Mamusa Municipality (North West) and Qaukeni Municipality (Eastern Cape) Intervention: briefing

Meeting report

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND ADMINSTRATION SELECT COMMITTEE
3 June 2004
Mamusa Municipality (North West) and Qaukeni municipality (Eastern Cape) INTERVENTION: BRIEFING

Chairperson: Mr S Shiceka (ANC)

Relevant Documents:
No documents were provided for Mamusa Local Municipality briefing
Some of the Qaukeni intervention documents
Constitution Second Amendment Act, No 3 of 2003
Daily Dispatch article, 23/01/04 (see Appendix)

SUMMARY
The Committee was briefed by the North West Department of Housing and Local Government on the situation in the Mamusa Municipality and the proposed intervention in terms of Section 139(4) of the Constitution.

The Committee was also asked to consider the request by the Eastern Cape provincial executive to extend the intervention in the Qaukeni Municipality for a period of three months.

MINUTES
The Committee acknowledged the presence of Ms J Kgoali (NCOP Chairperson) and Mr V Windvoel (NCOP Chief Whip).

Mamusa Local Municipality: briefing
The briefing was given by Mr Motola (Head of Department: North West Department of Housing and Local Government). He said that with respect to administrative structures the main problem facing the Municipality is the suspension of the substantive manager. Owing to this reality and the fact that a number of the municipal councillors have not submitted their budget estimate as of 3 June, there is no draft budget for the Municipality at the moment.

Discussion
Mr D Worth (DA) asked what could be done to resolve the problem between the two managers, that is, the acting manager and the substantive manager.

Mr Z Ntuli (ANC) enquired whether the period of the suspension of the substantive manager was specified.

Mr Motola regretted that he could not give the precise time frame for the suspension of the substantive manager. On the issue of the resolution of the problem, he stated that the root of the matter was the inability of the Council to be decisive on this matter and also its failure to reach a consensus on important issues. He hoped that with the appointment of an administrator who has the necessary powers, the council should be able to resolve the matter peacefully and decisively.

Ms E Mabe (ANC) said that since there are apparently two managers in the municipality, who had appointed the second manager?

Mr Motola answered that both the acting manager and the suspended substantive manager were appointed by the Council. The substantive manager was appointed properly some two years ago but his suspension took place following the Council Resolution, which is currently being investigated. He revealed that Council has appointed a sub-committee to investigate whether the decision to suspend the substantive manager was properly taken. The Council awaits this sub-committee's report.

Mr Momothi (Senior Procedural Advisor, NCOP) queried whether the North West province had formally notified the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) in terms of Section 139 of the Constitution?

The Chair intervened, insisting that the Committee focus their attention purely on the matter in question.

Mr B Mkhaliphi (ANC) was concerned about the profile of the municipality in terms of annual reports before the administrative problems started.

Mr Motola responded that so far the municipality has not compiled nor adopted any report due largely to the difficulties involved in getting the various councils to individually adopt their own end of year report before tabling it to the Province for consolidation into one report. He said the Province has, however, employed the services of the auditor general whose report and those of the councils would eventually be ratified and adopted by the Province. He emphasised that the situation in the Province in terms of its profile is not far different from that in most of the other provinces. Mamusa is not dead. It is only undergoing some challenges which are similar to the situation in municipalities in other provinces. The bottom-line is that the decision-making body is not operating at an optimal level.

Mr A Moseki (ANC, North West) said that Mr Motola's presentation reflected a true picture of the situation in Mamusa. He stressed that the only way to resolve the festering problem was to dissolve the administrative council of the municipality since everything else had been tried without success. He expressed concern over the time frame of the acting manager. He also wondered whether the incoming administrator would have the enabling power to make decisions and to take decisive action on matters in the municipality.

Mr V Windvoel (Chief Whip of NCOP) recognised the presence in the Committee of the Chairperson of National Council of Provinces (NCOP) which signified the seriousness of the matter in question to the NCOP. He asked Mr Motola if his Department was experiencing any resistance with respect to dealing with the issue on the table.

Mr Motola noted that the real problem facing the Department was the issue of the council's inability to meet, and its gross indecisiveness on key issues. With respect to time frame for the acting manager he expressed hope that the incoming administrator would be in a position to deal with the matter.

