Christopher Glen Santana

Attendance

Present

63

Leave of absence

1

Absent without leave

0

Arrived late

0

Left early

1

Reasons given for leave: Other (1).

"Absent without leave" means the signed minutes of a meeting held while they were on council neither list them as present nor excuse them, and no similar name appears that day, so misspellings in the minutes don't count against anyone. Each square links to the minutes.

In the chamber

From the 10 sittings transcribed so far in their term. Times are approximate, to the nearest transcript line.

Not present when called

0

Times given the floor

17

Average wait to start

7 s

Average greetings first

1 s

Apology or leave of absence (1)

• 25 Jun 2026 · 00:54:36Leaving early. Leaving at 16:00. sitting

Warned or stopped by the chair (2)

• 26 Aug 2026 · 03:19:59The chair told Santana to switch off his microphone. sitting
• 24 Jun 2026 · 02:17:19Chair ordered him to sit. sitting

In their words

Every time the chair gave them the floor in a transcribed sitting (17), newest first. The words are the AI transcript of that stretch of the livestream (Argon), so they can include the chair or an interjection; the time link is the place to check.

• 30 Sept 2026 · 07:34:13Items 18 and 19: MFMA in-year financial reports · 11 min 14 s

  Read what they said (1559 words)

  Thank you, Speaker. Speaker, I rise to speak on item 18 first. Um the City of Johannesburg MFMA in-year financial report for the period ended 30th of June. Speaker, this report is supposed to provide Council with the assurance that the city is managing public financials responsibly. Instead, it raises serious questions about the city's financial sustainability. The headline figure is simple: revenue is only 0.4% ahead of budget,

  but expenditure is 6% over budget, a staggering 4.8 billion overspend. The result is an operating deficit of approximately 1.2 billion against the budgeted surplus of 3.2 billion. That is a swing of more than 4.4 billion rand from what Council approved. Speaker, that is not a minor variance; it's a warning. The city's revenue performance cannot carry expenditure that is running substantially ahead of budget. And when we look at the detail, the

  picture becomes more concerning. Bulk purchases were 3.1 billion over budget, debt impairment was 2 billion over budget, and inventory consumed was more than 450 million over budget. But at the same time, water revenue was 1.17 billion below budget, with the report attributing this partly to throttling, economic pressure, conservation, and significant non-revenue water losses. Speaker, this is a fundamental problem. The city is losing revenue where it should be collecting it,

  while spending more than it budgeted to spend. That is not a sustainable financial model. Then we come to the debtors book. The city's total book stood approximately 76.7 billion at the year-end. That's more than, and more than 55.6 billion of that is debt older than one year. DA has consistently argued that the city must improve revenue collection and aggressively address long-outstanding debt while distinguishing between genuine inability

  to pay and deliberate non-payment. But collection must also be supported by accurate billing. You cannot expect residents to pay bills they cannot understand or that are disputed because the city's own systems are not functioning properly. Speaker, the report itself confirms another serious problem: the city does not have, does not yet have a fully operational mSCOA system for transacting. The city is still relying on interim reporting solutions and a hybrid SAP processing involving manual interventions.

  After years of municipal financial reporting requirements, that should concern every member of this Council. Good financial governance depends on reliable, integrated, and timely financial information. If management cannot obtain clean information from its systems, then Council cannot exercise effective oversight. Speaker, capital expenditure provides another important lesson. The city reports capital expenditure of 6.1 billion, or 72% of the 8.4 billion adjusted budget.

  But the performance is uneven. Pikitup spent only 22% of its capital budget, Joburg Water only spent 63%, the core administration spent approximately 64%, Economic Development recorded zero capital expenditure against its allocation. Speaker, this matters because capital expenditure is not just an accounting line; it's an investment into the city's future. It's water infrastructure, it's electricity infrastructure,

  it's roads, it's public facilities. It's the infrastructure required to support economic growth and reliable service delivery. And where capital budgets are not spent, residents ultimately pay the price through deteriorating infrastructure and growing maintenance backlogs. Speaker, we must also look at liquidity. The city ended with a cash equivalence of approximately 2.8 billion, but the cash flow statement shows a 7.8 billion net decrease from financing activities, including significant repayments of borrowings.

  The city also received 952 million long-term loan during the June's cash movements. This Council therefore needs to be extremely careful about relying on borrowing to support financial sustainability. Debt is not revenue. A loan cannot fund productive infrastructure, a loan can fund productive infrastructure, but it cannot permanently solve a structural operating deficit. Speaker, the report also tells us that City Power, JRA, JOSHCO, Metrobus, and other municipal entities remain overdrawn within the city's

  sweeping arrangements. This reinforces the need for genuine reform of the city's financial relationship with its municipal entities. We need transparent entity-level accountability. We need to know which entities are financially sustainable, which require intervention, and what measurable turnaround plans are in place. Speaker, the DA therefore calls for three things from this report. Firstly, expenditure discipline. A 4.8 billion operating overspend cannot simply become another year-end variance. The executive

  must identify where expenditure is exceeding budget, why is it happening, and what corrective action will prevent future recurrence. Second, revenue reform. The city must improve billing accuracy, collection efficiency, debt recovery, and reduction of water and electricity losses. The June collection rate was 88.5%, while the budget assumption was 98.5%. That is a 690 million shortfall against adjusted collection budget for that month. Finally, accountability and transparency.

  The Section 71 reports must be more than a statutory compliance exercise; it must provide Council with an early warning system. If expenditure is running at 6% above budget, Council must know before the crisis becomes irreversible. If revenue is falling behind, we must know why. If an entity is financially distressed, we must know what intervention is being implemented. And if corrective action repeatedly fails,

  there must be consequences. Speaker, the DA will continue to perform its role as a responsible opposition. We will scrutinize the numbers, challenge poor financial performance, and support reforms that protect the long-term sustainability of Johannesburg. Because ultimately, it's not about the spreadsheets; it's about whether the city can keep the lights on. Madam Speaker, I'll move over to um item 19. Madam Speaker, uh I'll rise to speak on

  item 19, the MFMA in-year report for the period ending 31st of July. Madam Speaker, this report highlights a fundamental problem facing Joburg. There's a growing gap between what this administration budgets for and what it actually delivers. The administration may point to a reported 2.1 billion operating surplus, but Council must look beyond the headline figure and ask what is happening to the city's infrastructure, services, and long-term financial stability. The city's adjusted capital budget is

  approximately 8.8 billion, yet by the end of July, only 91 million, just 1%, had actually been spent. That is deeply concerning. This report indicates that no core department had commenced capital spending, while only five municipal entities had begun spending. Speaker, Johannesburg does not have an infrastructure shortage because there is no money in the budget; it has an implementation problem. Residents do not experience a capital budget; they experience potholes, burst pipes, failing infrastructure, unreliable services, and deteriorating

  public facilities. Money sitting in a budget does not repair a road or replace a water pipe; implementation does. We therefore need the administration to explain clearly and publicly what is preventing the city from turning approved capital budgets into actual projects. Speaker, the city's cash position is equally concerning. At the end of July, cash and cash equivalents stood at approximately 2 billion, having declined by approximately 834 million during the month.

  Operating cash flow was negative by approximately 648 million. At the same time, the city's debtors stood at 79 billion. That's 79 billion owed to the city, and yet the report acknowledges that the SAP system is not currently configured to provide service charge information for periods exceeding 90 days. We must ask a very basic question: how can the city effectively manage a 79 billion debtors book if its systems cannot provide complete information on aged debt?

