DA demands review of Mayor’s decision to appeal the Paulse verdict

The heat is on!

News with intent!

Your advertising is only as good as the people who see it – repeatedly! You want to do business with OO readers – people with money and control of corporate budgets. Click here

By: TwitterButtons.com

Oudtshoorn. 14 July 2012.

11h20. The Speaker did reply to the letter of the 7 Councillors demanding a review of April’s decision to appeal the Paulse case – the matter will be placed on the agenda of the next Council Meeting.

OO believes that the matter is urgent and should be addressed in an urgent meeting as Mnyimba’s presence, being unqualified to be MM, is causing Oudtshoorn harm.

10h40. OO is informed by a Mayco Member – ja, April, selfs van die laaste paar ANC’s wat jy meen jou ondersteun praat met my – that the item to approve the Mayor’s decision, in consequence of a delegation, to appeal the Paulse verdict, was brought in committee, unanimously approved and the papers then unceremoniously confiscated by Mayor April and MM Mnyimba!

Oudtshoorn. 13 July 2012. 14h25. OO learned that the Mayco this morning confirmed the decision, in consequence of a delegation, to appeal the Paulse verdict that found Thandekile Mnyimba unfit to be MM.

This comes on the morning after the ANC Western Cape Leader, Marius Fransman, met with ANC Councillors last night, and, apparently, on the advice of Adv Shaheed Patel, who has already “earned” R220,000 in fees in this matter.

This development suggests that Council’s legal advice probably regards the Mayor’s grounds for the decision to be wonky.

The demand for a s.59 Council Meeting to review the decision, by 7 Councillors, still stands, however.

OO would like to see the seven dissident Councillors apply for an Interdict to force the meeting and obtain a cost order against the Speaker, Johannes Stoffels.

Stoffels’ boss, Badih Chaaban, is not lifting a finger to make good on his gallons of hot air about “clean government”.

Said Groucho Marx: “Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.”

What a pace*, what a rafter*, what a barren*, what a shrewdness* the ANC/Icosa/NPP rabble* is!

* Collective nouns…

Oudtshoorn. 12 July 2012. 14h55. Speaker Johannes Stoffels failed to issue notices of a Council Meeting at 14h00 tomorrow, by 14h00 today.

The only remedy now available to the DA is an Interdict.

Well there is one alternative: the aggrieved Councillors can appeal to the Minister of Local Government to intervene and force a meeting.

But OO readers will realise the futility of this option.

However, the Court must be informed that more than 25% of Councillors are ooposed to the appeal and the Court should order the Council review before it hears the application for leave to appeal.

Knowing that the matter now rests with our competent DA Caucus, I’ll sleep like a baby tonight and wake up every 2 hours screaming my head off.

Stoffels’ failure to call the meeting makes a mockery of the NPP’s claims to clean government.

OO is in sms conversation with the NPP President, Badih Chaaban, and is waiting for his comments.

And Chabaan’s response, at 14h28: “I’m busy… Leave me out of it please.”

Now we know where we stand.

Oudtshoorn. 11 July 2012. 13h30. The matter of Gordon April’s decision to appeal the Allen Paulse v Oudtshoorn Municipal Council verdict has heated up with the confirmation earlier today by the Western Cape Minister of Local Government, Anton Bredell, that his department will oppose the Council’s application for leave to appeal.

Bredell replied to a request for an update by Nic Barrow, and replied without delay – a very positive signal and indicative of expediency that surprised OO!

Barrow told OO that the Municipality has no prospect of success with the appeal. So strongly does Barrow feel about the fultility of the application and an improbable appeal, that he avowed to report the Council’s legal advisors to the Law Society and the Bar for questionable advice.

Barrow added that ridding the Oudtshoorn community of Thandekile Mnyimba has become a personal objective and that he will do everything in his power to have Mnyimba permanetly removed as Municipal Manager.

The DA is serving notice today on the Speaker, Councillor Johannes Stoffels, to convene a Council Meeting without delay to review the Mayor’s decision to appeal, in consequence of a delegation.

In its demand the DA states that the Speaker has no discretion in the matter and that he is obligated to convene the Council Meeting forthwith ito s.59(3)(a) of the Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000. The Act states that “the municipal council – in accordance with procedures in its rules and orders, may, or at the request in writing of at least one quarter of the councillors, must, review any decision taken by such a political structure, political office bearer, councillor or staff member in consequence of a delegation or instruction, and either confirm, vary or revoke the decision subject to any rights that may have accrued to a person…” (Editor’s emphasis.)

The DA also states that its demand for a review in no way legitimises the delegated powers of the Mayor, as the concept Delegation Register has not yet been approved by Council.

“We rely on the fact that the Honourable Mayor conjured an appearance of legitimacy on the basis of a unilateral decision apparently made on the strength of delegated power”, the letter concludes.

OO has also learned that as many as 9 of the 13 ANC Ward Committees are opposed to the Council’s governance under Mayor April.

The DA asked for a head count in the Council decision to appoint Mnyimba, and the 13 ANC, Icosa, and NPP Councillors who voted to appoint Mnyimba face the dire prospect of having to repay the ratepayers for the fruitless and wasteful expenditure accruing as a result of the appointment. Legal costs to date alone already amounts to a estimated R875,000.

