Nelson Mandela Bay metro sticks with plan for 12.8% electricity hike
The council noted the 2025/2026 budget and the integrated development plan on Thursday.
They will meet on Thursday next week to adopt it.
Capital budget and asset management senior director Nomphelo Scott stood in for Jackson Ngcelwane as acting CFO.
According to proposals, electricity is expected to increase by 12.8% and refuse collection by 6%.
If approved, property rates will go up by 5%. Water and sanitation are expected to increase by 5.5%.
The total budget is R21.58bn, which is made up of the R2.9bn for the capital budget and R19.47bn for the operational budget.
Councillors expressed concerns that meeting agendas were being delivered late.
Some only received copies on the day of the meeting.
'It is important to note that the financial position of the electricity service is under immense pressure due to the extent of electricity losses, which significantly affects the sustainability of the municipality,' the report says.
'This is supported by the fact that the budget for electricity bulk purchases exceeds the total electricity service charges budget.
'This means the electricity service, which is a trading service, is operating at a substantial deficit, requiring support from property rates.'
About 71% of revenue for the city comes from rates and services. This amounts to R13.93bn.
Tabling the budget, mayor Babalwa Lobishe said they had embarked on an IDP and budget consultative process for three weeks.
She said the budget was brought to the council for noting.
'We note with disappointment the fact that the agendas were delivered late, but we wish councillors could pardon us, but we have been ready since last week.'
DA councillor Rano Kayser said he wanted to establish whether Ngcelwane was present.
'How do we expect a credible budget if every second week we have a new acting CFO?' he said.
Kayser said a decision was taken in the last council meeting that councillors must be consulted when dealing with the IDP and ward-based budget, but this did not happen.
'I wrote to the acting city manager [Ted Pillay] a while ago requesting a meeting, but he didn't respond, and these are the issues I wanted to raise with him.
'In some wards, such as 35, the IDP didn't even take place, I was there.
'How do we accept this budget if officials didn't turn up to IDP meetings and ward councillors were not consulted.
'The directorates that are supposed to be implementing have no idea what's contained in the ward-based budget.'
Kayser said it was not the first time they were sidelined from the budget.
'The acting city manager must tell us what he did from April 1 until today to ensure the budget is ready.'
The Herald
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
an hour ago
- Daily Maverick
US House of Representatives' Foreign Affairs Committee passes first round of anti-SA Bill
The Bill calls for a review of US-SA relations and for sanctions against the South African government and ANC leaders. A Bill that would require the Trump administration to conduct a full review of US-South Africa relations and to identify South African government and ANC leaders eligible for sanctions, passed the US House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee this week. The committee passed the 'US-South Africa Bilateral Relations Review Act of 2025' by a vote of 34-16, with 28 Republicans and six Democrats supporting it and only Democrats opposing. It will now go to the full House of Representatives, where observers believe it will pass. It envisages SA government and ANC leaders being sanctioned under America's Global Magnitsky Act, which imposes financial and visa restrictions on individuals deemed guilty of human rights abuses or corruption. The Bill would also require the US Administration to determine if South Africa has undermined US national security or foreign policy interests. 'Aligning with America's adversaries' The Bill cites a long list of actions by the ANC government which it says have offended the US, centred on its good relations with Russia, China and Iran, and its hostility to Israel and Taiwan. The Bill was introduced by Texan Republican Ronny Jackson, a firm supporter of President Donald Trump. He told the committee that South Africa, while claiming to be non-aligned, had recently abandoned the US and its allies by increasingly aligning with America's adversaries such as China, Russia, Iran, and Iranian military proxies such as Hamas. He cited SA hosting the Chinese government's Confucius Institutes, conducting military exercises with China and Russia, and its alleged involvement in efforts to downgrade the US dollar. He also said, 'South Africa is systematically going after our partners and allies.' He cited its downgrading of Taiwan's presence in the country, 'falsely accusing the State of Israel of genocide at the illegitimate International Criminal Court and mimicking Iran's disgusting dismissal of the atrocities committed by Hamas on October the 7th' (the date of the attack by Hamas on southern Israel). Jackson said 'extreme politicians from the African National Congress have led efforts to target Afrikaners'. Daily Maverick recently revealed that the America Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) was a significant donor to Jackson, the sponsor of the Bill, and several other members of Congress hostile to SA. Of the six Democrats who voted for the Bill in the Foreign Affairs Committee, Brad Sherman and Jared Moskowitz are known to be strong Israel supporters. Bill Keating and George Latimer represent districts with large Jewish populations and Ted Lieu was born in Taiwan. Gregory Meeks, senior Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee and most other Democrats on the committee, strongly opposed the Bill. Meeks said SA acted as a leader not only among African countries, but also on the world stage – and was this year chairing the G20. The US and SA had a long history of partnership, which the Bill 'will not help to deepen or further'. 'South Africa has taken a number of foreign policy positions that I happen not to agree with. But in mature relations between countries, we can deal with those differences through diplomacy and dialogue. This legislation does just the opposite, taking a heavy hand'. He said, 'President Trump has already disproportionately targeted South Africa. He's done this by trying to embarrass President Ramaphosa in the Oval Office, with faulty evidence of purported atrocities in the country, by instituting an executive order cutting all US assistance in the country, and putting in its place a special refugee resettlement programme for Afrikaners. 'Glaring hypocrisy' 'And at the same time, he's blocking the resettlement of literally all other refugees to the United States… This is glaring hypocrisy.' Jackson's Bill is an updated version of a Bill which was introduced last year, but which ran out of time when Congress ended before elections in November.
Mail & Guardian
3 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
Cannabis reform without legal legitimacy is an illusion
Commercialisation of the trade requires cohesive regulation. File photo South Africa's cannabis economy is poised for transformation, but it is being built on a legal contradiction. The department of trade, industry and competition has proposed a national licensing authority and commercialisation framework. Yet the Cannabis for Private Purposes Act (CfPPA) of 2024 still prohibits all forms of cannabis trade, cultivation for profit and distribution. This is not a technical oversight. It is a constitutional fault line. We cannot licence what the law criminalises. Until the Act is amended to include commercial provisions or a new enabling Cannabis Commercialisation Act is passed, the department's proposals remain legally unenforceable. Officials risk overreach. Entrepreneurs face uncertainty. People are left in limbo. Even the government acknowledges this. In a parliamentary Q&A session in June, the department's minister, Parks Tau, said: 'It is the intention of the [department] to address this aspect as soon as cannabis has effectively been removed from the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act.' While this reflects a degree of momentum, it's legally insufficient. Removing cannabis from the Drugs Act may lift criminalisation, but the CfPPA continues to prohibit dealing, trading and cultivation for commercial gain. In short, even if cannabis is no longer classified as a drug, it still cannot be sold or licensed under the Cannabis for Private Purposes Act when the Act comes into operation. This legal misalignment has real-world consequences. The department's policy framework, while ambitious, suffers from structural blind spots: It focuses narrowly on licensing without transitional support for informal traders; It fails to protect small-scale cultivators from being displaced by large corporations; It omits regulatory clarity around cannabis clubs and urban dispensaries; It overlooks enforcement coordination across the South African Police Service, municipalities, and regulatory bodies; and It excludes meaningful integration of indigenous knowledge systems into product development. One major omission is the legal ambiguity about cannabis clubs, private collectives facilitating cultivation and sharing among adult members. Since the Haze Club case was dismissed in 2022 and its appeal withdrawn in 2024, the status of grow clubs remains undefined. This vacuum has enabled the proliferation of illicit urban clubs and pseudo-dispensaries selling untested products to non-members, tourists and minors, often with no age verification or dosage controls. What South Africa needs is regulatory clarity, not criminal silence. Rather than banning cannabis clubs outright or letting them proliferate unchecked, the law should define them, regulate them and use them as strategic tools within a broader commercialisation policy. Ignoring their existence only empowers the illicit market. South Africa must not repeat the mistakes seen elsewhere. In Thailand, decriminalisation without proper controls led to youth exposure and market chaos. The government reversed its policy in 2025, reclassifying cannabis as a controlled herb, shuttering thousands of dispensaries, and leaving farmers in limbo. In Italy, a sudden 2025 ban on low-THC products erased billions in legal revenue, criminalised compliant retailers, and triggered European Union-level legal challenges. In the United States, fragmented state-by-state regulation has caused enforcement confusion, increased youth access, and resurgence of illicit trade, particularly in states failing to fund education and safety programmes. In Canada, even with national legalisation, spikes in underage consumption, impaired driving and workplace incidents exposed the limits of reform absent cultural readiness and public health investment. And in Mexico, international price competition with the US led to cannabis crop abandonment, pushing rural farmers into more dangerous illicit drug markets. The common thread across these countries? Commercialisation without cohesive regulation, especially about cultivation, processing, distribution, retail, enforcement, education and cultural integration. Cannabis is not just a commodity. It's a cultural and constitutional indicator, reflecting whether we are capable of reform that is inclusive, ethical and enforceable. A well-regulated industry could empower rural cooperatives, restore trust with legacy growers, elevate local brands on the global stage and reduce harm in urban youth sectors. Properly regulated cannabis clubs offer promise. If legally recognised and governed, they could provide: controlled, adult-only access aligned with privacy rights; peer-based harm reduction and responsible usage education; traceable supply chains that reduce street-level trade; municipal licensing opportunities and tax reinvestment models; the promotion of community accountability and reinvestment; and entry-level platforms for small-scale cultivators operating in compliant, cooperative models. The time has come to move beyond fragmented intent. Commercialisation needs: Legislative legitimacy: Amend the CfPPA or pass a Cannabis Commercialisation Act; End-to-end value chain governance: Link licensing to retail, enforcement, and branding; Transitional and inclusive models: Support informal traders and vulnerable communities; Cannabis club regulation: Recognise and govern clubs under civic and constitutional frameworks; Enforcement clarity: Align the police, municipalities and DTIC to police illicit trade and protect minors and the vulnerable; and Ethical branding and indigenous knowledge integration: Elevate products that reflect our biodiversity and cultural heritage. Develop premium South African cannabis products for global markets. South Africa can build a cannabis economy that is just, lawful, inclusive, and resilient. But it starts with fixing the foundation. Anything less is not reform. It is an illusion.' Adv Simi Pillay-van Graan is the chief executive of Trikar Enterprise Solutions.
