Municipal properties - who will foot the bill?

the standard specified in the agreement entitles the municipality to cancel the agreement with immediate effect. It is also expressly stated that such cancellation will be without prejudice to any alternative or additional rights, action or remedy at the disposal of the municipality, and the right to claim damages is specifically included.

Despite the fact that there have been valid grounds for the cancellation of the Service Level Agreement, the DBNLM has never attempted to invoke this clause. There has also been no attempt to recover any damages from Gap Management (Pty) Ltd.

On the contrary, it appears as if the DBNLM is not particularly interested in entering into an agreement with a different security services provider.

In this regard, the Service Delivery Movement has raised concern about the fact that, while the term of the Service Level Agreement between DBNLM and Gap Security Management (Pty) Ltd came to an end on 30 June 2021, the contract for the provision of security services for the next 36 months was only placed on tender on 21 June. The deadline for tenders is 21 July.

Municipality ‘complicit’

Graham-Maré stated that the DBNLM has become complicit in the criminality. “No action has been taken by the DBNLM, even though overwhelming evidence regarding the criminal activities has been presented to them,” she said. “A member of the community has laid charges in connection with two of the properties that have been vandalised, but the municipality has not. In the other two cases, the municipality has been provided with evidence pointing to a vehicle used to transport materials taken from municipal sites along with other salient details. According to my information, the municipality has still not opened a case with the police.”

Cost

Then there is the question of cost involved in repairing the ransacked municipal properties. In terms of Clause 6.8 of the Service Level Agreement the service provider is required to take out a public liability policy in the name and at the cost of the service provider, with acceptable coverage for the duration of the agreement.

Whether this provision has been complied with and whether Gap Management (Pty) Ltd has actually used this coverage to pay for some of the damage to, and theft of, municipal assets that occurred on their watch, still needs to be confirmed.

It is public knowledge that the DBNLM is in financial ruin and does not have the financial means to repair and replace damaged or stolen property. The extent of the municipality’s financial predicament was confirmed by the report of the AuditorGeneral to the Eastern Cape Legislature and the council of the DBNLM, and the fact that the DBNLM was one of the municipalities required to disclose their financial statements based on significant doubt that they will be able to continue with operations in the near future.

So, who will foot the bill? That remains an open question.