Citizens of Mogalakwena Municipality Petition: engagement with stakeholders

Meeting report

The Chairperson said this meeting was a continuation of the 17 February 2021 meeting on the petition brought by Mogalakwena citizens. The Committee would receive responses from the Municipal Council and the Waterberg District Municipality. The Mayor did not submit the of Mogalakwena Municipality within the stipulated time. This was raised as a concern as the delay had made it not possible to share the responses with the petitioners.

Mogalakwena Municipality feedback on petition
Mr Frans Mokwele, Mayor of Mogalakwena Municipality, apologized for not submitting the responses on time. They had met as the team of the Mogalakwena Local Municipality and developed their responses. With permission, the Acting Municipal Manager would present the responses.

The Chairperson asked where the Municipal Manager was.

The Mayor explained that the Municipal Manager, Ms Beverly Gunqisa, had handed in her resignation the previous week as the Council was discussing the legal opinion on the exoneration of the Municipal Manager. In order not to leave a vacuum, Mr Mashishi had been appointed as Acting Manager.

Mr Mpho Mashishi, Acting Municipal Manager, noted the first question was what plans the Mayor had to show that the Council structures were functional. The Mogalakwena Municipal Council had approved and adopted a code of conduct. 

The Chairperson interjected saying she was not sure the Acting Manager was fully briefed. The petitioners wanted to come in and address the Committee as they had not received the responses.

Ms Rebecca Selomo, on behalf of the petitioners, was given an opportunity to address the Committee. She said their petition was simply saying that they did not have confidence in their Council. They expected the Speaker to respond and show the petitioners that they were committed to changing the status quo.

Ms Selomo asked that either the Mayor or the Speaker of the Council address them as the issues were Council and not administrative matters.

Mayor Mokwele responded about the concern about Ward Committee members who were also members of the task team, not being allowed to speak in the public meeting. He confirmed that this was true. As the Municipality, they believed the role of the Ward Committee members was to complement the work of the Ward Councillors. The Ward Committee members knew what was expected of them as per the Code of Conduct. The Speaker had developed a programme that ensured all the Ward Committee members submitted reports.

On security, the security officers were meant to protect the infrastructure of the municipality. If they were doing something else, the matter would be dealt with conclusively.

On why it was taking so long to replace one of the Councillors, the instability in their Municipality over a long period, had contributed to the delay. However, currently plans were underway to ensure the stability of Mogalakwena.

On the Deputy Manager who publicly declared on national TV that he was responsible for the massive hiring of almost 400 employees in Mogalakwena, the Deputy Manager reports to the Municipal Manager and not to the Council. The information the Council had was that there was a disciplinary proceeding but it was not conclusive. However, if there was need to, the Council would ensure a consequent investigation.

Mayor Mokwele welcomed the Speaker of the Council to respond to further questions.

The Speaker, Ms Pheladi Oliphant, said that they had developed a capacity building programme to enhance the skills of Ward Committee members.

The Chairperson invited the Chief Whip of Council to comment on the motion of no confidence.

The Chief Whip of the Council replied about the two Councillors doing business with the municipality, saying they have agreed that the matter should be referred to the Speaker. The Ethics Committee will deal with the matter and then report back to the Council on its findings.

The Speaker resumed responding to the questions. The Council was planning on introducing the Ward Committees to the Municipal Council Committees.

She acknowledged that the Council had been unstable which affected its functionality. However, the situation had improved, and Council meetings were now being held.

The Chairperson asked the Speaker to answer this concern in the petition:
“ Ward Councillors were not keen to work with Ward Committees elected by the community members. Ward Councillors never call a community meeting to introduce Ward committee members to the community. During the rep forum, where there will be different stakeholder meetings, stakeholders, such as department of education, public works, legit and etc. Ward Committees are not allowed to participate, even though they've been invited. Meaning their purpose on this forum is the roll call and to enjoy breakfast and lunch”

The Chairperson said these were very serious matters as these were matters that were legislated on. It was also alleged that the Ward Committees were not allowed to hold the Councillors and officials accountable or they were threatened with the R1 000 stipend. Also, vibrant community members who were brave enough to raise fears or issues were being intimidated by heavily armed security guards.

The Speaker answered that she was not aware of the allegations of security guards removing the vibrant community members, as she was there in the meetings where this happened. On the Councillors who were doing business with the municipality, plans were underway to take the matter to the Ethics Committee.

In response to the Chairperson asking for a timeline for that, the Speaker said one week from today.

The Chairperson asked why the matter had not yet been tabled before Council.

The Speaker replied that they needed administrative assistance to table the matter which they have requested.

The Chairperson requested that the Speaker provide the Committee with the Council resolution once the Council has sat and discussed the matter.

Mayor Mokwele clarified a number of points. He agreed that indeed the community members were right in saying that the billing system of the municipality was not accurate. The Municipality wanted to have prepaid meters but this did not have buy-in from the community.

He agreed with the community members that the community hall was not satisfactory and this was due to budgeting for its upkeep, which was often based on an estimate. He promised they would look into it.

The Council had met and agreed to give access to members of the public to the virtual council meetings. It was due to the abnormal situation of COVID-19 that members of the public were unable to join the meetings.

The Chairperson asked the petitioners for their response to the feedback.

Petitioners response to Council feedback
Mr Mpho Tjale, on behalf of the petitioners, said that the R1 000 stipend threat was the reason the Ward Committee members were not able to have freedom of expression.

Mr Tjale said that the Deputy Manager of Corporate Services , Mr Jabu Mashamaite, was suspended for the 300 to 450 illegal appointments. There were other irregularities as the former Municipal Manager was given compulsory study leave, then the Corporate Manager was appointed as the acting Municipal Manager within two days. The Corporate Manager then instituted the committee that dealt with the suspension of the Deputy Manager. The Deputy Manager's suspension was suspended. This was why the citizens did not have confidence in the Council.

Ms Selomo remarked that the Mayor and the Council Chief Whip should address the concern about replacing the Councillor who was assassinated in July 2019. To date there had been a vacancy. The petitioners have asked why it has taken so long for the vacancy to be filled.

Ms Selomo said that the petitioners could not accept that the internal disciplinary process exonerated the Deputy Manager of Corporate Services as he was the one responsible for the mass recruitment. This meant that the people on the panel that was supposed to discipline him were part of the people he had hired. She did not expect them to be impartial. The Council has not shown that it is willing to deal with Deputy Manager.

Ms Selomo reminded the Speaker, Ms Pheladi Oliphant, that one of Ms Oliphant's roles was oversight. There was no political will in the Council to deal with Councillors doing business with the municipality. The Auditor General had reported the matter and, as such, there was no need for further investigations. What was needed were disciplinary measures against those Councillors.

Ms Selomo said that the Speaker had admitted to instability in the Council. The petitioners still believed there were service delivery problems such as new sewage bursts every day. The only intervention that would work was a Section 139(1)(c) intervention.

Ms Selomo gave a practical example about the security guards where in 2018 a person was physically removed by the Chief Whip for raising concerns that the leadership did not want raised. These were not allegations but things that had happened.

On meter readers who are chased out from households, Ms Selomo said that those meter readers who are chased away by a household, it was the responsibility of the meter reader to report this to the municipality so it could act against that household. On the prepaid meters, citizens were saying there was the challenge of historical debt where many households were said to owe a lot of money that was not justifiable.

Ms Selomo said that the municipality was paying for salaries that were not budgeted for. This money should have been used to provide services such as maintaining the community hall.

Ms Selomo said that the petitioners appreciated the initiative of open virtual council meetings. They wanted this to be implemented as soon as possible so they could hold their leaders accountable.

South African National Civic Organisation (SANCO) Mogalakwena secretary, Mr Tlou Sasa, said that the Mayor needed to fact check that indeed the meter readers were being chased out. He did not think this was true. Citizens did not have an issue with prepaid meters. The problem was the historical bills. Also, they had a problem with the estimation method of billing. People demanded to know the formula used for estimation. The Municipality should come together and cover part of the bill, then give a flat rate for different houses, based on their size. However, the Mayor had called a meeting and told them that the pre-paid meters would be installed, whether they liked it or not.

Mr Sasa did not think the proposed Ward Committees programme would have an impact, as the Council had four years to implement such a programme and they did not.

The Chairperson noted that there was no need for the Waterberg District Municipality to make a presentation as they had provided their responses in advance. She welcomed the petitioners to give their response to the feedback.

Petitioners questions to Waterberg District Municipality
Mr Sasa asked what the recommendations after the findings were.

Mr Tjale commented that the officials who approved payments to companies that did not do any work should be suspended with immediate effect and charged with corruption. All the companies must pay the monies back to the municipality and they should be blacklisted or prohibited from doing business with the state. If they cannot pay back the money, their assets should be auctioned.

On the incomplete projects discussed at the 17 February meeting, the name of the company in charge of the road and storm water had been provided. He recommended that this company repays the municipality for the incomplete projects and the company be blacklisted.

Mr Tjale wanted the officials who had misused the municipal petrol card to be charged with fraud and suspended immediately. The garage owner should also be held accountable for fraud activities.

Ms Selomo said the legal opinion from the Department had nullified the findings of one investigation report adopted by Council. She wanted to know the implications of a legal opinion nullifying an investigation report.

Mr Sasa asked what informed the Section 139(1)(b) intervention. The citizens needed the report upon which the intervention was based.

Waterberg District Municipality (WDM) response
Mr Morris Mataboge, WDM Executive Mayor, replied that Waterberg District Municipality was a Category C Municipality that meant it was not a water service authority while all the local municipalities were water services authorities. He had presented the recommendations which dealt with corporate services, technical services and finances. He briefly went through the recommendations made at the 17 February meeting.

On the non-functionality of the Local Command Council, there were a number of works that had been done through the coordination of the District Command Council, which were recommended to the Local Command Council. Amongst them were 64 water tanks that were delivered to Mogalakwena during the Level 5 Lockdown. These were some of the things that the District was doing to support the municipality.

Limpopo COGHSTA response
Ms Ngaka Dumalisile, Limpopo CoGTA and Human Settlements (COGHSTA) Head of Department, responded about the incomplete projects. COGHSTA allocated project funds to the municipality and the intention of these projects was to correct the misalignment in the sewer pipe lining in those areas. The Municipality had funds transferred to it. When it came to the contractors Members are referring to, the contractors were appointed by the municipality because the funds were transferred to the municipality.  The contractors were not appointed by COGHSTA or the Housing Development Agency (HDA).

On the misuse of garage cards in the municipality, COGHSTA became aware of the misuse when they were following up with the municipality on implementation of the recommendations of forensic investigations conducted over a number of years. The Municipality was sitting with five forensic investigations and the recommendations that were never tabled to Council nor implemented.

Part of the intervention was to take all those forensic investigations and table them to Council, old as they were, because the municipality at that time did not even have reports to confirm that those forensic investigations were tabled before Council. The Department was thus not sure if the reports were tabled, and those would include the misuse of the garage cards by officials.

On the Section 139 intervention, Ms Dumalisile replied that there was a forensic investigation. The Department had made an attempt at the last meeting to elaborate on the matter. Limpopo COGHSTA then conducted a rapid assessment that pointed to quite a number of challenges. The Section 139 intervention was not only focusing on administration as part of it was to ensure that the Council was stabilized and it was functional.

Mogalakwena residents would recall that for quite some time, the Council was dysfunctional. They could not actually hold meetings without being disrupted, or without having police guarding the council members. That had since changed and they were able to have Municipal Council meetings.

On the legal opinion, purely focusing on the Municipal Manager (MM), there were serious financial misconduct allegations leveled against the MM at that particular time. The report was tabled before Council; they afforded the MM an opportunity to state her side of story or give reasons why she should not be suspended. There were serious technical irregularities in the process. The Head of Intervention was duty bound to notify the province when things were not going right. The Limpopo COGHSTA Member of Executive Council (MEC) received a letter stating that processes were being flouted, and asking for intervention on the matter. The MEC intervened on the matter.

MEC for Cooperative Governance, Human Settlements and Traditional Affairs (CoGHSTA), Mr Rodgers Basikopo Makamu, pointed to the complaint that the Rapid Assessment Report had not been made available to stakeholders or the community. However, he had personally presented the report to Council.

The reason the intervention was taken under section 139(1)(b) and not (c), was because that is what had been done in other municipalities. There was a sizeable observation that instability in those municipalities and the challenges there, showed that the best solution was a section 139(1)(b) intervention.

One of the terms of reference for the intervention was to address the supply chain management process. This would fix the problems at the root. For example, they had developed a financial recovery plan that will assist Council.

Section 139(b) might not have necessarily achieved all the targets, but this was mainly due to the COVID-19 challenge the country was facing. However, through the current intervention, there were possibilities to stabilize the municipality, without dissolving the Council.

The legal opinion only highlighted the procedural issues that were amiss with the implementation of the investigation process. He thanked the petitioners for their active participation as citizens in holding their municipality accountable.

The Chairperson asked the petitioners to respond.

Petitioners comments to Waterberg District Municipality / Limpopo COGHSTA
Mr Tjale said the COGHSTA HoD had responded that they delegated engineers to go to those projects and check them. This was done without inviting the community leaders to check these projects. The HoD was selective about which project while the petitioners had mentioned various projects.

He doubted that the five forensic reports would be tabled in Council as they were still depending on the very Councillors who would be implicated in those reports. The citizens needed the Council to be put under Section 139(1)(c) because section 139(1)(b) did not bear fruit for them. The service delivery was still poor.

Ms Selomo commented that the petitioners had sent a portfolio of evidence of some of the incomplete projects. The people did not have confidence in the leadership as the council structure was not effective. South Africa is a government of the people by the people Now the question is who are they representing in those Municipal Councils? The petitioners were not convinced that the intervention was working.

South African Local Government Association (SALGA) comment
Mr Bheki Stofile, on behalf of SALGA, applauded the community in these Limpopo municipalities that upon experiencing challenges that affected them, they picked them up. It was important to remember that local government was a three-legged pot. Over a period of time, the other leg of this pot has not been active and has not been functional.

The definition of the legislation that gave birth to local government defined that this three-legged part comprised the administration, Council and community. The third leg of this pot was the community and therefore must take full responsibility of their role and contribution and must be responsive to challenges and issues the community face. The community immediately thought about their government, and referred their complaints to government, because they still had hope that government would listen to them.

Mr Stofile said SALGA was open to the innovation of a flat rate for electricity, and they were open to these discussions and debate.

On what type of intervention works for the people, he referred to the court matter between the Gauteng Provincial Government and the Tshwane Metro Municipality. The allegation was that through the Section 139(1)(c) intervention, there was the intention of usurping the powers and responsibilities of the community, because the community has a right to elect and choose leadership that will lead them, and ensure that services are rendered to the community. He applauded the activism of the citizens.

National COGTA comment
Mr Mpho Mogale, COGTA Chief Director:  Local Government Support and Interventions Management (LGSIM), thanked all the participants. He confirmed what had already been said in the diagnosis of the problems in Mogalakwena. He congratulated the Mogalakwena community for this initiative and not gravitating to protests.

There was no management in the municipality, and this worried the national government. There were 18 managers in these portfolios and most of them were lowering in terms of capability and capacity. To sustain the capacity and restore it, the District needed to come close to the municipality until it was stabilized. It was absolutely important that management was restored. There was a need for leadership restoration in the municipality, at management level. There was need to restore confidence among the staff and the public.

Discussion
Ms E Spies (DA) said over the past week, the Committee had spent almost 10 hours on this particular Municipality and this petition. The keywords mentioned were restoring confidence and dysfunctionality. The Committee needed to act decisively. The community needs to know the matters are resolved, other than telling them how wonderful it is that they are active citizens.

The time was over for the Councillors of that Council, as there was an election in a few months. The Councillors and the Executive of the Council did not have any idea of their roles and responsibilities. There was no proper oversight.

She asked the Councillors present to provide the Council with very practical guidelines on their roles and responsibilities within the next 24 hours. Nepotism and HR processes should not be an issue that comes to this forum. There should have been HR policies in place. She could not understand why a municipality with over 400 employees did not have an organizational structure.

On the two Councillors doing business with municipality, the matter needed to be resolved by Council and a disciplinary process instituted as those Councillors had clearly contravened the Code of Conduct for Councillors.

On the Ward Committees, the Speaker must know that she must be impartial, even if she was new. To have a legitimate role, she must be impartial to protect the integrity of the Council and the community.

There was not much more that could be said, as much had already been said by all the stakeholders in the municipality, specifically the petitioners. They were within their rights. The Executive Mayor could not say to the Committee that it was the acting on the MM’s lack of expertise. The Executive Mayor was the political champion and not a ceremonial mayor. He had executive powers and he must play his role within the municipality.

The Committee needed to act decisively and there was no time for them to restore leadership, people had to be dealt with and be replaced.

Mr K Ceza (EFF) said that the Municipality did not inspire confidence as it did not carry out any of the objectives of local government as expected. He was expecting the MEC to address the community specifically on what the province had achieved in the Section 139(1)(b) intervention. It was not the time to discuss the next elections. He requested that as part of the Committee follow up, it be provided with the case numbers of all those that were deceased as a result of the strife in the municipality.

Mr B Hadebe (ANC) applauded the community leaders for taking the bull by its horns and raising these issues that are key and critical to their lives and livelihoods. As presented, there was the indication of a municipality that was dysfunctional. The status quo was the municipality was under a Section 139(1)(b) intervention. The Committee would love to get a status report that would give them a sense of what improvement had been achieved since the start of the intervention. Had the provincial authority achieved its goals? If not, the next level would be a state intervention, as proposed by the citizens. A status report would give an indication of how to move forward.

Ms D Direko (ANC) also asked for a report on the intervention. There were laws that needed to be followed before national government can take over from the provincial intervention. One of the things that seems to be a cause for concern is the lack of political will in addressing the concerns. From the time the petition was sent, the municipality should have addressed most of the matters raised. The province and the municipality need to be given timeframes within which to address these matters.

The Chairperson addressed some comments on the online chat. The petitioners asked for timeframes on when the unfinished projects would be finished. They wanted concrete actions to be taken against the Councillors who were doing business with the municipality. What was going to happen about the employees employed in jobs that did not exist? Political interests were addressed and the Committee was challenged on whether it thought it would be possible for people implicated in these matters to solve them.

The Chairperson also raised her concerns. She asked why the Council allowed the MM’s resignation despite her having a case to answer.

On the list of acting managers, what were the profiles of these people, and did they meet the requirements and have the requisite skills to be able to take the municipality to the next level?

The Mayor did not address revenue collection which was raised by the residents. How far had they gone in addressing the huge irregular expenditure? How were they addressing the billing challenge?

Mogalakwena Municipality response
Mr Frans Mokwele, Mayor of Mogalakwena Municipality, replied that it was part of the MM’s contract that a person can tender a resignation, even if they are under disciplinary action.

The Chairperson interjected and asked the Head of Intervention to confirm that there was a legal opinion from the Province to substantiate this position.

Mr Mokwele continued that they were finalizing the organizational structure as most people in the municipality were not properly placed in terms of their job specification.

He requested the Head of Intervention to speak to the revenue enhancement strategy.

A critical solution for billing was the prepaid meters. The Municipality understood citizens who had indicated the problem of historical debt, which is also a critical issue. In the meantime, they were still looking for a strategy to deal with the historical debt as they could not just cancel that previous debt automatically.

On the unfinished projects such as the water treatment project, the Head of the Intervention team was busy trying to assist in its finalization. There were also some private sector partnerships to finalize the project.

On the acting managers, the Municipality would provide before the end of the week the proof that the managers met the minimum requirements and expertise.

Head of the Intervention Team, Mr Frans Boshielo, said that he would answer the questions raised but he would not be able to present an intervention progress report today. The unfinished projects were the subject of an audit that showed irregularities. There was an investigation following the audit. The Municipality suspended the implicated officials and others were undergoing disciplinary action. The Municipality also engaged a legal firm to help recover the money that had been paid to the service provider who did not finish the project. The matter was also subject to an audit query. The municipality had commissioned an investigation into those irregularities.

Mr Boshielo said it was not the first time the MM had threatened resignation. She had issued a condition to be paid eight months of salary, which the municipality refused. The MM believed that the working relationship between her and the employer was broken and it could not be repaired. Therefore the Head of Intervention had advised the municipality to accept her resignation. The Council resolved that the Mayor get advice from the Department about the payment part. A comprehensive report on the intervention would be submitted to the Committee.

Limpopo COGHSTA response
Head of Department, Ms Dumalisile, requested that they submit a detailed progress report on the Section 139(1)(b) intervention by 5 March 2021.

Ms Dumalisile clarified about the incomplete project matter, saying that the previous day they had sent their officials to go onto the ground and confirm there would be a need for a technical assessment. When that technical assessment team goes out there, they would engage the municipality and would request to engage with community member structures and have them present.

MEC Makamu clarified the allegation about the incomplete house. He had looked for a donor and the house was completed. It had come to his attention that the breadwinner had died so he had looked for a donor. They would submit a detailed report on the Section 139 intervention. They had not come prepared as they had come to respond to the petition.

While it was sad that some managers were going before accounting, they could not do anything about it. Even before they started the intervention process, they would leave. There was a Public Protector report which talked about the Deputy Manager of Corporate Services. The province pushed to have the report tabled before Council, despite the Deputy Manager going to court to set aside the report. The municipality was in a state of dysfunctionality but they were trying to take it out of that state. He called on the Committee not to say that nothing was being done right. The province was ready to present the progress report.

Chairperson concluding remarks
The Chairperson said that the Committee would deliberate on the petition. She gave a brief background on the intervention and the petition which the Committee had been directed to attend to by the Speaker. The petition had brought up the weaknesses in how public participation was being done. Had the municipality expeditiously attended to the matters brought by the people, it would not have escalated this far.

She assured the members of the public that the public engagement would give them redress. The Committee would come up with recommendations which would form part of the resolutions of Parliament. She asked the Municipality to come up with clear timelines on the unfinished projects.

She asked the petitioners as citizens to choose wisely as the elections were coming up.

The meeting was adjourned.