Court orders dissolution of Ngwathe Municipality amid service delivery collapse
The Free State High Court has ordered the dissolution of the Ngwathe Local Municipality, citing gross failures in fulfilling its constitutional, legislative and regulatory responsibilities toward residents in towns such as Parys, Heilbron, Koppies and Vredefort, among others.
The ruling follows a case brought by AfriForum, supported by the Save Ngwathe community group.
The parties successfully acquired an interdict compelling the Free State provincial government to immediately intervene in the municipality's affairs.
Ngwathe becomes the second municipality in the Free State to be placed under administration.
Last month, Matjhabeng Local Municipality was placed under administration following the province's MEC for Cooperative Governance, Traditional Affairs and Human Settlements, Saki Mokoena, finally invoking Section 139 of the Constitution, which outlines the process for provincial intervention in municipalities unable to fulfill its executive obligations.
READ | Matjhabeng Municipality finally under administration as province moves to address governance collapse
Mokoena's actions followed a Bloemfontein High Court judgment, handed down on 23 October 2024, which found financial mismanagement, collapsing infrastructure and poor service delivery.
Ngwathe residents allegedly suffered for years
According to court papers which AfriForum submitted, pertaining to Ngwathe, the lobby group said residents had suffered for years under dire conditions - including persistent water shortages, raw sewage flowing in the streets, crumbling infrastructure and widespread financial mismanagement.
The municipality owes more than R1 billion to Eskom and Rand Water.
In delivering judgment on Friday, Judge Johannes Daffue described the municipality and its council as 'dysfunctional' and criticised the provincial government for its inaction.
He said the case warranted judicial oversight, calling it a 'suitable case where the court should play the role of a watchdog'.
The court order instructed Free State Premier Maqueen Letsoha-Mathae and her executive council to:
Dissolve the municipal council and appoint an administrator;
Develop and implement a recovery plan to restore service delivery and ensure financial stability;
Approve a temporary budget and revenue measures to support the recovery plan; and
Submit written progress reports to the court every three months under oath.
The municipality and eight other respondents, including the premier, were also ordered to pay AfriForum's legal costs.
The judgment comes after a series of public protests in 2024, sparked by water cuts, potholes as well as a catastrophic 11% Blue Drop water quality score.
The crisis worsened when Free State's Provincial Treasury rejected Ngwathe's R2.099 billion draft budget for 2025/26, citing a falsified surplus based on an unrealistic 100% collection rate.
AfriForum's Alta Pretorius called the ruling a 'massive victory' for long-suffering residents.
Pretorius said:
This not only brings justice, but legal grounds for real intervention. The government can no longer look away.
The DA's Carina Serfontein welcomed the judgment, saying it confirmed what residents had known for years.
'We will closely track the premier's progress reports and take further action, if necessary,' she said.