  This is simply not an IT issue; it's a financial governance issue. The report once again also states the city does not yet have an mSCOA system for transacting and is relying on interim reporting solutions. Council needs reliable, timely, and complete financial information if we are to exercise meaningful oversight. Speaker, revenue collection provides another warning. The city collected approximately 5.8 billion against billing of 6.4 billion, a collection rate of 90.2%.

  Well, that is an improvement from the previous month and in the financial year, it's whether that is sustainable. But here's where the problem lies: water collection was only 78.3%, while refuse collection was 77.6%. The report records a 22% under-recovery in water service charges. These numbers matter because the revenue collection ultimately determines the city's ability to maintain infrastructure and deliver service. The DA therefore welcomes every legitimate effort to improve collection,

  but we need more than periodic disconnection campaigns. We need a sustainable revenue management system that identifies debt accurately, deals with chronic non-payment, improves billing systems, and ensures that those who can pay, do pay. Speaker, the DA believes that the Council must demand measurable accountability. We therefore call for monthly reporting on capital expenditure against project-level targets, clear reasons and corrective measures where projects fail to meet those targets, a credible plan to address the city's

  79 billion debtors book, the urgent progress on the city's financial system and mSCOA implementation, and a stronger oversight of municipal entities experiencing significant financial pressures. Every corrective action must have a deadline, a responsible official, and a measurable outcome, because a corrective action without a deadline is simply a promise, and a budget without implementation is simply a number on a spreadsheet. Speaker, the GLU government cannot expect Council to focus only on reported operating

  surpluses while capital expenditure remains at 1%, cash is under pressure, and debtors stands at 79 billion, and significant gap remains in the city's financial systems. The DA will scrutinize the numbers, but more importantly, will scrutinize the outcomes. I thank you, Madam Speaker.

• 30 Sept 2026 · 06:46:31Item 14: Financial sustainability background paper · 3 min 19 s

  Read what they said (517 words)

  Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on item 14, the background paper, Financial Sustainability in the City of Johannesburg: Oversight Priorities. Madam Speaker, this report actually highlights the frustration that Group Finance Committee dealt with in this term. Not foregoing that we've had seven Finance Chairpersons, I think it's five MMCs of Finance, and yet this is a critical committee in the whole

  of the City of Johannesburg, tracking the spending and the revenue for the City of Johannesburg, and yet we have been continuously hampered by actually having meetings, having reports, and trying to deal with these issues. And although this report alludes to us wanting reports with regards to the turnaround strategy performance and implementation, and who's responsible, and consequence management on that, again, it's a request. And I doubt

  whether, unfortunately, whether we'd ever get these reports, although we will insist on them as a committee and as the Democratic Alliance. The biggest problem with all of the stuff, it also doesn't give us any targets, any deadlines, or any accountable officers with regards to the implementation of the turnaround strategies that are being passed through council. And I think that's where we need to start looking at is who is responsible, who's going to be accountable, what measures are going to be

  put in place timeously to deal with corrective actions so that we're not waiting quarter and quarter and quarter for reports, which then become so distorted. I do believe that if we get reports, let's say, one for the first quarter to do a three-month on the quarter, an analysis, and if there are corrective measures, then we should be looking at reports that are coming monthly to Group Finance in order to assess whether any of those corrective actions have been implemented and who

  is then accountable to ensure that those are implemented and the corrective action is actually taken. Again, this document highlights, as I've said, the downfall of what we've been experiencing as Group Finance, and I'm saying this as a collective for all of us in that committee. And as Councillor Boer alluded to, most of us are quite astute with the financial position of the City of Johannesburg, and we would like to see proper reports coming that we can scrutinize,

  ask for the relevant implementations, and ask for the relevant corrective actions, and have the necessary timelines and deadlines, and obviously, the relevant accountable officials, including those that are from the entities. So let's not even, if it means we have to have the Board of Directors to come and report to Finance, it must be done. Otherwise, we are just putting a document again where we're going to be frustrated, and we're not seeing the city moving forward as a collective. In that saying, Madam Speaker, we note the report because

  I think it is for noting. I don't think there's much of approval on here, but it is for noting and obviously recommendation with regards to the reporting mechanisms that Group Finance would like to see. I thank you, Madam Speaker.

• 30 Sept 2026 · 02:11:18Item 27: General valuation roll extension · 1 min 57 s

  Read what they said (327 words)

  Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, um I rise to speak on item 27, the extension of the general valuation roll uh 2023 general valuation roll from the 30th of June 2027 to the 30th of June 2028. Madam Speaker, yeah, the report does highlight a lot of concerns uh with regards to capacity constraints, the loss of critical skills, the absence of a valuation panel, the procurement delays, system instability,

  and incomplete data from planning. But nowhere does this report highlight or give us confidence um with regards to what action's been taken, uh what consequence management has been taken against the relevant departments that are upholding or uh not allowing this department to actually function as intended. Um so yes, we are extremely concerned as the Democratic Alliance around the fact that this department has been so undercapacitated, um and literally this falls right and direct onto the City Manager

  for not dealing with these issues. Um yes, it does sadden me or sadden us for the fact that again, the city has in all the years I've been a Councillor never managed to do the general valuation roll within four years; we've always extended it to five years. Uh I think what's also lacking in this report is the timelines. When do we anticipate these issues to be resolved, and what are the consequences if they are not resolved? Because this puts a lot of pressure um, you know, on the next administration

  to deal with these issues and capacity constraints. Um, but that being said, we obviously also understand that uh it is where it is at this point in time; we need to be realistic in terms of how we're going to meet those obligations, and also ensure that we have a general valuation roll which is accurate and fair to residents. Um, so that being said, the Democratic Alliance will support the extension for the general valuation roll. Thank you, Speaker.

• 30 Sept 2026 · 01:21:58Item 17: Funding plan · 3 min 58 s

  Read what they said (630 words)

  Thank you, Speaker. Can you hear me, Speaker?

  Loud and clear.

  Thank you, Speaker. Morning, colleagues, morning, everyone. Thank you, Speaker, I'm speaking on item 17, the medium term capital funding plan for the City of Johannesburg. Madam Speaker, I'm a little bit perplexed as the Democratic Alliance under GNU insisting that we're passing some of these policies now and frameworks now, one month before an election. It's almost like they want to protect themselves from the new administration coming in

  to deal with these issues and stronghold in what needs to be done. So, I'm going to caution first that we should not be passing stuff that ultimately affects the next administration. They should be free to do what they are allowed to do. And where possible, if necessary, the Democratic Alliance will seek legal action to try and reverse some of these issues if they are implemented. But be that as it may, Madam Speaker, in essence,

  again, you're asking us to look at the financial medium term capital funding plan. There is a lot changed in the last couple of weeks and the last couple of months with regards to sustainability, financial sustainability and good governance. We have interest rates that are climbing. We have rising debt levels and repayment risks. This item is asking us to look at 10 billion in the long term. Although that's not a lot of money in the big scheme of things with regards to the city's infrastructure, in fact it's almost nothing

  in terms of what we owe in infrastructure and to deal with infrastructure, but the underlying issue here is we are pushing through stuff without necessarily having the new administration reviewing and possibly looking at other alternatives. The biggest issue I have is the entity borrowing under the SPOMA reform. Now, I'm not against that the entities take out their own, or we're not against that they take out their own funding. The problem here is the tracking thereof,

  and my understanding, of course, is that core would obviously then be what you call it, the guarantors of some of this loan funding. But it doesn't give us who is looking at in terms of the funding for each and every single one of these entities, whether it would be the board that approves the funding from their side and then it comes to Council for final approval, how is the funding model or mix going to be brought into the mix from the entity's point of view? So, the document for me is also lacking in terms of direction

  and in terms of how do we actually anticipate for these issues to unfold and who's going to be ultimately responsible at the end of the day. Obviously, we're not against off-balance sheet funding, it's something that we're going to have to look at anyway. But the biggest issue that I have also in this report is that the report refers to under the recommendations that the city reports over 90% collection. And yet every single report that we get states that we have failed to meet 90% and over. In fact, we're only at 87%.