The Chairperson raised the issue of proceeding in terms of Section 139. He stated that instead of Section 139(1c) the Committee would be proceeding in terms of Section 139(4). The reason for this change of approach was to be able to assume the legislative authority to approve the budget. He maintained that the executive does not approve the budget, it is only the legislature that has the power to approve budgets.

Mr Momothi commented that if the province wants to intervene in terms of Section 139(4), Section 139 provides that the province must submit a notice of intervention to the NCOP. Had the province formally notified the NCOP? If not, they must formally notify the NCOP and then the latter must formally act.

Mr Motola replied that on May 19, the Executive Council took the decision in terms of Section 139 (1c) to intervene. Section 139 requires that the Minister as well as the NCOP and also the provincial legislature must be notified immediately of the 1(c) position. Both the Minister and the NCOP have a duty to respond within fourteen days. Soon after taking the 1(c) decision, the Department of Housing and Local government alerted the Executive Council of the practical problem of implementation owing to the fact that they were facing the budget. Hence neither the Minister nor the NCOP nor provincial legislature was notified. On the matter of the budget, he said that if a budget were to be adopted by the administrator, the new council would inherit that budget. Their understanding of Section 139(4) as opposed to Section 139 (1c) is that dissolution is immediate unlike (1c), which states that dissolution takes place after fourteen days. In other words, the municipal council presently does not exist any more. By the end of the month they should be able to adopt a budget.

Mr J Le Roux expressed the fear that in the face of what seems to be a total breakdown of public governance in the municipality, there could be a possibility of fraud or misappropriation of funds.

Mr Motola acknowledged that this reality existed but said that the municipality had taken appropriate measures to forestall it. One of these measures is contained in the proposals already before the Committee.

The Chairperson asked Mr Motola to submit his report to the Committee before 8 June, when the Committee would reconvene.

Qaukeni intervention
The Chairperson stated that the report on Qaukeni, which has been tabled to the Committee for consideration is not new to the Committee. In this report it has been agreed that the intervention in Qaukeni should continue. The Executive Council has requested this Committee to extend the intervention for a period of three months. This was as a result of some notable progress made in relation to the cases, structure of administration and with regard to service delivery. They had been briefed by the MEC about what it requires the NCOP to do on this matter. But there are some procedural matters that have not been complied with, to wit: the MEC was supposed to have informed them about the intervention during the required period but they did not do so. The NCOP took a decision that they would be issuing a regular report on a monthly basis but this decision had not been followed up.

Mr Momothi highlighted a few of the issues raised by the Chairperson. He asked if the NCOP has the power to condone the constitutional provisions. If not, what is available to the NCOP?

Mr F Jenkins (Parliamentary Legal Adviser) stated that on the matter of condoning, Section 139(2) requires that a submission be made within a period of fourteen days. It states that if the NCOP does not approve the intervention within 180 days, then intervention terminates. He affirmed that if there had been an overstepping of the fourteen days, it does not make the intervention null and void. The fundamental bottom line is that the NCOP must approve the intervention within a period of 180 days.

On the question of whether the NCOP should join litigation on the pending court case, he noted that this matter is a substantial issue that affects the NCOP. The NCOP approved the intervention but the pending litigation is threatening to overturn the intervention. He expressed his disapproval of the litigation.

On the matter of whether the budget should be adopted by the suspended Councillors or not, he wondered how possible it would be for the Councillors to approve budgets when they were not even allowed to enter their offices.

The Chairperson sought the opinion of the Committee on whether the NCOP should take part in the litigation before the court. He also asked whether the Committee agreed that the intervention should continue in its current form. There was a consensus that the intervention should continue but there was a subtle disagreement on the form it should take.

Mr Mkhaliphi recalled that there is an already approved intervention going on in the municipality. That intervention was approved by the NCOP for a specified period of time. In spite of this, matters still got worse. He then called for the application of a sterner, stronger and more drastic action in the municipality.
On the issue of condoning, he reiterated that the matter was no longer an internal matter but rather a controversial issue which is currently been squarely contested. He reminded the Committee of its responsibility to remain an arbiter to ensure that the issue of governance is properly regulated between the two spheres of government.

Mr Momothi then read out a letter, which stipulated the reason for the intervention.

Mr Le Roux asked that some one from the Eastern Cape municipality be invited to participate in the next meeting on this issue as this might bring a new perspective to the discussion and might also assist the Committee in arriving at a decision.

The Chairperson agreed with this request but delegated action on the matter to the judgement and discretion of the legal team.

The meeting was adjourned.

Appendix: