MEC’s power grab at Mogalakwena warded off

“With the stroke of his pen, the MEC attempted ... to circumvent the carefully constructed network of constitutional and other statutory powers which led to the vesting in the municipal manager,” Justice NB Tuchten said in the Gauteng High Court when he ruled in favour of the Mogalakwena Municipality’s application to interdict the provincial government from taking over the running of the municipality.
Tuchten said the power to intervene in the affairs of the municipality is “most intrusive.”
He added that the voters of the municipality have chosen their representatives and that section 139(1)(c) of the Constitution provides that this power may only be employed in extreme cases.
The battle for control of Mogalakwena and in particular its financial affairs goes back to July last year when former mayor, Thlalefi Mashemaite and some of his supporters forced municipal manager, William Kekana, out of his office and the municipality for a period of three months.
Upon his return Kekana commissioned a forensic audit into the municipality’s financial management during his absence.
Investigators found that during the period 1 July to 30 October 2013 the mayoral discretionary fund was
depleted from R1 784 311 to R192 352,20. The
conclusion of the investigators was that funds were not spent on genuine mayoral outreach events.
When the Mogalakwena council approached the then MEC for cooperative governance and traditional affairs (Coghsta), Ismael Kgatjepe, he apparently sided with the Mashemaite faction on the local council and without any prior warning or notice announced that he was placing the municipality under the administration of a former municipal manager.
In his ruling judge Tuchten referred to Kgatjepe and Mashemaite as “friends” and lashed out at the MEC and Coghsta for never attempting to deal with the allegations against Mashemaite and the other councillors and officials implicated in the forensic audit report. He also criticised the administrator  for his attempts to interfere in the local council and ‘illegally’ replace councillors with others loyal to Kgatjepe and Mashemaite.
“I wish to say two things about the plan of action identified in this press release,” Tuchten said about Coghsta’s 4 May press release on the powers it claimed vested in the so called administrator.
“Firstly, the intervention appears to be an attempt to gain control of and administer every facet of the municipality, including the all-important allocation of its available funds; secondly, the municipality had denied that the municipality has any significant problems.”
Earlier in his ruling Tuchten noted that prior to
Mashemaite’s accession to office, the municipality had an excellent record in exercising its powers, especially in the field of service delivery.
The final decision on whether the municipality may be placed under administration now vests with the review court. Commenting on this process Tuchten said the municipality has established a strong prima facie case... “on the grounds that it (Coghsta’s reasons for intervention) is unduly vague and therefore lacks rationality.” He reserved a cost order for the court hearing the review.