The mayor of Ngwathe, Victoria De-Beer Mthombeni, acknowledged the ruling, stating: 'The executive mayor respects the judgment of the Bloemfontein High Court and is studying the judgment in detail and will communicate in due course on the processes going forward.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
4 hours ago
- New York Times
Live Updates: U.S. Moves B-2 Bombers as Iran and Israel Exchange Strikes
President Trump was angry. Earlier this month, Tulsi Gabbard, his director of national intelligence, had posted a three-and-half-minute video to social media describing her visit to Hiroshima, Japan, and outlining the horrors caused by the detonation of a nuclear weapon there 80 years ago. Speaking directly to the camera, Ms. Gabbard warned that the threat of nuclear war remained. 'As we stand here today, closer to the brink of nuclear annihilation than ever before,' she said, 'political elites and warmongers are carelessly fomenting fear and tension between nuclear powers.' Mr. Trump berated Ms. Gabbard for the video, according to two people briefed on the conversation. He said that her discussion of nuclear annihilation would scare people and that officials should not talk about it. Mr. Trump's displeasure with the video laid bare months of his skepticism of Ms. Gabbard and frustrations with her. The president and some administration officials viewed her overseas travel, as the video exemplified, as being as much about self-promotion of her political career as it was about the business of government, multiple officials said, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal dynamics of the administration. But the tensions surrounding Ms. Gabbard are now in the open, as Mr. Trump considers mounting a military strike on Iran. Ms. Gabbard, a critic of overseas entanglements, has privately raised concerns of a wider war. And on Friday Mr. Trump said 'she's wrong' when he was asked about her testimony in March that Iran had not decided to build a nuclear weapon. After the video was posted, the president also told Ms. Gabbard that he was disappointed in her, and wished she had used better judgment, according to one of the two people briefed on the conversation. He told Ms. Gabbard that he believed she was using her time working for him to set herself up for higher office. Mr. Trump told Ms. Gabbard that if she wanted to run for president, she should not be in the administration, one of the people briefed on the meeting said. Image Ms. Gabbard and her husband, Abraham Williams, at her swearing-in at the White House in February. Credit... Eric Lee/The New York Times While Ms. Gabbard is a former Democrat, her credentials as a critic of America's long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and as a skeptic of foreign military interventions appeal to Mr. Trump's base, and her views dovetail with those of some of his other advisers. Her supporters are openly advocating that the president keep her. 'The president needs someone who will give him the right intelligence information, whether he likes it or not,' said Daniel L. Davis, an analyst at the think tank Defense Priorities, which advocates a restrained foreign policy. 'If you put someone else in there, they might only tell him what he wants to hear.' Mr. Davis, a retired Army lieutenant colonel, was Ms. Gabbard's choice for a top intelligence role before criticism from Republicans over his skepticism of Israel's war in Gaza forced her to rescind the appointment. There is no question, officials said, that Ms. Gabbard's standing has been weakened and that she is embattled. But few in the administration want to see her depart. Some say she has people who like her, while others worry about who might replace her. Two officials said that Mr. Trump's anger over the video had faded and that they were back on better terms. Ms. Gabbard continues to brief the president regularly and speaks often to John Ratcliffe, the C.I.A. director, who held Ms. Gabbard's job in the first Trump administration, according to multiple officials. In a statement, the White House press office dismissed any notion she has been sidelined. Steven Cheung, a White House spokesman, said Mr. Trump had 'full confidence' in his national security team. 'D.N.I. Gabbard is an important member of the president's team and her work continues to serve him and this country well,' Mr. Cheung said. Ms. Gabbard was an aggressive supporter of Mr. Trump on the 2024 campaign trail. He and his top advisers valued her input, especially when Mr. Trump was preparing to debate Vice President Kamala Harris — whom Ms. Gabbard had memorably attacked in a Democratic primary debate in 2019. After the election, Mr. Trump quickly decided to nominate her for director of national intelligence. But from the beginning he made clear to associates that he harbored some doubts. Mr. Trump, according to associates, saw her as overly interested in her own success. Mr. Trump drew a contrast between Ms. Gabbard and the other former Democrat he named to his cabinet, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 'Bobby's a star,' Mr. Trump told one associate. 