IOL News
3 hours ago
- IOL News
National Assembly passes Appropriation Bill amid opposition objections
The Appropriation Bill easily mustered majority with 262 votes against 90 votes. Image: Ayanda Ndamane / Independent Newspapers The National Assembly on Wednesday passed several departmental votes despite objections from the opposition parties during a marathon session at the Cape Town International Conference Centre. This was after the first reading of the Appropriation Bill was passed, paving the way for the approval of the full schedule of votes for 42 departmental and entities and the second reading of the Bill. The Bill easily mustered a majority with 262 when the ANC, the DA, IFP, Patriotic Alliance, Freedom Front Plus, ActionSA, UDM, Al-Jama-ah, Build One South Africa, Rise Mzansi, GOOD, and PAC voted in favour. The MK Party, EFF, ATM, National Coloured Congress, and United African Transformation voted against, with a combined 90 votes. The Presidency was the first budget to be voted for, followed by Parliament, and then the other departments and entities. As voting continued, individual departmental votes were each passed despite the EFF and MK Party consistently asking for the division of the House. Speaking during the debate, Deputy Minister for Finance David Masondo called on the parties to pass the Budget to allow the national government to spend R1.23 trillion to deliver services to protect the vulnerable and invest in the country's shared future. Masondo warned that the absence of the Appropriation Bill will mean that the government may only spend 45% of the previous year's Budget until the end of July, and thereafter 10% of the previous Budget. 'Our estimation overall by October is that the government will be without authority when we reach 100% of last year's appropriation,' he said. He also said failure to pass the Budget would delay critical priorities of the government. 'We should not prolong or object to the passing of this Bill. It is ultimately the most vulnerable members of society who depend on grants, public schools, and clinics who will suffer the most due to our inactions,' Masondo said. Build One South Africa and Standing Committee on Appropriations Chairperson Mmusi Maimane said the Budget was passed in severely constrained economic conditions. 'Our inherent problem is a problem of growth. As our economy is not growing, it means we have fewer resources to be able to redistribute to our citizens,' Maimane said. He called for improvements in the Budget process to give effect to the timelines of the Money Bill Act. 'I want to urge going into the next cycle to ensure we establish our priorities that we are clear with economic reform, we budget accordingly, and ensure the Budget process is smoother and people of South Africa can experience fullness of participation in the Appropriation Bill,' Maimane said. MK Party MP Sanele Mwali said it was disheartening that the country fell apart and the government prescribes the same economic, fiscal, and monetary policy, which failed to bring change and impoverished millions of citizens. 'Economic stagnation and high unemployment with obsession with debt reduction at the expense of investment and growth, and stimulate new economic activity,' Mwali said. DA MP Kingley's Hope Wakelin spoke against the R700m budgeted for the upcoming National Dialogue, saying the money could be used for tangible projects such as RDP houses, a job-seekers' grant, and free basic electricity for the indigent. 'The people do not want to see R700 million wasted on another expensive dialogue,' he said. He also said spending reviews should be implemented, an exercise that should look beyond reworking the Budget but eliminate duplications, and stop underperforming programmes and political vanity projects. 'These reviews should form part of the 2026 Budget planning,' he said. EFF MP Omphile Maotwe rejected the Appropriation Bill, saying some members of 'the gang unit' were happy to be in government to enjoy the gravy train and were not caring about the country's future. She accused some in the Government of National Unity who previously opposed the same Budget every year. IFP chief whip Nhanhla Hadebe said they were concerned that the allocations did to go far enough to address challenges facing the people. 'While we commend the National Treasury to contain expenditure and limit debt service cost, fiscal consolidation must not come at the cost of service delivery,' Hadebe said. Rise Mzansi MP Songezo Zibi observed that the Budget was not perfect and that South Africans wanted the government and Parliament to work on the available fiscal envelope. Zibi said the executive and Parliament should begin to make choices and prioritise programmes that were more important than others. 'Programmes that support economic growth and employment, safety, health, and education in modern skills are obviously a priority, but even those must be thoroughly examined for effectiveness,' he said, adding that programmes that can't produce evidence of sustainable impact must be reviewed and changed or stopped altogether. The vote on the departments' voting was continuing in the evening after 7pm. [email protected]
