Hon Chairperson, the sudden rise to have the NCOP certify the Gauteng Provincial Government's intervention in the Tshwane Municipality is nothing short of political exploitation of an independent national legislative body and incorrect interpretation of the Constitution.
Based on the list of reasons provided by the provincial government, the choice of a Section 139(1)(c) intervention is not warranted as these reasons refer to a mix of
executive and financial obligation that the municipality has been accused of not fulfilling.
When it comes to the failure of fulfilling executive obligation at Section 139(1)(b) or (1)(a) or (b) should be firstly be executed. That would see the provincial government either notify the municipality where they have failed and provide steps to amend or assume the responsibility of the executive obligation.
Section 139(5) dictates that necessity for the provincial government to impose a recovery plan should the municipality fail to meet their financial commitments that compromise service delivery, such as the one listed in the notice of intervention. Instead what we have now is a provincial government avoiding their constitutional role by rushing to what seems to them as a quick fix.
The intervention was only referred to the NCOP last week leaving the Select Committee of CoGTA with very little unprecedented time for adequate engagement. SALGA was
afforded no opportunity for engagement before the intervention was issued. [Remarks] They further noted that the dissolution of council and new election could just again result in no party obtaining a majority, risking the municipality with a hang council and no political leadership.
An additional problem with the Tshwane Council is the failure of councillors to attend meetings and elect a Mayor they are constitutionally obligated to. Rather than a dissolution of council, action should be taken against these councillors who contravened the Code of Conduct.
It is further irregular for this council to prioritise the Tshwane intervention over those of other intervention that have been with the NCOP for several weeks, such as Maluti- a-Phofung in the Free State and Mogalakwena in Limpopo.
The NCOP has a constitutional role to investigate whether an intervention in the municipalities and provinces is justified and in accordance with the spirit of our
Constitution and cooperative governance. After yesterday's select committee meeting it is evident that Section 139(1)(c) in Tshwane is not reasonable and not in the best interest of the residence of the Tshwane. I thank you. "Baie dankie." We do not support. [Applause.]