'Tulsi? Tulsi wants to be a star.' Mr. Trump's implication was that unlike Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Gabbard did not have what it took to succeed in politics. Image Ms. Gabbard with Mr. Trump, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tucker Carlson during a campaign event in Georgia in October. Credit... Kenny Holston/The New York Times And soon after her swearing-in, he began to complain about her effectiveness. At the same time, Mr. Trump — long mistrustful of the intelligence community — questioned whether there needed to be an Office of the Director of National Intelligence at all. A senior intelligence official said Ms. Gabbard had overseen a 25 percent cut in the size of her office. And Ms. Gabbard has repeatedly told people in the White House that she is willing to be the last director of national intelligence, according to an official. The office, Ms. Gabbard said, could be reabsorbed into the C.I.A., or become something akin to the National Security Council, a bare-bones oversight group. At least for a time, the kind of foreign policy restraint Ms. Gabbard favors appeared to gain traction this spring. In White House discussions about Israel and Iran, Ms. Gabbard raised the range of possible consequences of an Israeli strike against Iran, saying it could trigger a wider conflict that brought in the United States. Vice President JD Vance, at times also a skeptic of military intervention, made similar arguments and was among those who supported Mr. Trump's impulse to initially try to negotiate a deal with Iran. As the C.I.A. delivered intelligence reports that Israel intended to strike Iran regardless, Mr. Trump and senior aides became more publicly supportive of the Israeli campaign. Ms. Gabbard did not attend a key meeting at Camp David, where Mr. Ratcliffe presented assessments about Iran's nuclear program. Ms. Gabbard, according to officials, was on Army Reserve duty. Other people with knowledge of the matter have said she was not invited. (Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said Ms. Gabbard had met daily with Mr. Trump and his team.) Then on Tuesday, Mr. Trump contradicted Ms. Gabbard in public. After the Israeli strikes began, a journalist on Air Force One asked Mr. Trump about Ms. Gabbard's testimony in March that Iran had not decided to make a nuclear bomb. 'I don't care what she said,' Mr. Trump said. 'I think they were very close to having it.' He made similar comments on Friday. Image Mr. Trump, aboard Air Force One this week, contradicted Ms. Gabbard's assessment of Iran's nuclear program. Credit... Kenny Holston/The New York Times An official from Ms. Gabbard's office said her position was not at odds with Mr. Trump's. In her testimony, Ms. Gabbard reported the consensus opinion of the intelligence community: that Iran's supreme leader had not authorized the country to build a nuclear weapon. But Ms. Gabbard had also noted Iran's large stocks of enriched uranium and a shift in tone that was 'likely emboldening nuclear weapons advocates within Iran's decision-making apparatus.' But Mr. Trump's Air Force One remark came off as a rebuke. To a certain extent, some officials said, courting Mr. Trump's displeasure is a hazard of any intelligence job in his administration. Mr. Trump believes the intelligence community undermined him in his first term, and his long-held skepticism that it is part of a disloyal deep state continues. Ms. Gabbard, when briefing Mr. Trump, presents a range of options and assessments. But it is difficult to talk about the findings of spy agencies and not raise Mr. Trump's ire, the official said. Ms. Gabbard's most important job as director of national intelligence is overseeing, and delivering, the president's daily intelligence brief. But the brief is actually produced a few miles from her office at the C.I.A., and many of those working on the document are detailed from the agency. Ms. Gabbard announced internally last month that she would physically move the production of the brief to her headquarters, known as Liberty Crossing. Within the administration, several senior officials saw it as a way to try to enhance her own relevance at a time when Mr. Trump was questioning the relevance of the office. Others said it was an expensive decision that would be logistically difficult to carry out. Ultimately, the White House put the move on pause, according to multiple people briefed on the matter. Ms. Gabbard has influential defenders inside and outside the government. Mr. Vance, seen as the most senior voice for a less hawkish, more restrained foreign policy, issued a long social media post defending the administration's support of Israel's attack on Iran. He added to that a message supporting Ms. Gabbard. He also released a statement calling her a 'patriot.' Her supporters insist that she remains relevant and that, over time, her skepticism of American intervention in Ukraine and caution on military action against Iran will once more prevail. The possible delay of any decision by Mr. Trump to strike Iran represents an opportunity for diplomacy and critics of American military intervention to make the case for restraint, some of Ms. Gabbard's supporters said. Olivia C. Coleman, a spokeswoman for Ms. Gabbard's office, dismissed the reports of dissatisfaction or tensions with the White House as 'lies made up by bored, irrelevant anonymous sources with nothing better to do than sow fake division.' 'The director,' Ms. Coleman said, 'remains focused on her mission: providing accurate and actionable intelligence to the president, cleaning up the deep state and keeping the American people safe, secure and free.'
