Note to Editors: Please find attached English and Afrikaans soundbites by Cllr René Steyn and Sesotho soundbite by David Masoeu MPL.
– DA seeks answers on IDP approval process.
– IDP failed to secure initial Council approval.
– DA questions Special Council reconsideration process.
The Democratic Alliance (DA) has written to the Speaker and Municipal Manager of Matjhabeng Local Municipality requesting written reasons for the decisions taken during the municipality’s Integrated Development Plan (IDP) approval process, that all objections be properly recorded in the official minutes, and that corrective action be taken where procedural irregularities are identified.
At the recent Ordinary Council Meeting, councillors raised concerns regarding public participation, stakeholder engagement, the sequencing of the IDP and Budget processes, and compliance with applicable legislation and municipal procedures.
The municipality’s Rules of Order exist to protect fairness, transparency and democratic accountability. Public participation exists to ensure that residents have a genuine opportunity to influence the municipality’s plans and priorities.
Following the debate, the IDP failed to obtain the required Council approval.
The meeting was subsequently adjourned before all business on the agenda had been concluded, necessitating a continuation meeting in terms of the municipality’s own Rules of Order.
Councillors were thereafter notified of both a Continuation Meeting and a Special Council Meeting scheduled for 3 June 2026. The same IDP, which formed part of the unfinished business of the Ordinary Council agenda, was then placed before the Special Council for reconsideration.
Before the Special Council proceeding, I formally addressed correspondence to the Speaker raising concerns regarding the legality and procedural propriety of this process and requesting clarity on the authority relied upon to proceed in this manner. No response was forthcoming.
The Continuation Meeting was subsequently withdrawn, and the Special Council proceeded to consider the IDP.
The questions arising from these events are straightforward:
- Why was the continuation process abandoned?
- Under what authority was the IDP removed from the unfinished business of the Ordinary Council
agenda and placed before a Special Council?
- Why were councillors asked to vote again on substantially the same document?
- What material changes were made to address the concerns previously raised by councillors?
- What meaningful stakeholder engagement took place after concerns were raised regarding public participation?
Perhaps most concerning is the democratic principle at stake.
Council had already considered the IDP. Extensive debate took place, serious concerns were raised, but the matter failed to secure the required Council approval.
Instead of allowing the unfinished business to proceed through the continuation process contemplated by the Rules of Order, the continuation meeting was withdrawn, and the same matter was brought before a Special Council Meeting.
This sequence of events creates the perception that the Council was repeatedly asked to consider substantially the same matter until a different outcome could be achieved. Such a perception damages public confidence in the integrity of Council proceedings and undermines faith in democratic decision-making.
When the IDP returned before the Council, councillors were presented with a document that remained materially the same as the document previously considered. No report was provided explaining the substantive amendments made, no evidence was presented demonstrating that concerns had been addressed, and no meaningful engagement took place with stakeholders.
The residents of Matjhabeng deserve transparency, accountability and adherence to the Rule of Law. Until satisfactory answers are provided, serious questions will remain regarding both the process followed and the validity of the decisions flowing from it.