  So, the report itself again is also misleading, stating that the city has collected over 90% when factually we have not. So, we have a problem there as well that we are perceiving to have certain collection targets that we have not factually met. So, there are huge problems on this report as a whole. And again I'm saying this should be deferred to the new administration after elections for it to come to Council and us for them to consider and look at possible outcomes. So, that being said, Madam Speaker, the Democratic Alliance does not support this item. Thank you.

• 26 Aug 2026 · 01:55:56Items 1 and 2 · 6 min 45 s

  Read what they said (923 words)

  Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on item one and two, the City of Johannesburg MFMA in-year financial report for the period ended 30th of April and the 31st of May 2026. Madam Speaker, let us call this what it is. It's another warning sign that the ANC-led coalition government is failing to get Johannesburg finances under control. The numbers are not political rhetoric. They come from the city's own reports. In April, Johannesburg had a year-to-date surplus of 752.5 million. One month later, that became a R18.3 million deficit against the budgeted surplus of 1.2 billion. That's a deterioration of approximately 1.2 billion in one month.

  And yet, revenue was not the problem. The city collected 78.4 billion, which was above the budget. The problem was expenditure at 78.402 billion, 2.583 billion above the budget. So, when residents are told that Johannesburg's financial difficulties are simply because people are not paying their accounts, they deserve to know the full truth. In part, that is correct. People need to pay their accounts. But the city's own numbers show that the expenditure is running out of control. Madam Speaker, then we look at the cash. Cash and investments collapsed from 3.8 or 3.9 billion in March to 1.6 billion in April.

  At the same time, creditors increased by 3.5 billion in a single month, reaching R12.4 billion. That's not a balance sheet of a municipality that has finances under its control. And who pays the price? The residents and businesses of Johannesburg. Contractors who are not paid stop working. Maintenance is delayed. Infrastructure deteriorates, and eventually the city pays more because suppliers lose confidence in doing business with Johannesburg. The report itself records that previous non-payments have been made to some contractors and they're reluctant to undertake work for the city, more specifically within City Power.

  Madam Speaker, then we come to the capital expenditure. The governing coalition can announce billions of rands in infrastructure budgets, but a budget is meaningless if the city cannot spend it. By May, one month remaining in the financial year, only 52% of the 8.424 billion capital budget has been spent. Pikitup was sitting just at 16%, Joburg Water at 49. And while Pikitup failed to invest adequately in its fleet, it was forced to hire an ad hoc fleet at additional operational costs. This is the definition of financial mismanagement, failing to invest in assets while spending more to compensate for not having it.

  Madam Speaker, we also have the conditional grants sitting at only 50% of performance. National Treasury withheld 456 million in equitable share and 158 million in the USDG funding, and the city must also return 200 million in the PTNG funding and 22.4 million in the UDFG funding. While Johannesburg residents are crying out for better roads, water infrastructure, electricity and basic services, the administration is putting available funding at risk. That's not a funding crisis, that is an implementation crisis.

  Madam Speaker, how can we expect sound financial management when the very offices responsible for it have become a revolving door? During this political term alone, Johannesburg's had four different MMCs of Finances and now seven different Chairpersons of Finance Committee. You cannot build financial

  stability on political instability and this is a constant turn and has undermined the continuity and accountability needed to manage the city's finance uh the city's finances in the Joburg scale.

  Madam Speaker, and then there's the issue that should concern every councillor in the chamber. We can't Can we trust the financial information being placed before the council? The reports contain material inconsistencies. We have conflict cash flow figures,

  revenue variances described in the opposite direction to actual tables, an incorrect capital expenditure figure, a collection intervention figure in May that appears to simply repeat those reported in April, and these are not matters that we can simply wave away as administration errors. If council is expected to exercise oversight over billions of rands, then information before placed before council must be accurate.

  You cannot have a council government without credible information. Madam Speaker, the Democratic Alliance has been warning this council about financial stability, weak revenue collection, poor capital expenditure, mounting creditors and deteriorating service delivery. These reports vindicate those warnings. The DA's position is straightforward: residents must pay for services where they can afford to pay, government must protect the vulnerable, but government itself must also live within its means.

  We cannot demand financial discipline from residents while this administration allows expenditure to run billions over budget. We cannot tell residents that there's no money for infrastructure while billions in capital allocations remain unspent, and we certainly cannot expect residents to have confidence in the government when council receive reports containing material contradictions. Madam Speaker, this is why the DA will continue to demand financial discipline, transparent reporting, consequence management, improved revenue collection,

  accelerated infrastructure delivery, and value for every rand spent. The people of Johannesburg do not need another exercise, they need competent government, they need functional services, they need clean and accountable administration, and they need a government that understands that public money is not government money, it belongs to the people. This government coalition has had enough time to blame the past. It's now time to take responsibility for the present.

  Johannesburg deserves better than the financial decline disguised as political management. The Democratic Alliance will continue to hold this administration accountable, because every rand wasted is a rand taken away from service delivery. I thank you.

• 26 Aug 2026 · 01:43:44Recommendations to council · 12 s

  Read what they said (34 words)

  Thank you, Speaker. Can we also just then combine items one and two, please, if you don't mind?

  Pardon?

  Can you please combine items one and two? The MFMA reporting for April and May.

• 22 Jul 2026 · 04:04:36Items 14-16 (Group Finance and GICT) · 3 min 43 s

  Read what they said (479 words)

  Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, the third quarter performance report before Council shows a city still speaking about recovery, while the numbers tell a far more serious story. The administration points to isolated improvements and an operating surplus, but the detail shows a municipality struggling to collect revenue, maintain liquidity, spend infrastructure budgets and pay suppliers on time. For residents, performance is not measured in presentations. It's measured by whether water flows,

  the lights stay on, refuse is collected, roads are maintained and businesses can invest with confidence. On these basic expectations, the report shows that Johannesburg remains far from where it should be. The first concern is revenue collection. By the end of the third quarter, the city had collected only 84.4% of billed revenue, below its own 90% target. Joburg Water collected only 73.8% and Pikitup only 74.6%.

  By March 2026, the city had billed 55.8 billion, but only collected 47.3 billion, leaving nearly 8.5 billion uncollected. Madam Speaker, the debtors book is even more alarming. Consumer debtors has reached 73.7 billion, with 66.7 billion older than 90 days. More than 90% of the debtors book is already at high risk. Every rand that remains uncollected places more pressure

  on compliant residents who continue to pay their municipal accounts. The city's liquidity position is also deeply concerning. Cash coverage only at five days against a benchmark of roughly 30 days to 90 days. Its current ratio is only 0.82:1, meaning current liabilities exceed current assets. That is not the profile of a financially healthy metropolitan municipality. The March cash improvements coincide with 6.8 billion

  in grants and subsidies. Grant funding is important, but it cannot permanently compensate for weak collections and declining liquidity. Perhaps the most serious concern is the city's inability to convert budgets into infrastructure delivery. Three-quarters of the year have passed, yet only 40.6% of the adjusted capital budget had been spent, around 5 billion remaining unspent. The services entities shows the scale of the problem:

  Johannesburg Water only spent 17% of its capital budget, City Power 29% and Pikitup 27%. Residents cannot drink capital budgets, drive on procurement plans or switch on strategic frameworks. They need infrastructure to be built and maintained. Madam Speaker, supplier payments are another warning sign. The city also continues to miss the legally prescribed 30-day payment period. Group Finance achieved only 83.09% and GICT

  only 85.05%. Thousands of invoices were not paid on time.