The Speaker, NPP Councillor Stoffels, had earlier been instructed by the party’s president, Badih Chabaan, to convene the meeting that the DA now demands, but has hitherto refused to oblige his leader. Chabaan’s reaction to this insubordination will be observed with interest as the former NPP Councillor, Ben Pannas, was removed by Court Order last year for not heeding party instructions.

Click here to receive updates.

Advertise on OO!

Click here to return to the title page.


7 thoughts on “DA demands review of Mayor’s decision to appeal the Paulse verdict

  1. Zukile, this is for you – if the penny doesnt drop now, it never will !

    Quote of the day – 13 July
    “If loyalty is not principled, if it is unthinking, it cannot be described as virtuous. Blind loyalty is dangerous
    because it signals the death of agency and independent thought. The more widespread it is the more dangerous it becomes. History tells us that uncritical obedience has always been the gateway to human suffering. Little wonder, then, that dictators and demagogues alike often engender these two kinds of false loyalty, with fear and irrationality as their primary motivators.”
    Gareth van Onselen

  2. Zukile, the debate is not who will govern, but rather who will govern compassionately, honestly and transparently with the required humility that goes with public office and the responsible position occupied in service of the Town’s inhabitants.

    Make yourself a short list of the key goals an outcomes YOU would like our Council to address, and then think and THINK HARD, who is capable of delivery and managing these and when you believe these will be addressed – the incumbents are clearly incapable and perhaps unwilling as its a hard task!

    Shouting down others who express concern over fraud, corruption dishonesty and downright manipulation of the democratic process, exposes the limits of your understanding and naivety as to how communities work and progress as well as the fundamentals of our constitution democracy.

    Municipalities are not micro-political camps for cadre training or a forum to manipulate personal aspirations and to squabble over position and promotion – they are there to serve you and I and everyone else as the “managers” and custodians of our Town.

    Think a little deeper and wider of your mindless support for “hollow men and woman” whose management decisions are based ENTIRELY on what their masters dictate, who probably have never visited Oudtshoorn and undoubtedly sit in luxury and “high public office” well away form this bleeding community, and with whom you clearly identify – for what reason and motivation you should clearly explain – before you mouth off political platitudes.

  3. ZUKILE, it is clear as daylight that your ilk condones corruption and bad administration 100%
    A sad day for the masses as poverty, unemployment and suffering continues.
    No clear thinking job creating investor will bring his money near ODN or into SA whilst the plundering continues.
    Enjoy your pathetic moment as the illegal stripping continues as it wont live long as seen happening North – people eventually wise up and the wheels of Justice turns slowly, but it turns and perpetrators WILL eventually PAY UP !

  4. There’s no heat here Bredell is a respondent on the matter, what is new about Bredell’s involvement on the matter? You bringing false hope to your brigades. Dream on about “Heat being on”.Ha…haa

  5. Ha….haa Drewan you are desperate, you will wait the next 4yrs to see whether the DA will govern again.

  6. derrickhendrickse, if i just look at your spelling, it makes me shiver !
    It seems to be on similar lines to the legal advice April received recently.

    No wonder if this alleged Circus of an Appeal proceeds, Barrow has indicated how strong he feels about the futility of the application and an improbable appeal, that he avowed to report the Council’s legal advisors to the Law Society and the Bar for questionable advice.

    Which brings me to the following questions;
    Who is this “questionable” Legal Advisor ?
    Has council approved him by a majority vote
    Who is his Alma Mater ?
    Did he even come close to a cum laude ?
    How long has his practise been going ?
    Does he only do Govt work, in the line and the “ethos”of cadre deployement appointments ?
    What % private work does this firm do ?
    What is his % success rate ?
    What does he specialize in ?
    Has he ever been reported to the Law Society before ?

    Transparency and democracy are two cousins, but in SA these two cousins stopped talking to each other a long time ago !

    The eyebrows are alifted sire, anyone care to answer the above ?
    (Seems like the haphazard ODN council gives new meaning to ; “Birds of a feather flock together”
    Klong, Klaas, Knaap, Krom, Koggel, Kruip, Krank,Krepeer – “Kroek”Kneg, knap gedaan -BINGO !!

  7. I look with interest if DA will succeed in forcing the speaker to call meeting in this regard . Structures act is clear about speakers funtion.
    Structures Act clause 37. Functions of speakers

    The speaker of a municipal council –

    (a) presides at meetings of the council;

    (b) performs the duties and exercises the powers delegated to the speaker in terms of section 59 of the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act, 2000 (Act No. 32 of 2000);
    [Para. (b) amended by s. 14 of Act 51/2002]

    (c) must ensure that the council meets at least quarterly:

    (d) must maintain order during meetings;

    (e) must ensure compliance in the council and council committees with the Code of Conduct set out in Schedule 1 to the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act, 2000 (Act No. 32 of 2000); and
    [Para. (e) amended by s. 14 of Act 51/2002]

    (f) must ensure that council meetings are conducted in accordance with the rules and orders of the council.

    Taking the above into account i am of the view that speaker cannot refuse 25% of councillors request to review previous council decision. Thus Speaker must allow such a motion to serve at the council meeting. There is a deference between a motion of this specific nature dealing with the revue of council decisions and forcing speaker to call a council meeting just for this perpose. Only a majority of councillors can force the Speaker to call a council meeting. If he does not , these councillors can call on the coursts to intervine.

    DA at mercy of NPP or they must just wait for next council meeting to put in motion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s