Urgent need for responsible budgeting in local municipalities
Image: Independent Newspapers
MUNICIPALITIES are in the process of considering the Integrated Development Plan that incorporates the budget. These are statutory requirements.
Local authorities are governed by relevant provisions of the RSA Constitution as well as the Local Authorities Ordinance and the trilogy of local government statutes - systems, structures and finance management.
The budget is all about three things mainly-projected expenditure, projected income and the deficit. In the mix of the consideration are statutory consultations with the public and other role players. Regrettably, this has just become ticking the boxes with little or nothing of the many meaningful inputs being considered. This is just a crying shame.
It is a common bad practice for councils to simply increase the rates and various other tariffs in order to make up the deficit. This is a clarion call and a wake-up call to authorities to face reality and be prudent regarding this sensitive and important matter in the light of the adverse economic situation the country faces.
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Next
Stay
Close ✕
Many people barely have basic food to put on the table and luxuries are out of the question. There are too many mamparas and nincompoops that hold political office and senior administrative positions and are oblivious of the plight of the teeming masses. They make decisions that concern people without due consideration to the reality of life.
To tax the already burdened and hard-pressed citizen, as well as businesses and industry that contribute hugely to the city coffers, is imprudent and should be avoided. It is a common fact that in municipalities there is much mismanagement, laxity and incompetence with the result that wasteful, frivolous, unnecessary and fruitless expenditure is incurred. The Auditor-General yearly confirms this but the malpractices continue to the detriment of citizens, property owners and businesses.
It is my fervent prayer that sense and reality will prevail in the various local authorities so that people and businesses can survive in these hard times and there will be a win-win situation for both the municipalities and its citizens and businesses.
SIMON T DEHAL
Verulam
** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.
THE POST
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
an hour ago
- IOL News
Labour Party's legal bid to halt National Dialogue dismissed by Gauteng High Court
President Cyril Ramaphosa claims the dialogue will develop a national ethos and shared value system to unify a divided country, plagued by economic inequality, high crime, unemployment, and political instability. Image: Itumeleng English / Independent Newspapers The Labour Party of South Africa has failed in its urgent legal bid for an interim interdict to halt the National Dialogue set to commence on August 15. The party turned to the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, to urgently halt the President's decision to convene a National Dialogue and two related conventions. At the heart of its objections were the costs associated with this. It argued that the National Dialogue is not a genuine democratic exercise, but a costly and dangerous duplication of the national legislature. It argued that the National Dialogue Preparatory Committee estimates that the initiative will cost over R700 million, according to an announcement dated June 12. The government, however, in its argument to court, denied this amount. According to the State respondents, a final budget will only be developed following engagements with the National Treasury and other potential partners. The Labour Party's approach to the court was motivated by constitutional concerns. It questioned what power the President has to establish a National Dialogue. It argued that if its ultimate aim is to ensure public participation, create policy and make binding decisions, this is a duplication of the functions of Parliament. It also questioned whether it would be lawful to attach a R700 million price tag for a part of this endeavour. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading They asked the court to halt the National Dialogue, pending an opportunity to later review the President's decision. Acting Judge I de Vos said the Constitution mandates the President to promote national unity and the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court has repeatedly asserted this process is ongoing and that this duty falls to the President. 'The court is not, based on the text of the Constitution and the jurisprudence from the Constitutional Court, persuaded that the President is acting outside his powers,' she said. The judge added that the court is not persuaded that the applicant has made out a prima facie case on this basis or that it bears strong prospects of success in the review on this ground. 'The court is not empowered to determine if a National Dialogue is the best method for promoting national unity. Or if the same people that have been invited to the table to do the preparatory work are the ones the court would have chosen. Or even if it would rather spend money on a National Dialogue or on health care or some other issue.' Judge de Vos added that the goal of the National Dialogue, which consists of public participation and engagement, is to promote national unity. 'There is a rational link between the National Dialogue, particularly one premised on public participation, and the promotion of national unity,' she said. In turning down the application, she concluded that the Labour Party has failed to meet the threshold to show irrationality in the method employed in announcing the National Dialogue. 'The court is not convinced that the Labour Party has proven a prima facie right in this regard and is doubtful as to its prospects of success at the hearing of the final relief,' she said. As to the money involved, the judge said the court is not empowered to ask whether this is the best use of money. That is the domain of the executive. Cape Times
Eyewitness News
6 hours ago
- Eyewitness News
Zuma, MK Party to challenge Ramaphosa's decision to place Mchunu on special leave
JOHANNESBURG - A presidential battle will play out in the Constitutional Court on Wednesday morning as the uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party and its leader, former President Jacob Zuma, are set to challenge President Cyril Ramaphosa's recent decision to place Minister of Police Senzo Mchunu on special leave. The MK Party approached the apex court on an urgent basis, wanting Mchunu's suspension, the appointment of an acting minister, and the institution of a judicial commission of inquiry set aside. ALSO READ: Ramaphosa defends decision to appoint Firoz Cachalia as acting police minister Earlier in July, Ramaphosa made the decision based on an explosive media briefing by KwaZulu-Natal Police Commissioner Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi. The MK Party will argue that while the Constitution is clear on the president's powers to appoint and fire ministers, there is no provision for placing a member of Cabinet on special leave. They said the only rational reason that Ramaphosa could have decided this for Mchunu is so that he keeps his salary and perks as a minister. But the president argues that while there is no explicit mention of special leave in the supreme law, he has implied ancillary powers. He said he cannot simply fire Mchunu based on untested allegations. Because Zuma and the MK Party are separate applicants in the matter, different lawyers will argue on their behalf before the bench.
