stations and local newspapers so that the people in the rural areas could be reached. The challenge was not having a regional presence and provincial offices, which made the work difficult. The MDB agreed with the president of SALGA that their budgets were informed by the reliance on human bodies for services.

Regarding the board being Eurocentric in its approach, the MDB followed the Municipal Demarcation Act. It did not have evidence of whether the Act was Eurocentric or Afrocentric, except where it addressed imbalances of the past. The MDB was always in touch with the communities. The main issue was that it did not have a provincial presence, which the Committee could assist it. He highlighted that the MDB could be seen as Afrocentric in its approach of not dividing traditional areas. 

The MDB’s Chief Operations Officer, Mr Ramagadza, said the MDB did not succumb to any political pressure but would stick to what the Act laid down. For example, in 2015, when the Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (Cogta) made proposals in section 22, which affected 70 municipalities, the board rejected most of them and only 11 went through. It was on record that it did not succumb to pressure. The staff breakdown would be shown in detail in the annual reports, and the reports would show the number of staff members and where the money was going. The MDB was a labour-intensive institution. 

CRL

The Chairperson of the CRL Rights Commission, Prof Mosoma, responded on the issue of decentralisation. The Commission had approached SALGA to borrow regional offices without payment. There was also a challenge of human resources because of the broad mandate of working with communities, hence the appeal for funding to discharge the function.

Regarding the resuscitation of diminished heritages, there were implications of undermining grouping, other cultures,  religions, and even languages. The Commission was trying to get to an understanding with the SABC to cater for cultural, religious, and linguistic values in communities. Experts would develop programmes that the SABC would air to bring communities together.

The CRL Rights Commission had not met the Dudula movement. It was developing a strategy because it had realised those who were influencing division and conflict were from some political parties. The Commission would meet the parties to hear their point of view and understand how to create a cohesive nation.

Regarding its footprint, since the Commission’s visit to the Eastern Cape, where the House of Traditional Leaders did not know it, it had made sure that there was public education to make itself known in all the provinces, despite the limited staffing. It had met traditional leaders and communities in the various provinces. It had also had radio discussions on initiations in the Eastern Cape and religious issues in the Western Cape. Its communication department had done an impact study to check how much was communicated.

The Commission would assess complaints that came in. It was a work in progress, and it did not claim to have reached all areas, given the limited human resources and the absence of regional and provincial offices. It was imperative for Parliament to assist them in reaching the whole country effectively.

Regarding Phoenix, an investigation showed a history of conflict between African and Indian communities that started in 1949 and occurred again in 1972, 1942, 1985 and 2021. The investigation had come up with a way in which they could work together. However, he could not discount the fact of racism, and the Commission could not sit back where there was a conflict caused by racism. Its mandate was to deal with any conflict in communities, whether business, political or even academic. The plethora of communities was wide, and therefore, it had a mandate to be in Phoenix.

Regarding funding, the previous Committee had agreed with the Commission on lobbying for more funds. The board had taken over a commission where job evaluations and descriptions had not been done for a majority of staff and where job placements had been faulty. It had to make sure that each position was graded and it was making sure that funds went to programmes and not to the staff. The Commission would provide a new organogram to show how funds were used.

The Deputy Chairperson of the CRL Rights Commission, Dr Sylvia Mamohapi Pheto, said the issue in KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) was a social threat to national stability. It called for a reaction by the Commission because it was a custodian of peacebuilding in the nation. Section 185 of the Constitution gave the Commission the mandate to develop peace, friendship, humanity, tolerance, and national unity. The section empowered the Commission to do all necessary, including monitoring, investigating, educating and lobbying, and producing reports. The Commission was empowered through the CRL Act to facilitate the resolution of friction between and within communities and organs of state. The Commission’s intervention in KZN was in line with the legislation and the President's call to rebuild, reconstruct, and stabilise communities through partnerships and collaborative efforts. The Commission engaged the communities to understand the extent of the unrest through conflict resolution and eventually make recommendations to the authorities and state organs. She suggested that the Committee arrange a workshop where the entities before it could be allowed to clarify their roles and legislative mandate and suggest workable solutions to the challenges identified during the meeting.

Further discussion

Mr Ceza agreed that the CRL Rights Commission acted according to the legislation. Did the CRL intervene in family disputes within traditional communities, for instance, the issue in which a premier failed to sign a court order indicating which family member was a rightful heir? This developed into violence in the community and the crime rate escalated. He asked if the MDB’s 2022/23 APP provided information about public participation and consultation.

Mr Matumba argued that section 185 of the CRL Act defined which communities it was speaking about. It was to promote and respect the rights of cultural, religious and linguistic communities. Communities were not a broad word. What happened in Phoenix was that the CRL diluted racism and criminality in the name of section 185. The SA Police Service (SAPS) dealt with the racist Indian criminals and arrested them. The Commission had to deal with issues among Tsonga, Pedi, and Bantu speaking people to undo the psychological effects of divisions sown by the apartheid government. He wanted the Commission to be in universities where there were people from different communities to help them interact and live together. He claimed that the Commission went to Phoenix because it wanted publicity. Money spent on Phoenix was wasteful expenditure.

Regarding SALGA, he highlighted that audit reports did not translate into service delivery. They were there to capacitate the local government. SALGA could not complain about the lack of political leadership while it was its duty to capacitate municipalities. Most municipalities had the problem of collecting payments for water and electricity, which were the major revenue drivers. There was a problem with the preparation of financial statements. Those were the things that had to be attended to in terms of capacity building. It was the duty of the Committee to do oversight, and seeing the organogram was going to help the Committee do it effectively. The CRL Rights Commission had a duty to provide the information. He thanked the MDB for submitting their report for cloud services.

Mr G Mpumza (ANC) asked the MDB what the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs responded to the need for funds to work effectively. He asked SALGA what cooperative studies had been done regarding the exit of trained councillors. Had it considered a review of law concerning the limited tenure provisions?

The Chairperson suggested that continual engagement would help iron out some issues.

Responses

Mr Stofile (SALGA) said that as a public representative, he was responsible for engaging Parliament without being hindered, especially on policy matters. It was necessary not to leave the political questions hanging, and it was necessary to understand that in local government, 80% of councillors were new and that SALGA could lose those it had trained.

Mr Manyoni (MDB) referred Members to slide 30 of the MDB’s presentation, which showed the programme for consultations with communities. The board would publish the dates and the areas as the process unfolded. It was prudent that Members be part of the public consultations during their constituency work. Regarding regional presence, the MDB was aware of the financial constraints the country was facing, but it was making efforts to do better.

Prof Mosoma (CRL) said it was frustrating to be told that the CRL Rights Commission was operating beyond its legislative mandate in its involvement in Phoenix. Regarding the Commission’s footprint and regional offices, it had not received a definite response to requests for resources to do what was planned. The Commission wanted support to achieve what was in its mandate.

The Deputy Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (CoGTA), Mr Obed Bapela, thanked the Committee and the three entities. He requested further opportunities to discuss other issues. All presentations provided evidence of work to be undertaken by the entities, and these would constitute an oversight programme for the Committee. SALGA was pleading that they work together to promote good governance and service delivery at the local government level.

He asked SALGA and CoGTA to report the impact of infrastructure theft on municipalities. Eskom had highlighted that it amounted to R2 billion per annum. Parliament had developed the Critical Infrastructure Protection Act of 2019. The President had also signed off on the Critical Infrastructure Council that would help identify areas under attack. The police had also developed a task force. The laws alone would be ineffective if the communities were not involved. He asked the Committee to consider meeting with CoGTA, SALGA and the police to investigate the issues.

The meeting was adjourned.

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: