Update on Negotiating Mandates: Independent Municipal Demarcation Authority Bill

Meeting report

Opening Remarks by Chairperson

The Chairperson officially opened the meeting, emphasising the importance of the attendance of meetings by Committee Members, as their absence was reflected in parliamentary oversight websites, which was not reputable for the Committee.

The meeting today was to table the provincial negotiating mandates on the Independent Municipal Demarcation Authority Bill. The tabling of these mandates along with the Independent Municipal Demarcation Authority Bill of utmost importance as 29 May 2024 would be a 2-and-a-half-year benchmark for local government elections since the last in November 2021. The good proposals encapsulated in the Bill would assist with addressing internal and external boundaries.

Apologies

Mr G Michalakis (DA, Free State) would arrive late to the meeting as would Mr C Smit (DA, Limpopo).

The Chairperson called upon a parliamentary legal advisor to provide information regarding the progress of the negotiating mandates.

Negotiating Mandates: Independent Municipal Demarcation Authority Bill [B14-2022]

Adv Mkhuseli Mbebe, Procedural Officer, Parliament of the Republic of South Africa, explained that the Western Cape, Eastern Cape and Limpopo provinces had asked for an extension with their responses, as they did not have enough time to conduct public hearings. The Western Cape asked for their deadline to be 6 April 2024, Limpopo asked for the end of April 2024, and the Eastern Cape did not give a definite deadline date. The advice given to proceed was for the Chairperson of this Committee, along with the chairpersons of the provincial committee affected by the Bills, to meet with the respective provinces’ delegates and reach agreements.

It was not possible to proceed if three of the nine provinces did not approve [of the Bill].

The Chairperson suggested that the Department of Human Settlements put together their responses to the provinces to be presented by 19 March 2024. The parliamentary legal advisors and the office of the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) responsible for procedures were requested to collaborate and draft a documented response within a week to the three provinces that had requested time extensions. It was important to ensure that a resolution had to be reached before the inauguration of the Seventh Parliament.

Discussion

Mr R Badenhorst (DA, Western Cape) spoke on behalf of the Western Cape Province, stating that the prescribed timeframes for these negotiation mandates were inadequate and robbed citizens of their constitutional right to meaningful participation. The parliamentary briefings only took place in early February, giving provinces less than six weeks to expedite proper public participation. In the case of the Western Cape, the use of social media alone would not suffice in expediting public participation, but there was a need to advertise the mandates for at least two to three weeks to ensure meaningful participation. These hearings would have to take place in at least five districts within the Western Cape to ensure mass understanding of the Bill and its limitations.

The Chairperson asked that Committee Members only make use of the chat box on the virtual platform if they were experiencing technical or connectivity issues.

Ms S Shaikh (ANC, Limpopo) stated that from a procedural perspective, it was important that the current Parliament pass this Bill as their tenure would only be suspended on the eve of the elections. In terms of section 76 legislation, a bill could be passed if at least five provinces were in support of it, however, it was important to try to get a response from the three abovementioned provinces, so a defined extension should be considered.

Ms M Bartlett (ANC, Northern Cape) supported the proposal made by the Chairperson.

Mr Smit said he had received various complaints from colleagues in other provinces regarding the malpractices that came with the procedures followed for the negotiating mandates. Mr Smit proceeded to make allegations about the malpractices in provinces such as KwaZulu Natal and the Free State. Ensuring procedures were followed correctly was important to avoid contestation in court. Mr Smit asked that the Committee investigate these allegations.

Ms Sheikh raised a point of order - these allegations by Mr Smit were not substantiated and could not be considered valid. What was Mr Smit’s reason for liaising with other provinces outside of his own?

Mr Badenhorst asked that the comments made in chat boxes be considered whenever received, as this was a virtual platform, different from in-person meetings, and with technical and connectivity issues. Ms Sheikh’s point of order was not in accordance with any clause in the Committee’s rules on points of order, and she infringed on Mr Smit’s right to freedom of speech as per Rule 45 of the rules of the NCOP. If it was not possible for the Western Cape to be granted an extension, the negotiating mandates would have to be considered under the new administration.

The Chairperson stated that Mr Smit’s allegations were unfounded and thus could not be engaged by this Committee. The Department would respond to mandates on 19 March, dissecting every piece of information before them, and only then would there be investigations of any malpractice. The chat box was limited to Members who were experiencing technical and connectivity issues to avoid abuse of the platform. The Chairperson was to meet with the three provinces who did not submit their mandates and seek legal advice on how to proceed by 19 March, and the Department would then provide its responses.

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.