DA lodges human rights complaint over Merafong water crisis
This follows continued service failures that have left many residents — particularly in high-lying areas of Carletonville, Fochville, and surrounding suburbs — without a stable water supply for weeks and, in some cases, even months.
By this week, areas such as Carletonville Extension 8 were again without water. 'Paul Kruger Street also does not have water. This situation is making me really angry as it has been going on for five weeks,' a resident known only as Lea expressed on social media on July 11.
According to the DA's Merafong constituency head, Ina Cilliers, the formal SAHRC submission includes 560 affidavits from affected residents, detailed survey data, and other documentation showing the sustained violation of residents' constitutional rights.
'For months, the high-lying areas have been without a stable water supply, with some taps being dry for over three months. This is a clear violation of our residents' human rights,' said Cilliers.
The DA cites Section 27 of the Constitution, which guarantees access to sufficient water as a basic human right. Alarmingly, some of the most severely affected areas are also those with the highest payment compliance — often exceeding 90%.
The party attributes the ongoing crisis to a combination of infrastructure failure by the Merafong City Local Municipality and deliberate water throttling by Rand Water. As a result, while some wards have relatively stable supply, others are subjected to long-term dry taps.
Adding to residents' frustration is the complete lack of transparency. Neither Rand Water nor the municipality has provided clarity on water flow data or the decision-making process behind water distribution. 'Residents are left in the dark, both literally and figuratively,' Cilliers noted.
In response, the DA is escalating the issue at multiple levels:
In Parliament, DA MPs are putting direct pressure on Rand Water for answers.
In the Gauteng Provincial Legislature, the party continues to hold the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA) accountable.
A resident-led survey is ongoing to map outage patterns across affected areas.
A petition has also been submitted to National Treasury, urging urgent intervention into Merafong's debt, which may be contributing to the throttled supply.
'The DA Gauteng has made it clear that this is not a partisan issue but one about dignity, life, and basic human rights,' Cilliers concluded.
At Caxton, we employ humans to generate daily fresh news, not AI intervention. Happy reading!
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
7 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
MK party's ConCourt challenge to Mchunu's removal raises important constitutional law issues
The muted public response to the news that the uMkhonto Wesizwe (MK) party has asked the Constitutional Court to invalidate the decision by President Cyril Ramaphosa to place Police Minister Senzo Mchunu on a leave of absence and to appoint Professor Firoz Cachalia as acting minister of police, as well as the decision to establish a judicial commission of inquiry to investigate the allegations made by Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi, is somewhat surprising. Even more surprising is the speed with which the court responded to the application, and the extremely tight deadlines the court set. On Sunday, a mere two days after the application was launched, the Chief Justice issued directions to all parties with an interest in the matter to file affidavits by no later than Monday (for amici) or Tuesday (for respondents), with the applicants having to file replying affidavits by Thursday. I can't recall any other matter in which the court has given respondents or amici two days or less to file their answering or intervening affidavits. This is even more surprising because it is not clear whether the matters raised by the MK party are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the court, or whether the application was not premature because the appointment of Cachalia had not yet happened. A third surprise is that the MK application does raise some genuine and important constitutional law issues, and largely avoids the usual mix of conspiracy theories, ad hominem attacks and complaints about victimhood normally found in the party's legal papers (its arguments in support of its challenge to the appointment of the commission of inquiry do include hints of the usual attempts to discredit the judiciary). Let me explain. Legal nonsense The MK party contends, first, that Ramaphosa's decision to place Mchunu on a leave of absence is irrational because 'it is tainted by bias, blatant inconsistency and other unfairness in the form of favouritism'. This argument is a legal nonsense. As any competent second-year student would know, a rationality review is not concerned with whether the decision was fair, wise or biased, but rather whether the decision was rationally related to the legitimate purpose being pursued. As head of the executive, the President enjoys an extraordinarily wide political discretion on the appointment and firing of ministers, on assigning functions to them, and on managing the Cabinet. As a matter of law, he may (and is expected to) pursue even blatantly self-serving political goals when doing so. It is for the electorate, not the courts, to hold him politically accountable for these decisions. A persuasive argument However, the MK party also contends that the decision was invalid because it was ultra vires. This was so because there is nothing in the Constitution that authorises the President to place a minister on a leave of absence. 