Daily Maverick
a day ago
- Daily Maverick
When xenophobia rears its ugly head it is time to ask the right questions
Have you noticed how, without fail, the ugly head of xenophobia always seems to re-emerge in the run-up to local elections? It's no accident. It's a strategy, and one we've seen play out time and again. When political failures pile up and service delivery grinds to a halt, scapegoating foreign nationals becomes a convenient distraction. Instead of holding local government accountable for broken promises, potholes, power cuts and clinics without doctors, we're told the problem is 'illegal foreigners'. It's a dangerous misdirection and it's costing lives. Instead of directing our rightful anger towards dysfunctional municipalities and inept leadership, we're encouraged sometimes by officials themselves to lash out at those even more vulnerable than us. It's easier to point fingers at desperate migrants in clinic queues than to question how our cities became places of neglect. Nowhere is this more evident than in the deeply troubling scenes unfolding outside public healthcare facilities across South Africa. Foreign nationals or those merely suspected of being foreign are being chased away, blocked from entering clinics and denied their constitutional rights. These acts aren't just inhumane; they are illegal. Let's be clear, section 27 of the South African Constitution guarantees everyone – yes, everyone – the right to access healthcare services. This includes migrants, asylum seekers and undocumented persons. It is not a matter of opinion. It is the law. And here's the part too many people overlook: having all people healthy within our borders is a public good. Allowing anyone, regardless of nationality, to suffer from untreated TB, measles or HIV does not just threaten their health, it endangers ours. Public health doesn't discriminate, and neither should we. What makes this even more dangerous is the recent targeting of human rights organisations like the Socio-Economic Rights Institute (Seri), Helen Suzman Foundation and the South African Human Rights Commission by xenophobic movements like Operation Dudula. These organisations grounded in constitutionalism and justice have dared to remind us that we are a country governed by laws, not mob sentiment. In the face of these attacks, Abahlali baseMjondolo showed us what real solidarity looks like. Their decision to form a human chain outside Seri's offices, physically defending the space and its staff, was an act of profound courage. It reminded us that human rights are not abstract principles, they must be defended in action, in public and with conviction. This is not just about foreign nationals. This is about the soul of our democracy. If we allow attacks on human rights defenders and on organisations like Seri to go unanswered, we set the stage for broader repression. Today it's them. Tomorrow it's all of us. We must stand up, speak out and defend what is right. Human rights are not a suggestion. They are the foundation of our Constitution. They are the promise of 1994. And they are under threat. Operation Dudula together with March and March are attacking our democratic values, our hard-won freedoms and the rule of law. If groups like Seri, Helen Suzman Foundation and the South African Human Rights Commission are silenced, who will speak up when your rights are next in line? We must not allow anger to be weaponised against the wrong people. It is time to ask better questions. Why are our clinics underresourced in the first place? Why are there not enough trained healthcare workers? Why is the housing backlog growing year after year? And why are we not holding local councillors and officials to account for this? Foreign nationals didn't fail to maintain your community's water infrastructure. They didn't loot public funds meant for housing and healthcare. They didn't shut down your clinic or redirect its budget. That was your government. South Africa is at a crossroads and we can continue being played, turning on each other in frustration. We must start organising, demanding better services, transparent leadership and a government that serves everyone who lives here.
