Thu
Thu
Thu
Thu

Plettenberg Bay

Thursday°C
Thu
Thu
Thu
Thu

Kwanokuthula

Thursday°C
Thu
Thu
Thu
Thu

Nature's Valley

Thursday°C
Thu
Thu
Thu
Thu

Wittedrift

Thursday°C
Thu
Thu
Thu
Thu

The Crags

Thursday°C
Thu
Thu
Thu
Thu

Green Valley

Thursday°C
Thu
Thu
Thu
Thu

New Horizons

Thursday°C
Thu
Thu
Thu
Thu

Harkerville

Thursday°C

Important numbers

Emergency Hotline0800 029 999
WhatsApp Support Line 060 012 3456
Provincial Hotline021 928 4102
Bitou Municipality (Customer Care)044 501 3174/5
Fire / Rescue044 533 5000
Ambulance (Private)072 054 9110
Law Enforcement044 501 3240
Ambulance 10177
Hide -
Home Contact usShow

Weather

Plettenberg Bay
Thursday°C
Thu
Thu
Thu
Thu

Weather

Kwanokuthula
Thursday°C
Thu
Thu
Thu
Thu

Weather

Nature's Valley
Thursday°C
Thu
Thu
Thu
Thu

Weather

Wittedrift
Thursday°C
Thu
Thu
Thu
Thu

Weather

The Crags
Thursday°C
Thu
Thu
Thu
Thu

Weather

Green Valley
Thursday°C
Thu
Thu
Thu
Thu

Weather

New Horizons
Thursday°C
Thu
Thu
Thu
Thu

Weather

Harkerville
Thursday°C
Thu
Thu
Thu
Thu

Important numbers

Emergency Hotline 0800 029 999
WhatsApp Support Line 060 012 3456
Provincial Hotline 021 928 4102
Bitou Municipality (Customer Care) 044 501 3174/5
Fire / Rescue 044 533 5000
Ambulance (Private) 072 054 9110
Law Enforcement 044 501 3240
Ambulance 10177

COVID-19

23 November 2018

MEDIA RELEASE

20 November 2018

Bitou municipality, which prides itself on distinct stability of its coalition government in the Western Cape, view the action of the Minister Bredell as a publicity stunt and abuse of authority for political gain.

Firstly, “the allegation made in the statement that Bitou Council wanted to prevent Section 106 intervention by the Minister into the dealing of the municipality following eleven different serious allegations of misconduct”, are not true.

It is correct that the Bitou Municipality launched an application with the Western Cape high court for the review and setting aside of the decision by the Minister. Part A of this application sought an urgent order that the investigation launched by the Minister be stayed pending the review, the action is a legally permissible process and not a waste of the ratepayers money. While Part B the decision of the MEC to institute the enquiry is sought to be reviewed together with a directive that the MEC produce the relevant record of the decision.

The above orders were sought as the result of the approached adopted by the Minister, which the council believed his conduct falls foul of the constitutional principles of legality and Principles enshrined in the provisions of the Intergovernmental Relations Framework Act. For example:

  1. The Minister has wrongfully addressed his communications to the speaker (Annelise Olivier , who is no more than the chairperson of the Bitou Council and holds no executive or administrative authority and who is not the representative of the municipality) and not the representative in the form of the Executive Mayor or the Municipal Manager;
  2. The Minister after receiving the information from the Horizon Forensics (the company employed by Bitou council to conduct investigation on Municipal Manager and Director Corporate Services but breached the scope and investigated other things outside of council scope and reported that to the Minister and invoiced the council for the work done for the Minister), it was then found by the council to be premature for the Minister to resort to the application of Section 106 Systems Act, rather than to inform Bitou Council to enable it to investigate and take necessary steps;
  3. For numerous request the Minister failed to provide to the Bitou Council with adequate information to enable it to properly respond to the queries raised by him;
  4. Further to that he has imposed impossible deadlines for responses to his queries;
  5. He has against the rules sought information from the speaker and not from the Bitou Council or the Municipal Manager, and he did so because the then previous speaker was the DA council.

The Council because of the above-mentioned facts concluded that the Minister is likely to consistently act in a manner designed to enable him to exercise control over municipalities or to ensure that they bend to his will. There is evidence to suggest that this is particularly the case where a party other than that he represents holds power in that municipality

It is for the above reasons, that the application for the review and setting aside of the Minister decision to implement Section 106 Systems Act and S5 of the Monitoring Act. It was for the court to decide on a fair procedure that should be exercised by the minister. The application for the review talks to many other procedural issues, which we will be unwise to reveal at this stage on in this statement because the matter is sub-judice.

The key whistle –blower became the lead investigator and this made us to be concerned as this could be seen as a conflict of interest. Therefore, it could have compromised the investigation and possible outcomes.

As a municipality, we are well renowned for our stance for clean and responsible governance.  This makes us to welcome the decision of the high court and do not question it.  However, as the municipality, we have meticulously engaged on the merits and  have nothing to fear hence our stance of welcoming the investigation to commence.

Hoping that this will not be another of the many previous political stunts pulled by the opposition party that continuously seeks to, unduly, get the municipality under provincial administration.  This could once again result in wasteful expenditure of ratepayers’ money.

Acting Manager: Communications and Customer Care
James Sijama
jsijama@plett.gov.za
www.bitou.gov.za
Telephone: 044 5013006

Issued By: James Sijama on behalf of
Bitou Local Municipality

Last published 04 February 2019