'Leave of absence', it contends, is just 'a fancy phrase for suspension with pay.' I find this argument rather persuasive. It is a well-established constitutional principle that the President can only exercise powers entrusted to him by the Constitution and by legislation, although section 84(1) of the Constitution states that these powers include those 'necessary to perform the functions of the national executive'. The President might therefore argue that the power to place a minister on a leave of absence was necessary for him to perform his functions as head of the executive, but I don't find this convincing. It would be politically convenient for the President to have such a power, as it would allow him to signal to the gullible public that he is taking action while not upsetting the members of his party — the audience that matters to him more than any other. But it is not clear why it would be necessary for him to have such a power to do his job. There is, after all, nothing stopping the President from dismissing Mchunu now, and reappointing the minister later if the allegations against him turned out to be incorrect. The appointment of acting ministers MK also contends that the appointment of Cachalia as an acting minister was invalid, although the argument it advances in support of this contention is, at best, difficult to follow. But I would argue that there is a strong argument to be made that the appointment of Cachalia would be unconstitutional and invalid because the Constitution does not authorise the President to appoint acting ministers. (While I believe Cachalia would make an excellent minister of police, he can only serve as minister of police if he is lawfully appointed as such.) Section 91(2) of the Constitution authorises the President to appoint 'the Deputy President and Ministers', while section 91(3)(c) of the Constitution (which the President relied on) allows him to appoint 'no more than two Ministers' who are not members of the National Assembly. It is silent on the appointment of acting ministers, nor does section 91(1) mention acting ministers. It states that the 'Cabinet consists of the President, as head of the Cabinet, a Deputy President and Ministers'. Does this mean Cachalia would be an acting minister and thus not a member of the Cabinet? Moreover, section 98 of the Constitution, which provides for situations where it becomes necessary for someone to 'act' as minister on behalf of a colleague, makes clear that only a 'Cabinet member' can be assigned the power or function of another member 'who is absent from office or is unable to exercise that power or perform that function'. In other words, the President may assign the powers and functions of the minister of police to another 'Cabinet member', thus somebody lawfully appointed as a minister, but may not assign these powers to the non-existent position of 'acting minister', not least because 'acting ministers' are not members of the Cabinet. To ensure the lawful appointment of Cachalia to serve as minister of police, the President would have to appoint him as an ordinary member of the Cabinet who would, like all other ministers, serve as a minister until he is dismissed or he resigns. If Mchunu's 'leave of absence' is found to be valid, the President could then assign the powers of police minister to Cachalia as an existing member of the Cabinet. This means that even if the court invalidates the appointment of Cachalia, it might not have any practical effect as far as the appointment is concerned, as nothing would stop the President from fixing the problem by appointing Cachalia as a permanent Cabinet member. I am not a fan of political parties rushing to court to challenge the validity of decisions by the President or other elected functionaries or institutions that require the exercise of political discretion, especially when this will have little practical effect. However, this might be an exceptional case in which court intervention is not a bad thing. This is so because any invalidation of the appointment down the line would also render all the decisions taken by the 'acting minister' from the time of his appointment invalid, unless the court directs otherwise. Things could get messy if the court does not intervene. 'Judicial capture' The MK party's third contention, namely that the decision by the President to establish the judicial commission of inquiry was irrational because it was headed by a judge who would have to investigate the claims of 'judicial capture', is at best misguided. I assume the applicants are aware that this part of their case is hopeless, and suspect that it was included to provide a platform for MK leaders to continue their campaign to discredit the judiciary and pre-emptively lay the groundwork for discrediting any findings the commission of inquiry might make. The MK party contends that, given Mkhwanazi's vague allegations, we cannot assume that any judge is either guilty or innocent of the charges of judicial capture 'until it has been properly and independently investigated, confirmed or refuted'. This means the President has appointed a judge who could potentially have to investigate himself. It would also amount, according to MK, to the judiciary investigating itself. The party further argues that it would be in breach of the Constitution for the commission to investigate the allegations of judicial capture as the Constitution only empowers the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and/or the Magistrates Commission to investigate judicial conduct. As the leader of the MK party should know from personal experience, the first claim does not hold water. Judges are presumed to be impartial and have a duty to recuse themselves from hearing a matter if they are conflicted. A party which has evidence to the contrary should apply