  You've got 10 seconds, Councillor.

  The city's own reports acknowledge that some contractors have become reluctant to undertake City Power work because of previous non-payments. Late payments hurts residents because projects are delayed, maintenance is postponed and service delivery deteriorates. The suspension of the SAP's finance system project is also another example of governance failure. The project was halted because service providers were not paid. Madam Speaker, we note the report. Thank you.

• 25 Jun 2026 · 03:00:51Unknown · 9 s

  Read what they said (19 words)

  Madam Speaker, would this not constitute a financial item and requires majority vote plus one? So 136 votes? Question.

• 25 Jun 2026 · 02:40:0084 · 1 min 59 s

  Read what they said (398 words)

  Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, the Democratic Alliance has concerns with regards to this report. Uhm the issues that we are concerned about is this project's been ongoing for 10 years, literally 10 years. The questions we have is, why was this not then budgeted for in the budget that we passed last month? Why is it coming now? It raises a lot of red flags for us in the sense that is this something that we are unaware of? It's been delayed time and time again,

  so clearly there is a fundamental issue with this item. Uhm and we don't know how much we're going to be funding, whether the 50 million is the final or is there continuous funding thereafter. The report is not clear in how much we are expected to contribute. Uhm I do understand that between the DBSA and ourselves, we were the co-funders as well. Uh, but we are not seeing uh value for money on this issue, and we're not seeing whether this is actually going to be the finalized part. And again, we're raising the question of why was it not then budgeted

  for, if it's so critical, in the budget that came to Council last month? So, Madam Speaker, with that being said, we would actually like this report to be referred to MPAC for investigation, try and understand what's going on and unpack it, uhm and try and get investigations as to why this has been so delayed. Why has it not been uh pushed by the DBSA, if it is the case that there's money? Uh my gut feel is obviously it's something that the DBSA funded and we did not uh put up our part in and we have to pay them back, that's if I have to be honest

  with myself and try and just try and connect the dots. Uhm it seems they we didn't commit to something that we should have, and hence we're paying DBSA because we had failed to implement what should have been implemented. And therefore we would like this to be referred to MPAC for investigation. I would urge Council not to support this at this point in time until we have the understanding of what's transpired on this project and why it has been so delayed. I thank you, Madam Speaker. The DA does not support this.

• 25 Jun 2026 · 02:11:3679, 80 and 81 · 5 min 0 s

  Read what they said (622 words)

  Thank you, Speaker. I think we must just all just vote for the Democratic Alliance.

  Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, the financial snapshot before us is not a technical footnote. It's a warning light flashing red across the dashboard of the City of Johannesburg. By February 2026, the city had collected revenue that was only 1% above budget, at about 740 million more than planned, yet operating expenditure was already 4% over budget, roughly 2.3 billion rand over the plan.

  The result is stark. Instead of the budgeted 1.1 billion surplus, the city is sitting with an operating deficit of approximately 418 million. That is the difference between responsible government and financial drift. Residents are paying more, but the city is not converting enough of the billing into reliable cash, working infrastructure, or dependable services.

  The number confirms what the community is experiencing every day: a city that bills aggressively, spends loosely, collects weakly, and delivers too slowly. And nowhere is this more visible than in the capital delivery. Council approved an 8.7 billion rand capital budget for the 2025/2026, but by February, only 2.6 billion had been spent, just 30% of the program.

  Every delayed project means another transformer not upgraded, another water leak not repaired, another road not rehabilitated, and another community left waiting for basic services that they'd already paid for. The cash position deepens the concern. In February, the cash and cash investments fell from approximately 1.8 billion to 1.4 billion, a monthly decrease of about 400 million, and the sinking fund decline of 42.3 million,

  while interest rate swaps recorded a negative movement of 47.2 million. These are not abstract accounting entries; they are early signs of tightening liquidity, and if ignored, they will affect suppliers, service continuity, and ultimately residents. The debtors book is equally alarming. Arrears across water, electricity, and property rates remain heavily concentrated in the over-90-day bracket. Debt impairment is placing growing pressure on the income statement,

  with impairment costs running at elevated levels. Madam Speaker, a municipality cannot build a stable future if it keeps billing residents without collecting what it's owed, while allowing arrears to pile up month after month. The city's entities reflect the same instability. City Power faces large cash flow swings while the grid remains under pressure. Johannesburg Water is burdened by arrears and non-revenue water,

  even as residents endure leaks, outages, and service interruptions. Pikitup's performance remains uneven, with service reliability exposed whenever cash tightens. These are not isolated problems; they are symptoms of a city's government that has lost control of the basics. The Democratic Alliance proposes the following remedies to immediately address some of these issues: Expenditure discipline now, freeze non-essential operating spending, and re-baseline contracted services and other operating costs.

  Align bulk purchase to realistic expectations. Accelerate capital where it counts. Fast-track shovel-ready, high-impact projects in power distribution, water leak reduction, and road rehabilitation. Clear supply chain bottlenecks with weekly CapEx war room tracking until delivery surpasses 85% by the year run date.

  Revenue protection and collections: Target the top 1,000 arrear accounts across government, business, and high-usage residentials with escalated credit control. Ring-fence revenue streams at high-collection depots, and intensify meter auditing and tampering enforcement. Cash and treasury stabilization: Strengthen daily cash monitoring, squeeze payments to safeguard service continuity,

  review swap and investment positions to cut volatility and lock in low-risk structures. Entity performance focus: City Power, curb technical and non-technical losses, tie management incentives to loss reduction and collection uplift. Johannesburg Water, prioritize non-revenue water projects with measurable monthly loss cuts. Madam Speaker,

  life was taken, and his sin was because he's Tsonga, coming from Giyani.

  We must never ever stop talking about Hlamulo Sambo. Justice for Hlamulo Sambo. Thank you.

• 24 Jun 2026 · 07:12:1782 · 2 min 37 s

  Read what they said (379 words)

  Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, as councilors, it's our duty to scrutinize the proposed amendments to the debt to the city's Debt Relief Program and ensure that the interest of all residents and long-term financial health of the Johannesburg is protected. We recognize the urgent need to assist financially distressed residents, businesses, and community organizations. The program's broad coverage and the processing of over 11,000 applications demonstrates both the scale of the challenge and the city's willingness to act.

  However, we must raise several concerns. The projected 11.7 billion in debt write-off is significant, yet the report lacks a detailed feasibility study and does not provide the calculations or assumptions behind this figure or the anticipated 6 billion in improvement to collections. There is no breakdown of the write-off between property rates, service charges, interest, and fees, making it difficult to assess the true impact on municipality's revenue.

  The program may reduce municipal revenue in the short term, potentially affecting service delivery. By allowing previously beneficiaries to reapply without evidence of improved payment behavior, we risk encouraging a culture of nonpayment and repeated reliance on relief. The risks of inaccurate customer metering or income information could lead to incorrect approvals and undermine the program's integrity.

