Planning for one municipality

...while the High Court ruling is awaited

LUKHANJI Municipality is continuing with the planning for an amalgamated municipality which will incorporate the areas of Tsolwana and Inkwanca although the case is still in the Gauteng High Court.

The DA took the Municipal Demarcation Board of South Africa (MDBSA) to court for the decision to merge the three local authorities in a matter being heard by the North Gauteng High Court.

The Rep reported (“Merger goes ahead” August 28) that the merger of the three municipalities was expected to lead to one of the biggest municipalities in the area.

Speaking during a special council meeting on Friday, Lukhanji executive mayor Nozi Makanda referred to the Municipal Demarcation Board circular 19/2015 on October 2 regarding the conclusion of the re-determination and determination of municipal boundaries. “I recommend that council note and accept the report on the demarcation and amalgamation of Tsolwana, Inkwanca and Lukhanji municipalities, that council considers the content of MDB 19/2015 and authorise the executive mayor to respond to the same line with the ultimate decision of council.”

Makanda said she and municipal manager Nolwandle Gqiba should be authorised to meet with co-operative governance and traditional affairs MEC Fikile Xasa with the aim of securing a waiver from the implementation of the circular regarding the moratorium on the appointment of staff.

She proposed that council should start with internal discussions around proposals for the name, seat, head office and interim acting municipal manager of the new municipality.

DA councillor Malibongwe Xhelisilo asked for advice from Gqiba as the matter was in court but Makanda replied, “We have not taken the MDB to court so there is no need for us to wait for the court findings on the matter.”

In a statement by DA MP James Selfe the party indicated that it had made oral representations to the court, seeking urgent interim relief by way of an interdict to stop the MDB from taking action on decisions considered to be unlawful, “specifically the board’s decision to go ahead with its unilateral municipal demarcation of outer boundaries on account that its decisions are fraught with procedural irregularities and are therefore irrational and should be set aside.”

Selfe said concerns raised included that the demarcation process was pushed through with such haste that due process and procedural fairness were compromised and that it failed to meet the requirements of the Demarcation Act. “Firstly, due to the lack of public participa- tion and speed at which the decisions were taken by the board, the poorest of the poor who often have to travel far ...to express their democratic right on who is to represent their communities were left out of the process. The process was also inconsistent, some dysfunctional municipalities were left alone, other functional municipalities were joined with dysfunctional ones. In some cases the board disregarded its own expert investigations.” The process was politically motivated and flawed. “We will demonstrate this in detail when we engage the substantive review of these decisions. It is precisely for this reason that the board is required to be independent and not a slave to the dictates of politicians.”

If the board’s decisions were put into effect and then set aside, the results could be serious. “The board’s decisions in this regard could have far reaching ramifications for the discharge of free and fair elections... should the court make a late determination on the board's decisions, it could have adverse effects on preparations of municipalities for elections.” The DA was hopeful that the court would grant the interdict and hear the party’s review application so as not to delay preparations for the elections.

MDB spokesman Bulelwa Mbali-Khoele said the board could not comment at present..