News24
4 hours ago
- News24
Court orders dissolution of Ngwathe Municipality amid service delivery collapse
The Free State High Court has ordered the dissolution of the Ngwathe Local Municipality, citing gross failures in fulfilling its constitutional, legislative and regulatory responsibilities toward residents in towns such as Parys, Heilbron, Koppies and Vredefort, among others. The ruling follows a case brought by AfriForum, supported by the Save Ngwathe community group. The parties successfully acquired an interdict compelling the Free State provincial government to immediately intervene in the municipality's affairs. Ngwathe becomes the second municipality in the Free State to be placed under administration. Last month, Matjhabeng Local Municipality was placed under administration following the province's MEC for Cooperative Governance, Traditional Affairs and Human Settlements, Saki Mokoena, finally invoking Section 139 of the Constitution, which outlines the process for provincial intervention in municipalities unable to fulfill its executive obligations. READ | Matjhabeng Municipality finally under administration as province moves to address governance collapse Mokoena's actions followed a Bloemfontein High Court judgment, handed down on 23 October 2024, which found financial mismanagement, collapsing infrastructure and poor service delivery. Ngwathe residents allegedly suffered for years According to court papers which AfriForum submitted, pertaining to Ngwathe, the lobby group said residents had suffered for years under dire conditions - including persistent water shortages, raw sewage flowing in the streets, crumbling infrastructure and widespread financial mismanagement. The municipality owes more than R1 billion to Eskom and Rand Water. In delivering judgment on Friday, Judge Johannes Daffue described the municipality and its council as 'dysfunctional' and criticised the provincial government for its inaction. He said the case warranted judicial oversight, calling it a 'suitable case where the court should play the role of a watchdog'. The court order instructed Free State Premier Maqueen Letsoha-Mathae and her executive council to: Dissolve the municipal council and appoint an administrator; Develop and implement a recovery plan to restore service delivery and ensure financial stability; Approve a temporary budget and revenue measures to support the recovery plan; and Submit written progress reports to the court every three months under oath. The municipality and eight other respondents, including the premier, were also ordered to pay AfriForum's legal costs. The judgment comes after a series of public protests in 2024, sparked by water cuts, potholes as well as a catastrophic 11% Blue Drop water quality score. The crisis worsened when Free State's Provincial Treasury rejected Ngwathe's R2.099 billion draft budget for 2025/26, citing a falsified surplus based on an unrealistic 100% collection rate. AfriForum's Alta Pretorius called the ruling a 'massive victory' for long-suffering residents. Pretorius said: This not only brings justice, but legal grounds for real intervention. The government can no longer look away. The DA's Carina Serfontein welcomed the judgment, saying it confirmed what residents had known for years. 'We will closely track the premier's progress reports and take further action, if necessary,' she said. The mayor of Ngwathe, Victoria De-Beer Mthombeni, acknowledged the ruling, stating: 'The executive mayor respects the judgment of the Bloemfontein High Court and is studying the judgment in detail and will communicate in due course on the processes going forward.'
