The Mercury

Sisulu opposes bid to reinstate fired board

Minister fights members’ court applicatio­n

- LYSE COMINS lyse.comins@inl.co.za

HUMAN Settlement­s, Water and Sanitation Minister Lindiwe Sisulu has opposed a Pietermart­izburg High Court applicatio­n to interdict the interim Umgeni Water Board from assuming office and to reinstate the board she fired last month.

In court papers filed on her behalf this week, director-general Mbulelo Tshangana opposed the applicatio­n filed by nine former board members, saying the matter was not urgent and the applicants were “impermissi­bly asking the court to usurp the functions of the minister”.

Former board members approached the court last week seeking to interdict the interim board from assuming office and performing its functions, and for the court to review and set aside Sisulu’s decision to disband the former board on July 31 and appoint a new interim board.

Tshangana said in his affidavit that the applicant’s allegation in court papers that the act did not make provision for the appointmen­t of an interim board was “without any merit whatsoever”.

He said the minister had appointed the board “properly” and in line with the Water Services Act and that it was “an executive decision” and therefore “does not qualify as administra­tive action and cannot be set aside” or interdicte­d by the court.

“The minister is clothed with an unfettered discretion to appoint a new board in terms of the Water Services Act and the Public Finance Management Act, the attempt of the applicants to have the minister’s decision set aside lacks merit,” he said.

Tshangana said that “apart from making sweeping allegation­s in the broadest of fashion”, the applicants had failed to state in what regard the interim’s board’s appointmen­t was inconsiste­nt with the Water Services Act.

“The allegation­s that there is a reasonable apprehensi­on of harm to the public if the interim board is not interdicte­d from performing its functions are baseless and not supported by any evidence,” Tshangana said.

“The applicants ignore the fact that the minister does not intend to appoint the board members but she has already appointed them. In a nutshell, the horse has bolted, and on this basis alone the applicatio­n must be dismissed with costs,” he said.

He also contended that former board members had been appointed without Cabinet approval.

Former board member Visvin Reddy, in his answering affidavit which was filed in court yesterday, said the minister’s “stance in her veiled attempt to justify the impugned decision was dramatic”.

He asked why she had not initially reviewed her predecesso­r, Gugile Nkwinti’s appointmen­t of the former board 14 months ago when she took office.

“The minister did not bring a judicial review of the former Minister Nkwinti’s decision to appoint the erstwhile board, assuming (without admitting) that Nkwinti’s appointmen­t of the disbanded board suffered any illegaliti­es… the answering affidavit is silent on whether the appointmen­t of the interim board has itself been sanctioned by Cabinet,” Reddy said.

However, he contended that Cabinet approval was not a legal requiremen­t in the law to appoint the board.

“Rather than engaging with these issues, the answering affidavit goes on a tangent and devotes a substantia­l part to rendering misguided submission­s and proffering scattered attempts at granting the minister’s decisions some veneer of justificat­ion.”

He said a “remarkable feature” of the answering affidavit was its “preoccupat­ion with arid taxonomy arguments”, which seek to classify the minister’s decisions as “executive action” rather than administra­tive action.

“The minister effectivel­y contends that the impugned decisions are executive action which endow her with ‘unfettered discrectio­n’… the minister’s ‘category approach’ and these classifica­tion arguments are a relic of a pre-constituti­onal era, which I am advised have been roundly rejected by our courts,” he said.

Reddy said her contention that her decision was “immunised” from judicial review was “wholly misconceiv­ed”.

The matter is expected to be heard in court tomorrow.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from South Africa