  Customers who do not qualify may perceive the program is unfair, especially if eligibility criteria are not communicated transparently or enforced consistently. Madam Speaker, also what we require is the understanding or the proposed loyalty reward scheme with clear published rules to incentivize the regular payment. I think that's the part that's lacking around this whole Debt Relief Program is the

  pronouncement of the loyalty reward scheme, but we have no policy in how that's going to play out, so we obviously request that that actually comes sooner than later. Madam Speaker, we support the principle in debt relief for those in genuine need, but it must be balanced with accountability, transparency, and the city's long-term financial stability. We urge council to adopt these amendments only with the necessary safeguards, oversight in place, ensuring relief today does not become a burden for tomorrow.

  Madam Speaker, the Democratic Alliance supports the debt relief as I am the co-author of this policy to begin with, together with Jolidee from the ANC, and I thank you.

• 24 Jun 2026 · 05:29:0271 · 5 min 7 s

  Read what they said (640 words)

  Thank you Speaker.

  Madam Speaker, the Democratic Alliance supports the principle of financial sustainability or sustainable municipal entities. We support infrastructure investment. We support reducing electricity losses, reducing non-revenue water, improving revenue collection, strengthening maintenance programs, and restoring confidence in the City Power, Joburg Water, and Pikitup. However, support for the objective cannot be confused with support for this report. Our opposition

  is not because reform is unnecessary, quite the opposite. The item asks council to approve a substantial reform program without the necessary governance processes being completed and without adequate oversight scrutiny by the relevant council structures. This report before us is, in many respects, an admission of failure. It acknowledges the city faces a severe financial crisis.

  It acknowledges electricity losses of approximately 30%. It acknowledges non-revenue water levels approaching 45%. It acknowledges declining collection rates. It acknowledges a structural funding gap running into hundreds or, in this case, billions of rands annually. It acknowledges that City Power remains financially distressed and dependent on an undocumented sweeping arrangement. These are not circumstances that emerged overnight. They are the cumulative

  consequences of years of governance failures, poor financial management, weak oversight, inadequate maintenance, and delayed decision-making. The report repeatedly references accountability, transparency, governance reform, and improved oversight. Yet the process followed in bringing the item to council contradicts those very principles. A program of this magnitude should have been subjected to robust scrutiny by the relevant Section 79 oversight committees. It should have been

  presented to the oversight committees responsible for Finance, Environment and Infrastructure Services, and Group Governance. It should have been deliberated through the relevant joint committees given the extensive implication for governance, treasury management, infrastructure investment, municipal entities, borrowing, asset management, and future budget requirements. Instead, council is being asked to approve broad principles and mandates before the necessary oversight processes have taken place. That is not good governance.

  Oversight is not a box-ticking exercise. Oversight exists to test assumptions, interrogate risks, examine affordabilities, challenge implementation plans, and ensure accountability before decisions are adopted. This new report itself confirms that critical governance prerequisites remain outstanding. The delegation of the authority matrix is not yet approved. And yet you're asking us to approve this item before all of those items.

  Revenue-sharing agreements are not yet in place. The ring-fenced banking arrangements are not operational. Key appointments remain outstanding. The City Power sweeping balance remains unresolved. Yet council is being asked to endorse a reform program whose success depends on precisely these governance mechanisms being implemented. That is putting the cart before the horse. Madam Speaker, the report also relies heavily on future projections,

  anticipated efficiencies, projected revenue improvements, and planned reforms. What is noticeably absent is sufficient evidence that the current administration has the implementation capacity to deliver on these ambitions. Residents do not experience service delivery through strategy documents. Residents experience service delivery through functioning substations, reliable electricity supply, repaired water leaks, working wastewater infrastructure, cleaner streets, and responsive municipal services.

  The city has adopted many plans over the years. The challenge has never been planning, the challenge has been execution. The DA believes that the reforms of this nature require credibility, transparency, and accountability. They require proper committee scrutiny, sorry. They require formal oversight consideration. They require measurable reporting frameworks that are debated and tested before approval. Most importantly, they require an administration that reports consistently and comprehensively to council oversight structures.

  Unfortunately, this report arrives before those governance requirements have been satisfied. For that reason, while we support the goal of achieving a financially sustainable trading services, we cannot support the process that has been followed. The Democratic Alliance therefore rejects item 71 and calls for the matter to be referred back to the proper consideration by the relevant oversight and joint committee structures before any final council approval is contemplated. I thank you.

• 24 Jun 2026 · 03:05:5666 · 7 min 37 s

  Read what they said (1047 words)

  Thank you, Councillor. Um Councillor Santana, DA.

  Yoh, we are twins.

  Okay. Madam Speaker, today we are considering a Financial Turnaround Framework that is both necessary and long overdue. Let us acknowledge Let's begin by acknowledging the uncomfortable truth contained within this report. Johannesburg is facing a sys- a systemic financial crisis. The report paints a sobering picture of the municipality with a cash coverage of approximately 5 days, a debtors book of 73.7 billion, non-revenue water loss- losses approaching 45%,

  electricity losses approximately 30%, repairs and maintenance spending at roughly half of the accepted benchmark, and a combined infrastructure backlog exceeding 200 billion. These are not merely accounting concerns. They translate directly into water outages, electricity failure, deteriorating roads, declining service delivery, and a growing frustration among residents. The Democratic Alliance therefore welcomes the fact that the administration has finally acknowledged the scale of the problem and has attempted to consolidate multiple financial recovery initiatives into a signa- single measurable framework.

  Madam Speaker, the most important sentence in the entire document appears near the beginning of the report. It states that the Johannesburg already has significant plans, technical int- interventions, and diagnostic reports, and that the problem is not an the absence of plans, but the persistent failure to convert plans into visible, measurable outcomes. That statement is absolutely true. Johannesburg crisis has never been a shortage of strategies. It's been a shortage of implementation.

  We have adopt We have adopted plans before. We have commissioned reports before. We have approved fra- frameworks before. What residents are waiting for is delivery. The success of this framework will therefore not be measured by how many meetings are held, how many dashboards are produced, or how many presentations are circulated. It will be measured by whether the residents experience fewer water outages, fewer power disruptions, cleaner streets, improved customer service, and better infrastructure reliability.

  Madam Speaker, the report correctly identifies the structural weakness that have brought the city to this point. National Treasury has identified serious concerns regarding budget credibility, revenue assumption, infrastructure investment, governance reforms, audit weakness, and service delivery performance. The city's debtors book contains continues to grow despite collection efforts. Cash reserves remain critically low, capital spending remains below acceptable levels, repairs and maintenance rema- remains well below benchmark levels.

  These realities cannot be ignored. The Democratic Alliance particularly welcomes the report's honest honesty regarding the sweeping arrangements of the structural distortions it has created. For years, Johannesburg Water surpluses have effectively subsidized City Power's deficits without formal revenue siri- sharing agreements, without transparent performance conditions, and without sufficient accountability. The result has been an uninve- an underinvestment in crittle in critical infrastructure and growing financial instability across the municipal entities.

  The framework's proposal to move towards a transparent, rule-based, and accountable financial agreement is a necessary reform that should be that should have happened years ago. Madam Speaker, the DA also welcomes the report's recognition that the Johannesburg's financial challenges are not so- solely self-inflicted. The inclusion of the unfunded mandates as a structure structural contributor to municipal finances distress is an important acknowledgement. For many years, municipalities have been

  expected to carry increasing respons- responsibilities while receiving insufficient financial support from higher spheres of government. This places enormous pressures on municipality's finances and diverts resources away from core infrastructure investment and maintenance. Recognizing this reality is important if we are serious about long-term sustainability. Madam Speaker, the Democratic Alliance welcomes the inclusion of Pillar 7 dealing with the personnel expenditure and staff establish- establish- staff establishment audit.