for the recusal of the specific judge. Our courts have long dismissed vague and unsubstantiated claims of this sort, and I have no doubt that Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga would do the same if such an application were made for him to recuse himself. As for the second argument, the JSC (and no other body) is authorised to investigate the conduct of individual judges against whom specific allegations have been made, but there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a commission of inquiry from looking into allegations of judicial capture or corruption, provided that any such investigation does not threaten the independence of the judiciary. It is not a foregone conclusion that the Constitutional Court will decide to hear the case, nor is it clear what the President might do if it emerges that valid constitutional concerns will scupper his scheme to smuggle a highly competent person into his otherwise underwhelming Cabinet. I for one, hope the President reverses course and decides to appoint Cachalia as a Cabinet minister in the normal constitutionally compliant way. DM
Daily Maverick
8 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Ramaphosa axes Nkabane as Higher Education Minister after Seta appointments saga
Buti Manamela has been announced as the new Minister of Higher Education and Training. President Cyril Ramaphosa has removed Minister of Higher Education Nobuhle Nkabane from his Cabinet. Nkabane's sacking comes amid allegations of corruption over the appointments of the chairpersons of the 21 Sector Education and Training Authorities (Seta) boards that included ANC members. In a statement on Monday night, 21 July, the Presidency announced that Ramaphosa had appointed Buti Manamela as the new Minister of Higher Education and Training. Manamela was previously deputy minister of Higher Education and Training. 'President Cyril Ramaphosa has removed Dr Nobuhle Nkabane from the role of Minister and Higher Education and Training and has, in terms of Section 91 (2) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, appointed Mr Buti Kgwaridi Manamela, Minister of Higher Education and Training. Mr Manamela was, until this appointment, serving as Deputy Minister of Higher Education and Training, a role he held from the 6th administration,' read the statement. Ramaphosa has appointed Dr Nomusa Dube-Ncube as deputy minister. 'Dr Dube's long government leadership experience includes serving as MEC for Cooperative Government and Traditional Affairs and Premier of the Province of KwaZulu-Natal, amongst other roles,' the statement said. Ncube was among the Seta board chairpersons who were to be appointed by Nkabane. Nkabane later withdrew the contentious appointments after a public outcry. President @CyrilRamaphosa has, in terms of Section 91 (2) and Section 93 (b) of the Constitution, appointed Mr. Buti Kgwaridi Manamela and Dr Nomusa Dube-Ncube, as Minister and Deputy Minister of Higher Education and Training, respectively. — The Presidency 🇿🇦 (@PresidencyZA) July 21, 2025 In a statement announcing her departure, Nkabane thanked the President 'for entrusting her with the responsibility' of serving as Higher Education Minister. 'It has been a privilege to lead this important portfolio, and I am grateful to the sector and the people of South Africa for their support and for allowing me to serve in this capacity. I remain committed to the service of our people and the advancement of our country's development,' she said. Nkabane was sworn in as Higher Education and Training Minister on 3 July 2024. Her removal brings to an end a tumultuous tenure, marred by allegations of corruption and accusations that she misled Parliament amid the contentious Seta boards appointments that sparked public outrage and legal and parliamentary scrutiny. Minister @Dr_NobuhleN would like to take this opportunity to sincerely thank the President of the Republic of South Africa, H.E. Cyril Ramaphosa, for entrusting her with the responsibility to serve as Minister of Higher Education and Training. — HigherEducationZA (@HigherEduGovZA) July 21, 2025 Several of the 21 Seta board chairpersons appointments were linked to ANC politicians, including Gwede Mantashe's son, Buyambo Mantashe, who had been appointed chairperson of the Manufacturing, Engineering and Related Services Seta. Other contentious appointees were Dube-Ncube and former ANC KwaZulu-Natal provincial deputy chairperson Mike Mabuyakhulu. This led to MPs demanding that Nkabane account to the parliamentary committee on higher education over the appointments. However, Nkabane provided responses that misled Parliament – claiming that she established an independent panel to assist her in making the appointments and that no corruption was involved. Nkabane disclosed the names of five panellists who assisted her – advocate Terry Motau SC as chairperson, her chief of staff Nelisiwe Semane, Seta director Mabuza Ngubane, the department's deputy director-general Rhulani Ngwenya and adviser Asisipho Solani. However, in shocking revelations, Motau revealed that he had never been formally appointed to chair the panel. He said Nkabane was aware that he was not part of the panel. Semane, Ngubane and Ngwenya also denied their involvement. On Friday, 18 July, Nkabane snubbed the parliamentary committee meeting and avoided accountability over the independent panellists' issue and the process of appointing the chairpersons. Only Ngubane and Motau appeared to testify and said that Nkabane had indeed misled Parliament. Previously, Daily Maverick reported that Ramaphosa asked Nkabane to report to him about her behaviour in Parliament, including chewing food while responding to questions from MPs about the now withdrawn Seta appointments. Reactions The DA has laid charges against Nkabane that include fraud and statutory offences under section 26 of the Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislature Act 4 of 2004. The party welcomed Ramaphosa's axing of Nkabane. However, DA national spokesperson Karabo Khakhau told Daily Maverick that Ramaphosa had taken too long and that people deserved better. 