PIETERMARITZBURG: 30 AUGUST 2007

Honourable Speaker 

Let me begin by raising a matter of utmost importance. The IFP has been justifiably outraged by yet another calculated intervention by the MEC for Local Government in an IFP-controlled KwaZulu Natal municipality. The MEC notified the Emadlangeni (Utrecht) Municipality of an intervention in terms of section 139 of the Constitution, alleging mismanagement, maladministration, fraud and corruption. 

What has surprised everybody is that the appointed Acting Municipal Manager of Utrecht is well-known for his proven track record in maladministration and corruption. We in the IFP are wondering if the MEC felt that this Municipal Manager will do as well in Utrecht as has done in Kokstad where he was suspended. 

The IFP stand on corruption and maladministration is clear. We do not tolerate it. We do not condone it. We abhor it in principle. We do not need the MEC for Local Government to tell us how to approach allegations of corruption and maladministration in IFP-run municipalities, particularly when the MEC routinely tolerates and condones these vices in ANC-controlled municipalities. 

The allegations in Utrecht are serious but are they really the reason for a ministerial intervention when mismanagement, maladministration, fraud and corruption are routinely condoned by the same MEC in ANC-controlled councils?

The IFP contends that the ruling party’s double standards in dealing with KwaZulu Natal municipalities of varying political colours are well-documented. 

Is it not conspicuous that at the slightest sign of political tussle in an IFP-run municipality a ministerial intervention ensues? ANC-controlled councils, on the contrary, can go as far as disintegrate under the weight of mismanagement and corruption and the MEC will not take any notice. There are Abaqulusi and Utrecht on the one hand and there are Pietermaritzburg and Kokstad on the other. 

The allegations of corruption and maladministration in both Msunduzi and Kokstad had been out in the open for a long time. Why did the MEC not resort to his favourite weapon – section 139 of the Constitution – to clean up the mess in those municipalities? The answer is obvious enough: They are in the ANC hands and therefore too close to home. 

The IFP is convinced that the ANC’s hunger for power precedes the party’s concern about maladministration in local government. The ruling party is determined to use any underhand tactics to seize the control of those municipalities which it failed to carry in the 2006 local government elections. 

Honourable Speaker, it is most fitting that in a debate on the annual consolidated report on the performance of all municipalities one should quote no less authority than the President who famously told ANC leaders in Mpumalanga back in 2004: 

“I think that we must agree that we should stop offering excuses for the problems that we have with regard to our negligence and tardiness in the provision of services to the people.” In light of the failure of many ANC municipalities to deliver services, the President could not be anything but frank about his party’s failures. 

Let us consider the overall picture: nationwide, as many as 203 municipalities cannot provide sanitation for 60% of their residents, 182 are unable to remove refuse from 60% of houses and 155 cannot provide water for 60% of households.

The result on the ground is devastating: 5 million South Africans still have no access to any basic sanitation and nearly 1 million people face the indignity of the bucket system. Free basic electricity is still a pipe dream for many in ANC-controlled municipalities and 3.7 million people still have no access to running water. 

It is not difficult to see why the ANC is failing to deliver. A key factor is the rampant corruption in ANC-run municipalities.

Corruption, patronage politics and a focus on race instead of delivery are the main culprits for the failure of many municipalities. 

Honourable Speaker, it is apparently more important to have the right political connections than the requisite skills to run a municipality.

According to the government’s own statistics, as many as 36% of managers have a matric with a diploma or less and one municipal manager does not even have a matric qualification. 37% of municipal managers have less than five years experience in local government, while 74% have eleven or less years experience in local government. 

Compounding the capacity crisis in local government is the implementation of exclusively race-based affirmative action policies that exclude skilled South Africans. This much has been acknowledged by the Department of Provincial and Local Government. The Department last year attributed the shortage of skills in municipalities to the ‘transformation and restructuring agenda of the sector’ and ‘employment equity considerations.’ 

This government’s preoccupation with race has nothing to do with empowering those disadvantaged by apartheid. It has everything to do with empowering a small elite through cronyism and patronage. The poorest of the poor certainly do not care about whether the race quotas in their municipality have been fulfilled. They care about gaining access to basic water, electricity and sanitation. So does the IFP. 

I thank you. 

Contact: Inkosi Bonga Mdletshe, 082 809 4550