  This further strengthens the Financial Turnaround Framework through an independent personnel expenditure and staff establishment audit across core administration and all the ent- municipal entities. This is framed as a fis- fiscal discipline, governance, and service delivery intervention in direct support of the framework's expenditure containment, performance management, and accountability objectives. It is not an indiscriminate staff re- reduction exercise. The audit shall include verification of all employees against the approved staff establishment,

  payroll, identity, attendance, and work location re- records, with specific testing for ghost workers, duplicate records, inactive employees, unauthorized appointments, and employees remunerated outside approved stru- structure, verification that each post remains necessary as well as funded, properly filled, and linked to a current service delivery or statutory function. Verification of employee qualifications, professional registrations, and competency re- requirements in terms in accordance with

  the Local Government Municipal Staff Regulations of 2021. The assessment of whether employees are performing their designated functions and whether underperformance has been addressed through law- lawful pro- uh performance management processes, review of overtime, acting allowances, scarce skills allowances, standby pay, leave in encashment, travel and subsidies claims to confirm um legality, affordability, and continuing necessary necessity, reviewing

  all staff-linked recurring contracts, this being cell phones, data services, vehicle fuel cards, et cetera. To confirm necessity and cost-effectiveness, verification that the Municipal Manager and senior management's remuneration complies with upper limits prescribed under the Municipal Systems Act of 2000. And the verification that councillors' remuneration, allowances, benefits comply with Remuneration of Public Office Bearers Act of 1998. The inclusion of Pillar 7 improves the framework and makes it more uh reflective

  of realities facing in metropolitan municipalities. Uh we obviously as the uh Deputy Mayor alluded to that this is a living document, so hopefully we can then include how this then uh impacts the the board members and the appointments of directors through the entities by the board members. This document needs to be obviously updated to reflect that. Over and above that, the document also needs to be reflect in terms of the overview to increase um Pillar 7. Madam Speaker, we must also ensure a clear warning.

  59 seconds.

  Uh the greatest risk to the framework is not diagnostic. The diagnosis is largely accurate. The greatest risk is implementation failure. I'm going to just move fast so we can get past there. The city cannot afford the Sorry, the DA therefore supports this framework while exercising rigorous oversight over its implementation. Uh but we will also hold the administration accountable for every commitments contained in this report. Joburg does not need another strategy; Joburg needs results. The true test begins the day after this framework is adopted. The Democratic Alliance supports this item. Thank you.

• 28 May 2026 · 05:55:36Item 4 · 25 s

  Read what they said (83 words)

  Thank you, Madam Speaker. How do you know what I'm going to say? Madam Speaker, uh the only thing I am going to say is um I would obviously hope that we don't get into a situation where we continuously extend the contract like we did the last time since 2016, about nine times for the same thing. Um so, we are in agreement because of this is part of the trading reforms for the entities. So, thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

• 28 May 2026 · 03:38:44Item 3 · 10 min 25 s

  Read what they said (1378 words)

  Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, the Executive Deputy Mayor finally discovered the language of fiscal discipline: building Johannesburg together, investing today, securing tomorrow. The tragedy is that her government discovered it only years after fiscal vandalism. It arrives there after decades of political cowardice, cadre deployment, collapsed accountability, and a governing philosophy that treated ratepayers

  as an endless ATM while infrastructure quietly rotten beneath our feet. And now, after presiding over decline, the ANC asks to be congratulated for noticing the fire while standing in the smoke. The truth is simple. This is not a budget of renewal. It's an election year budget of excuses, tariff hikes, and recycled promises from the very people who broke the city's finances and neglected infrastructure, and now claim they want to save.

  Madam Speaker, the budget for 2026/27 financial year is as follows: operating revenue 90.4 billion, operating expenditure 88.3 billion, projected surplus 2.1 billion before taxes and capital grants, and capital budget of 8.8 billion, being a total budget of 97.1 billion for the 2026/27 financial year. To the average man in the street, this sounds impressive,

  but the devil's in the detail, and the detail shows a government that is asking residents to pay more while failing to fix the very infrastructure that would allow Joburg to grow, attract investment, create jobs, and broaden the revenue base. The tariff increases for 2026/27 is reported as follows: property rates at 3.6, electricity at 8.63, water at 12.5, sanitation 11, and refuse at 6.2.

  Madam Speaker, this is the heart of the matter. Johannesburg residents are being punished twice, first through collapsed services, and then again through higher tariffs to pay for the collapse. The ANC-led government has chosen the easiest route: squeeze the same ratepayers harder every year instead of fixing the city so that more businesses, more workers, and more households can contribute to the rates and the tariff base.

  The Deputy Mayor stated in her speech yesterday that the sanitation tariff on the multi-dwellings for sizes 300 to 1,000 square meters will have a 0% increase, providing interim relief while alternative structures are modeling for 2027/28. The relief is farcical, as most multi-dwelling units are between erf sizes 20 to 300 square meters. Once again, there is no rational agreement to increase the sanitation charge by 11% for residential properties

  if the charge is based on erf sizes. It should be increased in line with the property rates of 3.6. The other contentious issue is the water demand levy increasing by 65.6% without any explanation. Possibly that's where the relief is hidden for the sanitation tariffs on the multi-dwelling units with the erf sizes of 300 to 1,000 and why they get their 0% increase. An economist says there's no such thing as a free lunch.

  There's also no such thing as endless affordability. At some point, higher tariffs on the shrinking and struggling base do not rescue revenue. They destroy compliance, drive nonpayment, push investment away, and make honest residents question why they should keep paying more for less. Madam Speaker, a city losing 44.7 of its water and 27% of its electricity, and collecting 86% of its budgeted revenue,

  equates to the following under operating expenditure. Other losses for water is 3.7 billion, bulk purchases of 27% loss equates to approximately 5.5 billion, the debt impairment of 10.5 billion. That equates to a total cost of losses of approximately 19.7 billion for the 2026/2027 financial year. This is the cost that every rand lost through illegal connections, metering, tampering,

  billing weakness, nonpayment, and water losses. That is money lost that cannot repair Johannesburg and represents almost 22% of the operating expenditure budget. This is the cost of ANC failure. It's the price residents pay when pipes are not fixed, substations are not secured, billing is not trusted, meters are not managed, and the city has lost control over the basic systems of government.

  Employee-related costs are 24.3 billion or 27.5% of the operating budget or expenditure. The increase of 6.5% represents a provisional or natural attrition of 2.5% and a PFA allocation of 1.2 billion that was implemented in the 25/26 financial year, still in violation of the Minister's letter declaring it illegal. Repairs and maintenance of 7.6 billion, or repairs and maintenance as a percentage of PPE at a ratio of 8.1,

  finally is in line with National Treasury's benchmark. But maintenance alone is not a turnaround. A city with a 220 billion rand infrastructure backlog cannot patch its way to prosperity. Johannesburg needs capital investment at scale, targeted at the infrastructure that makes daily life and economic activity possible: water, electricity, roads, stormwater, and public safety systems, and waste services. Madam Speaker, the PFA is estimated to cost roughly 10.3 billion.

  That is more than the capital budget of 8.8 billion, and represents 1.2 times more than the capital budget. With infrastructure backlog of 220 billion, sorry, any responsible government would have prioritized infrastructure. Instead, the capital budget is almost flat. The city's had a capital budget of 8.7 billion in 25/26, and now brings 8.8 billion in 26/27 against a 220 billion rand backlog. That is not a rescue plan.

  It's an admission that this government has no credible infrastructure turnaround. Worse, the cuts fall directly on areas residents see and feel every day. JRA capital expenditure drops from 916 million to 570 million. Transport drops from 573 million to 111 million. Health drops from 38 million to 14 million. Community development drops from 99 million

  to 16 million, and public safety drops from 41 million to 35 million. ICT drops from 420 million to 175 million. That means mSCOA is still going to remain dormant in a city where it is desperately needed. So when the Deputy Mayor says the budget is about securing tomorrow, the question is with which roads, which clinics, which transport systems, which community facilities, which safety systems, and which digital infrastructure? The funding sources for 2026/2027

  tell a story of a city unable to fund its own infrastructure, with the COJ loans at 3.5 billion or 39.9%, COJ cash at only 278 million or 3.2%, national grants at 4.5 billion or 51.7%, and provincial grants at 4.1 million, basically 0%, and others at 458 million or 5.2. Gone are the days when I was a councillor 13 years ago

  when the funding mix of City of Johannesburg was a third in loans, a third in cash, and a third in national and provincial grants. This is not financial strength. This is dependency. A city that contributes so much to the national economy should not be reduced to relying on grants and loans because its own finances have been hollowed out by poor governance, weak collection, waste, losses, and political choices. Madam Speaker, the DA's alternative is clear. We do not believe the answer

  is to test the Laffer curve every year by pushing tariffs higher and hoping residents will somehow keep paying. We believe in fixing infrastructure first, restoring confidence, attracting investment, growing businesses, creating jobs, and broadening the base of people and companies who pay for services. This is how a city grows without crushing residents. This is how rates and tariffs can eventually come down, not because political promises relief before an election,

  but because the city becomes functional, investable, and economically alive again. Reliable water and electricity are not technical luxuries. They are the foundations of employment. Every burst pipe, every outage, every pothole, every failed traffic light, and every missed refuse collection tell investors that Johannesburg is at risk. Fixing infrastructure is therefore not a service delivery issue, but is an economic growth strategy. The draft rates policy and the draft rates by-law pushing through,

  and these submissions specifically from JPOMA and others, can the Deputy Mayor ensure that this council has corrective measures in place and have been implemented to avoid unnecessary litigation? That being said, where are all the submissions relating to the budget from residents? I personally submitted comments on the IDP and on the tariffs on the prescribed form, yet cannot find any submission of any residents. Madam Speaker,

  unfortunately based on the time left what I have, the Democratic Alliance does not support this budget. Thank you.

• 28 May 2026 · 02:01:12Item 3: debate on the budget speech · 8 min 29 s

  Read what they said (1120 words)

  Madam Speaker, first let's get the record straight. Cape Town does have IDP sessions.

  Madam Speaker, yesterday we heard a speech dressed up as recovery plan. But if one strips away the slogans, the applause lines, and the election year optimism, what remains is a deeply political budget built on uncertain funding, a deferred infrastructure, and promises the city cannot honestly afford.

  The Deputy Mayor tells us this budget chooses discipline over drift. Madam Speaker, Johannesburg did not drift into crisis, it was governed into crisis. A city with a R220 billion infrastructure backlog does not arrive there accidentally.

  A city losing 44.7% of its water and 27% of its electricity is not experiencing temporary pressure. A city surviving on only 9.8% sorry, 9.8 days of cash coverage is not financially stable.

  These are symptoms of long-term governance failures. Margaret Thatcher once said, standing in the middle of the road is very dangerous. You get knocked down by traffic from both sides.

  And that's exactly where the ANC-led coalition now finds itself. Trying to satisfy political constituencies, organized labor, National Treasury, struggling residents, creditors, and election-year pressures all at the same time. The result is not leadership, the result is paralysis disguised as balance.

  Madam Speaker, let us deal directly with the politically facilitated agreement, the PFA. The ANC benches speak about the PFA as though any concern about affordability is somehow anti-worker. That is intellectually dishonest.

  The DA believes that all city employees should be compensated fairly. What we do not support is unfunded political commitments because the uncomfortable truth remains, the funding of the PFA has still not been fully secured. The Deputy Mayor openly admits the city is still engaging National Treasury and the Minister of Finance regarding this fiscal implications.

  So let's stop pretending this matter is settled. It's not funded, it's not fully resolved, and the financial risk has simply been shifted into the future. Madam Speaker, a responsible government secures funding first and makes promises second. This administration has done the opposite and somehow will ultimately absorb and someone will ultimately absorb the costs. It's either our residents through tariff hikes, infrastructure through further maintenance delays,

  or future councils through additional debt pressure. This is not financial discipline, that's political expedience. Margaret Thatcher warned, no one would remember the Good Samaritan if he only had good intentions, he had money as well.

  Good intentions do not fund municipalities. Cash flow does, and right now Johannesburg finances are dangerously constrained. The city itself admits that uncertain the city itself admits that certain communities will not see capital investment because available resources must first go towards debt obligations and creditor settlements.

  Think about that statement carefully. Infrastructure is effectively being placed on hold in parts of the Johannesburg because the city is paying for years of accumulated financial mismanagement. Roads delayed, stormwater delayed, housing delayed, public environment upgrades delayed, community infrastructure delayed. Yet residents are expected to applause a government for postponing development in the name of recovery.

  Madam Speaker, the DA believes in protecting indigent residents. No one disputes the need for social support in a city battling unemployment and poverty. But compassionate governance also requires accurate governance. The speech boasts over 145,000 households who are registered for the Extended Social Package.

  The critical question is, how accurate is that register? How many households still qualify? How many fraudulent registers exist? How many residents who genuinely qualify are excluded because of the administrative dysfunction? And how many revenue leakages has occurred through weak verification systems? Because if indigent management is inaccurate, two things happen simultaneously.

  The truly vulnerable are failed, and the paying base is unfairly burdened. A social support system without rigorous verification becomes fiscally unsustainable. And sustainability matters because if the city collapses financially, indigent residents suffer first and the hardest.

  Madam Speaker, housing is another area where rhetoric and reality are worlds apart. The speech proudly announces social housing, hostel upgrades, inclusionary housing, and catalytic projects. But Johannesburg residents know the lived reality of many city-owned housing developments. The problem is no longer merely housing delivery. The problem is maintenance collapse, and nowhere is this more obvious than at the Johannesburg Social Housing Company.

  JOSHCO has become a case study in what happens when government prioritizes expansion over maintenance. Residents in multiple developments continue to face broken lifts, sewage leaks, poor security, deteriorating infrastructure, water interruptions, unsafe living conditions, and painfully slow maintenance response times.

  The ANC speaks consistently about spatial justice, but dignity also means maintaining the housing stock people already live in. Because handing over keys means nothing if the buildings are then neglected into decay. Madam Speaker, the budget is political from the beginning to the end, it's political in its timing, it's political in its promises,

  political in its labor positioning, political in its selective memory, and political in its attempt to rewrite Johannesburg's governance history ahead of the elections.

  The ANC attacks the DA while simultaneously adopting the very principles the DA has advocated for years: infrastructure-led budgeting, revenue recovery, utility reform, ring-fencing, performance management, and fiscal discipline.

  The irony is remarkable. After years of dismissing financial realism as anti-poor, the ANC now arrives in council speaking like reluctant accountants because reality has cornered them. Madam Speaker, the greatest indictment of this budget is not what it says, it's what it quietly admits. It admits infrastructure investment is constrained.