'Our call as the Democratic Alliance has been to make sure that the appointment of people to Seta's spaces is detoxed from cadre deployment so that we're able to see the realisation of the true mandate of the Seta state itself. So this is what we want to see. Minister Nabane lied, and she committed fraud. 'So even though the President fired her, our case that is now being investigated by the Hawks is still going to be pursued. The same way Tony Yengeni was found guilty, Nobuhle Nkabane must be found guilty. Equally, she must face jail time,' said Khakhau. An ANC statement extended its 'gratitude' to Nkabane for her service, and wished her well. The party welcomed the appointments of Manamela and Dube-Ncube. 'The ANC is confident that this new leadership team will advance access, equity and quality in the higher education sector… These appointments reaffirm our commitment to [a] capable, ethical, and developmental state,' it said. The MK party noted Nkabane's 'necessary' and 'long overdue' removal from office. 'The former minister's failure to account for the irregular and unlawful allocation of the … Seta board positions raised serious questions about the so-called Government of National Unity's governance, their lack of transparency and the severe political interference that has become quite characteristic of the former liberation movement. 'It was evident that the appointments disproportionately favoured individuals with strong ties to the ANC: a pattern that cannot be ignored in a constitutional democracy such as South Africa,' read a statement from the party. DM
IOL News
12 hours ago
- IOL News
IFP stands firm on KwaZulu-Natal's controversial decision to place ANC-led municipality under administration
IFP president Velenkosini Hlabisa has defended KwaZulu-Natal government's decision to place the ANC-led municipality under administration. Image: Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs / Facebook The IFP has vowed to defend the KwaZulu-Natal government's decision to place the struggling ANC-led Umkhanyakude District Municipality under administration despite the ANC's defiance. In a media briefing on Monday afternoon, President Velenkosini Hlabisa dismissed ANC's assertion that the provincial government is targeting municipalities under its leadership for political reasons. There was a drama last week when IFP's Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs MEC Reverend Thulasizwe Buthelezi was physically prevented from entering the premises of the municipality, in the north of the province, to formally introduce the appointed administrator, Bamba Ndwandwe. Hlabisa stated that the government's decision remains firm and will not be influenced by political pressures. 'This is not a political intervention. This is a Cabinet decision. As long as municipalities are passing unfunded budgets, Section 139 will apply. You can go and check the financial audit outcome of that municipality. It is not good; therefore, it qualifies for an intervention of this kind,' said Hlabisa. Premier Thamsanqa Ntuli, who was at the briefing, said there was a unanimous decision in the Cabinet with all MECs, including the three from the ANC; therefore, he did not understand why the leadership is challenging it. He said Umkhanyakude was placed under administration alongside two IFP-led district municipalities, so the assertion by the ANC that it is targeting its municipalities was unfounded. 'We removed an ANC-led Mooi Mpofana Local Municipality from the administration in the same Cabinet meeting, so we do not understand why the ANC is complaining in Umkhanyakude,' said Ntuli. He also announced that the municipality has taken the government to court for the matter. In a statement last week, the ANC said it vehemently rejected the unwarranted and politically charged decision by MEC Buthelezi to invoke Section 139(1)(b) of the Constitution in the uMkhanyakude District Municipality. It said the so-called intervention is nothing short of abuse of constitutional provisions for political gain, adding that it lacks merit, rationale, and integrity. 'The ANC is appalled by the continued misuse of Section 139(1)(b) by the MEC, who has turned what should be a last-resort mechanism into a political weapon, one that is selectively and cynically deployed against ANC-led municipalities, regardless of their performance. 'The uMkhanyakude District Municipality has made tangible progress in governance, financial recovery, and service delivery. There is no objective basis for this draconian step, which appears designed not to improve governance, but to score narrow political points and destabilise a functional administration,' read the statement. The party said it stands with the Council of uMkhanyakude District Municipality in resisting the opportunistic, mischievous, and dangerous actions of a power-mongering MEC who is hell-bent on destabilising a functional municipality and undermining service delivery to communities. It vowed to actively mobilise its supporters and communities to resist the advances of an MEC who the party described as having clearly defined himself outside of the Government of Provincial Unity (GPU). There are fears that the continued souring of relations between these two major partners of the GPU may create instability in the province, which is known for its political complexities. [email protected].
