Return of Nqwazi to work sets a dangerous precedent
In a turn of events reflective of bureaucratic stagnation and potential legal missteps, Nelson Mandela Bay city manager Noxolo Nqwazi walked back into her office on January 24, resuming her duties after a precautionary suspension that seemed to evaporate into thin air.
The lapse of the suspension was aligned with a specific local government regulation, but it raised more questions than it answered about accountability within municipal management.
As per regulation 6(6)(a) of the local government disciplinary regulations for senior managers: “If a senior manager is suspended, a disciplinary hearing must commence within three months from the suspension date. Failure to do so will result in the automatic lapse of the suspension.”
It seems clear-cut — yet the lapse in this process has become a source of great contention.
Regulation 6(6)(b) goes on to stipulate that once this three-month period has passed, the council is forbidden from extending the suspension, effectively handcuffing any further administrative action without due haste.
Nqwazi’s return sets a concerning precedent in the Nelson Mandela Bay municipality.
It’s a precedent that hasn’t been lost on other senior managers, who, also placed on precautionary suspension by Nqwazi herself, realised the potential loophole and followed suit.
The irony is stark: the enforcer became subject to her own overlooked enforcement, resulting in some officials enjoying extended paid leave, with durations as alarming as 30 months — a costly oversight for taxpayers.
Among the bureaucrats trooping back to their desks is Mvuleni Mapu, the housing delivery boss entangled in allegations of financial misconduct and a high-profile tender corruption case alongside Nqwazi, which is currently under the scrutiny of the Gqeberha commercial crimes court.
This revolving-door scenario not only brings into question the integrity of their positions but also the broader impact on the fidelity of public service procedures.
The ripple effects of this administrative fumble are farreaching, impairing the city’s already waning capacity for efficient service delivery.
When suspended directors return to their posts without transparent communication from the city manager or the executive mayor, the confusion is palpable.
The authority lines blur — subordinate staff are left in a quandary over who they should report to, the status of acting senior directors becomes uncertain, and questions loom about who the executive director acknowledges as the head of the department.
Thus emerges an undeniable bureaucratic disarray that could congeal into service delivery stagnation, a situation predicated by a lack of foresight and leadership from the mayoral office and Nqwazi’s perceived recklessness.
Such mismanagement not only disrupts the internal workings of the city’s administration but inevitably extends its pernicious grasp to the residents of Nelson Mandela Bay, who await the fundamental services they are due.
Inevitably, this begs for a reckoning of administrative procedures — for stricter adherence to regulation timelines and for a firmer grasp on the reins of leadership that guide our public institutions.
Without adaptive and proactive governance, it stands to reason that the trust gap between the public and the municipality will only widen — an outcome that is as avoidable as it is undesirable.
The conclusion is, therefore, less a question and more a mandate.
It is imperative that Nelson Mandela Bay, and indeed all municipalities, tighten their administrative protocols and safeguard against such lapses for the sake of both public trust and service delivery excellence.
We must demand more from our leaders and hold them accountable for their actions — or inactions — as the case may be.
It is only through such vigilance that we can expect to uphold the standards of governance that are worthy of a city named after Nelson Mandela himself.
Tukela Zumani, PR councillor, Nelson Mandela Bay municipality