  It admits capital rollout is conditional. It admits maintenance was neglected. It admits debt obligations are crowding out development. It admits revenue collection is weakening, and it admits the city's financial position remains fragile. This is not a city confidently moving forward. This is a city attempting to stabilize after years of political and administrative failure. The Democratic Alliance believes

  budgets must be honestly funded, maintenance must happen before collapse, indigent support must be accurate and sustainable, salary agreements must be affordable, housing must be properly maintained, and every rand spent must produce measurable value for residents. Because governments exist to deliver, not narratives. Madam Speaker, the Deputy Mayor says discipline today is an investment that makes tomorrow possible. On that point, finally we agree.

  But discipline delayed becomes decline entrenched. Johannesburg has paid the price for too many years of political indulgence disguised as governance. The city the residents of this city deserve more than another term sorry, the residents of this city deserve more than another term of explanations.

  They deserve a government that works, and in November, residents will decide whether Johannesburg continues down the road of managed decline or returns to competent accountable government. Vote DA and for Helen Zille as Mayor, the only true mayor with a proven track record. I thank you.

• 26 May 2026 · 00:50:04Request for approval to enter into a loan agreement with KfW · 5 min 57 s

  Read what they said (855 words)

  Madam Speaker, Executive Mayor, Deputy Executive Mayor. Mortgaging the future through debt today is not a decision that should ever be taken lightly. An 18-year-old scholar perhaps sitting in Matric today, or one of the many unemployed young people who had no seat in this council chamber and no voice in these deliberations will likely be in their 40s by the time this loan is finally paid or repaid. That is the long-term burden we are placing on the next generation. The uncomfortable truth is it's easy to take on debt, but it's far more difficult to exercise financial discipline. Real financial stewardship requires planning, saving, prioritizing needs over wants, and remaining committed to long-term sustainability. The same principles apply to households, apply equally to government.

  A city that has continued borrowing borrows funds to uh to fund its obligations risks trapping residents in a cycle where tomorrow's opportunities are sacrificed to pay for today's failures. Madam Speaker, unfortunately, we find ourselves between a rock and a hard place. City Power has become and continues to be a significant drain on the city's financial resources. Yet, residents rightly demand infrastructure that is reliable, maintained, and capable of supporting economic growth and daily life. It is precisely for this reason that good governance, accountability, and oversight are essential. The Democratic Alliance

  raised several serious concerns regarding both the report and the conditions attached to the to the loan. Among the concerns raised were the following: The conditions of the loan and the council report did not adequately align with each other or one another. The report described the intent, the intended use too broadly as City Power electrical infrastructure without significant or sufficient project-specific detail. The allocation of the project coordinator and the German government monitoring mechanisms were not properly reflected in the recommendations.

  The report did not provide sufficient safeguards to prevent the loan from later being redirected towards operational expenditure under the broad description of City Power electrical infrastructure. The freezing of the executive salary increases and performance-related adjustments at City Power for the duration of the loan period was not clearly articulated despite the severe financial pressures facing the city. The recommendations are not expressly state that the loan would be redirected exclusively to the listed projects nor were the projects fully incorporated into the report itself.

  These concerns demonstrate demonstrate that the Democratic Alliance commitment to good governance and to ensuring that the councillors are provided with sufficient, transparent, and credible information to make informed decisions that carry long-term financial implications. Madam Speaker, we therefore welcome the inclusion of the amendments requested by the Democratic Alliance together with additional nine annexures and amendments made to both the report and recommendations which will now provide significantly greater detail and clarify or clarity regarding the conditions and governance framework attached to this loan.

  These annexures include the Annexure 1, the results matrix; Annexure 2, which is a project list; Annexure 3, total cost of financing; Annexure 4, the disbursement procedure; Annexure 5, the procurement guidelines; Annexure 6, the environmental and social commitment plan; Annexure 7, declaration of undertaking; Annexure 8, which is most important, the terms of reference for annual audit and procurement and fund verification; Annexure 9, the content and form of reporting to KfW.

  We further welcome the amendment recommendations following the deliberations which now include: Council notes and approves the conditions attached to the loan as outlined in Annexures 1 to 9. Council notes and that the project coordinator and the German government will monitor the implementation of the projects. Council approves the freezing of executive salary increases and performance-related adjustments at City Power, the state-owned company limited for a minimum period of 2 years and Council notes that the loan will only fund projects specifically listed in Annexure 2.

  As a Democratic Alliance, it is important that this council fully appreciates the strict conditions attached to this loan together with the updated and gazetted National Treasury regulations, which place increasing responsibility and accountability on public representatives for financial decisions taken in the chamber. Madam Speaker, the loan amount and the key, uh key terms are as follows: The total loan of 200 million euro, estimated to approximately 3.8 billion. The loan tenure is 15 years at a fixed interest rate up to 9% amortized through semi-annual repayments. The disbursements occur annually aligned to City Power's approved capital budget program, which is uh listed in Annexure 2. The expected drawdowns for 2025/26, approximately 732.7 million, with the balance will be drawn down in the subsequent financial years. Uh we are aware of there's no security required and the front-end on-cost, uh the front-end fee of 0.5% estimated at approximately 19 million. An indicative total cost of the loan of the 15 years is approximately 1.349 billion.

  Madam Speaker, while we remain deeply concerned about the city's financial position and the long-term risk associated with debt, we also recognize the urgent need to stabilize and and modernize critical electricity infrastructure. Based on the additional conditions, amendments, annexures, and oversight mechanisms now included, the Democratic Alliance will support the loan. I thank you.

Spoke on

• 30 Sept 2026 · 01:12:47Item 17: Funding plan for medium-term capital budget 2026/27–2028/29
• 30 Sept 2026 · 02:04:20Item 27: Extension of general valuation roll 2023 to June 2028
• 30 Sept 2026 · 06:42:18Item 14: Background paper on financial sustainability, oversight priorities
• 30 Sept 2026 · 07:34:04Items 18 and 19: DA, ANC and executive responses
• 26 Aug 2026 · 01:42:09Recommendations to council and reordering of the agenda
• 26 Aug 2026 · 01:55:44Items 1 and 2: DA on city finances
• 22 Jul 2026 · 03:59:57ActionSA, DA and FF+ on Group Finance report
• 25 Jun 2026 · 01:51:19Items 79, 80 and 81 combined: Section 71 in-year reports
• 25 Jun 2026 · 02:11:36DA on Section 71 reports
• 25 Jun 2026 · 02:34:13Item 84: Biogas pilot project budget shortfall transfer to DBSA
• 25 Jun 2026 · 02:53:34Vote on preceding item and DA queries
• 24 Jun 2026 · 03:05:41Item 66: DA supports framework
• 24 Jun 2026 · 05:28:19Item 71: ANC notes report; DA rejects item and seeks referral to committees
• 24 Jun 2026 · 06:57:19Item 82: addendum to Debt Relief Programme Phase 4
• 28 May 2026 · 02:01:07DA's Cllr Santana on funding, the PFA and indigent register
• 28 May 2026 · 03:37:28Item 3: 2026/27 budget – Cllr Santana (DA)
• 28 May 2026 · 05:55:10Item 4: Standard Bank banking services agreement – introduction and Cllr Santana
• 26 May 2026 · 00:49:58DA supports the loan after amendments

Promises

• 30 Sept 2026 · 01:22:38If necessary, the DA will take legal action to reverse items passed that it says bind the next administration.
• 24 Jun 2026 · 03:12:57The DA will hold the administration accountable for every commitment in the Financial Turnaround Framework report.