News24
5 hours ago
- News24
Emile Ormond: South Africa unready for AI-era job disruption
Emerging economies like South Africa may be partially shielded from the initial waves of AI automation, but when it inevitably arrives, the country could be especially vulnerable due to its large, predominantly young labour force, writes Emile Ormond. As artificial intelligence (AI) grows more sophisticated and pervasive, its potential to disrupt labour markets demands urgent attention. Will AI displace workers? Could it trigger unprecedented unemployment? There has been an influx of news articles, predictions, and expert claims that AI will be highly disruptive to the workforce. For instance, McKinsey estimates 400-800 million people globally may need new jobs by 2030, while a BCG survey found 42% of workers fear their roles may vanish within a decade. For South Africa, with an unemployment rate of 32.9% and 46.5% for youth, these predictions are dire. The country simply cannot afford large-scale job losses without jeopardising fragile social stability, deepening poverty and inequality, increasing crime, and threatening fiscal sustainability. As the government of national unity prioritises 'inclusive growth and job creation,' understanding AI's impact on jobs is not just critical - it's urgent. Impact yet to materialise Despite these warnings, evidence of current AI-driven job losses remains limited. In advanced economies like the US and EU, unemployment is near historic lows. Research has found that, for now, AI's impact on employment is minimal, often boosting productivity instead. In South Africa, high unemployment predates AI, rooted in structural economic challenges. So far, AI has not significantly shrunk job markets globally or locally. Historical, technological leaps, like the Industrial Revolutions, sparked similar fears of mass labour market disruption but ultimately resulted in substantially higher employment and productivity. For instance, more than two-thirds of the world's population lived in extreme poverty before the Industrial Revolution – today, it is less than 10%. This precedent, combined with AI's limited impact to date, may have bred complacency among South Africans, especially policymakers, that AI's impact will be manageable and a net positive. However, this view is shortsighted and lacks nuance. Rapidly increasing advances in areas such as multi-modal and agentic AI are poised to transform workplaces. The vast majority of organisations are planning on introducing or expanding their use of AI. This will see workers requiring new skills, creating new roles, and eliminating others. While the balance of these changes is debated, massive labour market disruption is almost certain. This time is different AI's unique traits, distinct from past technologies, will amplify its impact on jobs. These features include: Cognitive capabilities: Unlike earlier automation that targeted manual tasks, AI can handle complex cognitive work, such as analysis and decision-making. General-purpose technology: Like electricity or the internet, AI's application spans all sectors, driving broad economic impact and broadly fuelling productivity at an unrivalled pace. Self-improvement: AI can help enhance future iterations of itself, unlike previous technologies. For instance, the most advanced nuclear reactor cannot design new reactors, but AI can make better AI. Democratised access: Many AI tools are freely or cheaply available, unlike costly previous industrial technologies that were often limited to large, wealthy organisations. Rapid adoption: Generative AI, for example, surged from obscurity to global prominence in just three years. Now, South African workers use generative AI more than those in the US and UK. These characteristics illustrate why AI will disrupt labour markets at an unprecedented pace and scale, but not all countries and groups are equally vulnerable. SA has breathing room High-income countries, with more white-collar jobs, face earlier AI-driven disruption. For instance, 34% of European Union jobs are exposed to AI automation, compared to 19% in the African Union, according to the International Labour Organisation (ILO). Ageing populations and high labour costs may also accelerate AI adoption in developed markets. Young workers, often in entry-level roles, are particularly at risk. The ILO notes that youth hold jobs most susceptible to automation, potentially blocking their entry into the labour force. This is particularly pressing for Africa, with 350 million young Africans expected to reach working age by 2050. In other words, emerging economies like South Africa may be partially shielded from the initial waves of AI automation, but when it inevitably arrives, the country could be especially vulnerable due to its large, predominantly young labour force. In conjunction with this, AI will likely also drive massive productivity gains and create new, currently unforeseen jobs, but the transition period could be long and hard. Moreover, it could ultimately further entrench South Africa's world-leading inequality. Charting a path forward South Africa has a narrow window, as short as two to three years, to harness AI's productivity gains while mitigating its fallout. Key actions stakeholders can take include: Policy development: Political leaders must move beyond vague rhetoric and adopt nuanced, thoughtful policy positions on AI. The government should finalise a national AI strategy, released for comment in mid-2024, to address labour market impacts. Digital infrastructure: Expand reliable, high-speed internet nationwide, resolving disputes over providers like Starlink to ensure equitable AI access. Reskilling programmes: Invest in large-scale training to equip workers with AI-relevant skills and update school and tertiary education curricula for emerging roles. Responsible AI governance: Regulators and organisations should integrate AI oversight into corporate governance, aligning innovation with national development goals. Moreover, AI needs to be a cross-cutting responsibility in government. Social protections: Plans for displaced workers need to be considered now – there are nearly 19 million grant recipients, compared to a tax base of 7 million. Growth measures and/or new revenue sources will need to be found if the if the South Africa stands at the edge of an epoch-defining labour shift. The question is whether we act proactively or react in a crisis. - Dr Emile Ormond has an interest in policy analysis and risk managment.
