Note to Editors: Please find attached English soundbite by Cllr Abigail Schoeman, Afrikaans soundbite by Cllr Estelle Dansey and Sesotho soundbite by David Masoeu MPL.
– DA requests a full report on the 2 June Council vote.
– 52 Councillors were present, but 59 votes were recorded.
– DA calls for transparency and accountability in Council voting procedures.
The Democratic Alliance (DA) in Matjhabeng has formally requested a full report on attendance records, voting eligibility, and the procedures followed during the virtual Council meeting held on 2 June 2026, due to serious concerns about the conduct of voting.
The meeting was scheduled to commence at 15:00, yet Council was still waiting for sufficient attendance to achieve a quorum at 15:15. Approximately 90 minutes later, when a division was called on the IDP before Council, only 52 Councillors were present on the virtual platform. Acting Speaker Cllr Molefi initially ruled that Councillors would be required to activate their cameras when voting so that their identities could be verified. However, this requirement was not applied after Councillors exerted pressure during the voting process.
Most concerning is that Councillors who were not present when the vote was called were subsequently allowed to join the meeting and participate in the vote. Furthermore, a Councillor who had reportedly submitted an apology was also permitted to vote. When the final results were announced, a total of 59 votes had been recorded – 40 in favour of the IDP, 17 against the IDP, and 2 abstentions.
The DA believes that this sequence of events warrants urgent clarification. If only 52 Councillors were present when the division was initiated, Council and the public deserve a clear explanation as to how 59 votes were ultimately counted.
The explanation that some Councillors were sharing devices or connections is difficult to reconcile with the fact that all Councillors are provided with the necessary equipment and connectivity to participate independently in virtual meetings. Equally concerning is the apparent absence of any reported technical difficulties for an extended period, only for additional Councillors to become available during a crucial vote.
The municipality employs an Information Technology support team specifically to assist Councillors with technical challenges. If connectivity issues genuinely prevented participation, questions must be asked about why these problems were not identified and resolved much earlier in the meeting.
Democracy depends not only on the right to vote, but on a process that is transparent, credible, and beyond reproach. Any perception that procedures can be altered during a vote or that participation requirements can be applied inconsistently undermines public confidence in the Council and its decisions.
The DA therefore calls for:
- A full report on attendance records for the meeting;
- Clarification regarding the participation and voting eligibility of all Councillors who voted;
- Confirmation of the procedures followed during the division; and
- A review of Council’s virtual meeting protocols to ensure transparency, consistency, and
accountability in future proceedings.
Residents deserve confidence that Council decisions are taken lawfully, fairly, and in accordance with democratic principles. The DA will continue to defend those principles and hold Council accountable whenever they are threatened.