Msunduzi Municipality faces R2 billion debt burden due to theft of services and non-payment
Image: Doctor Ngcobo Independent Newspapers
The debt crisis in Msunduzi Municipality is worsening due to theft and non-payment for services, with the municipality now owing its key service providers close to R2 billion. Reports detailing the payments owed to Eskom and uMngeni-uThukela Water Board reveal that the municipality owes these two entities close to a billion rand each.
The details of the debt are contained in a report tabled before the city's Municipal Public Accounts Committee, which was presented at its recent meetings. City councillors have attributed the debt to the theft of water and electricity, estimating that this theft costs the municipality about R3 million each month.
Councillors have raised concerns about thousands of bypassed water and electricity meters in the city, which prevent the municipality from generating revenue from these services. They noted that city officials have failed to act against theft and non-payment, causing the city to accumulate this debt. The municipality has been actively trying to collect what is owed by businesses and government entities, employing harsh tactics, including the disconnection of electricity to businesses and even schools.
The financial statement, including payment notifications contained in the report, shows that the municipality is making payments. One statement of accounts attached to the agenda indicates that as of March this year, the municipality had a balance due to uMngeni-uThukela of approximately R980 million. This includes about R663 million that is more than 120 days in arrears, R93 million that is 90 days in arrears, R42 million that is 60 days in arrears, and more than R80 million that is 30 days in arrears.
The account summary for February this year for the city's Eskom account shows that the total due is just over R1.052 billion. Bank statements confirm that the municipality has continued to make payments towards its debts.
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Next
Stay
Close ✕
Rienus Neimand of the ACDP expressed concern over the massive variations that have led to the adjusted budget. He further noted that the administration presented the National Treasury with an unfunded budget that has been rejected. 'The huge deficit in collections and the spiralling increase in theft, along with the forfeiture of grants due to non-performance, is a sure sign of a dysfunctional administration. Furthermore, the escalating debt to uMngeni-uThukela Water and Eskom is a sign of an administration out of control. The Section 106 investigations implemented by national and provincial Cogta into maladministration, corruption, and theft show that the governing ANC minority is a party to this chaos,' he said.
The DA announced that it will table a budget plan it claims will rescue the municipality, addressing the issue of this debt as part of that plan. The council is set to table its budget for the 2025-2026 financial year on Wednesday.
MPAC chair councillor Zwelinjani Magubane said there has been negligence on the part of the officials, adding that the situation was unacceptable as it continues to compromise the municipality's finances. 'They have let this situation get out of hand. How are they going to collect a billion from people? They have been trying to collect, but they have not been aggressive enough. There are still companies that owe millions to the municipality that have not been sanctioned. What we have found is that people are just stealing and not paying. There are poor people who cannot afford to pay, but there are wealthy individuals who can pay but choose not to, and those are the same people that owe the most to the council,' he said.
Magubane said they have asked for a breakdown in each ward to see who was paying for services and who was not and why.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
an hour ago
- The Star
Investec Witness Admits Contradictions in Rushil Singh Fraud Trial
During the ongoing fraud trial of Rushil Singh, a key Investec employee testifying for the State admitted under cross-examination that Singh was not directly involved in the alleged fraud. This acknowledgment challenges a central aspect of the prosecution's case, which is based on Singh's position as CEO of BIG and assumptions about his knowledge of the loan witness initially testified that the financial guarantee involved in the case was 'cash backed.' However, under questioning by the defense, he conceded that this was incorrect. 'The guarantee was not, in fact, cash backed,' the witness said. He further explained that no contractual agreement explicitly required the guarantee to be backed by cash. 'There was an assumption that the guarantee was cash backed, but there is no documentary proof to support this,' he added. This admission weakens the prosecution's argument that Singh knowingly engaged in fraudulent activity related to the guarantee. The witness also contradicted himself multiple times during cross-examination. When reminded that he was under oath, he responded, 'No man is infallible.' The defence highlighted these inconsistencies to question his credibility. Compounding these issues, the court heard that the original R20 million guarantee issued by Stanbic Bank was initially cash backed and included a conditional clause confirming this security. However, it was Investec that requested the removal of this clause, transforming the guarantee from a secured instrument to an unsecured one. 'The original Stanbic guarantee was secured, but Investec itself asked for the security to be removed,' the defence argued, raising concerns about Investec's internal oversight and defense further emphasized that Singh's involvement is based on presumption rather than evidence. 'The State's own witness conceded Rushil Singh was not directly involved,' the defence said. 'Singh's implication rests solely on the assumption that he must have known about a cash backing requirement, a notion without contractual or factual basis.'Adding to the scrutiny of Investec's role are allegations that several Investec employees received personal benefits from Nishani Singh, related to the loans. The Star has learnt of a new man on the story, referred to as Mr X reportedly received monthly payments of R19,000 through a shell company registered in his name from December 2020 to October 2021 — the period during which the loan agreements were being structured and finalized. Mr X. also received a lump sum payment of R70,000 in August 2020 and may have received a R2 million contribution towards his Pretoria home's construction. After resigning from Investec in June 2021, he joined BIG as a director with a reported monthly salary of R300, other bank employees were linked to questionable benefits. Mr X.2 received two Sandton City gift vouchers worth R10,000 each, given during active loan negotiations. Mr X.2 was given a fully paid Sun City trip in December 2016. The defence suggests these benefits breached banking ethics and could constitute inducements.
IOL News
an hour ago
- IOL News
Investec Witness Admits Contradictions in Rushil Singh Fraud Trial
During the ongoing fraud trial of Rushil Singh, a key Investec employee testifying for the State admitted under cross-examination that Singh was not directly involved in the alleged fraud. This acknowledgment challenges a central aspect of the prosecution's case, which is based on Singh's position as CEO of BIG and assumptions about his knowledge of the loan witness initially testified that the financial guarantee involved in the case was 'cash backed.' However, under questioning by the defense, he conceded that this was incorrect. 'The guarantee was not, in fact, cash backed,' the witness said. He further explained that no contractual agreement explicitly required the guarantee to be backed by cash. 'There was an assumption that the guarantee was cash backed, but there is no documentary proof to support this,' he added. This admission weakens the prosecution's argument that Singh knowingly engaged in fraudulent activity related to the guarantee. The witness also contradicted himself multiple times during cross-examination. When reminded that he was under oath, he responded, 'No man is infallible.' The defence highlighted these inconsistencies to question his credibility. Compounding these issues, the court heard that the original R20 million guarantee issued by Stanbic Bank was initially cash backed and included a conditional clause confirming this security. However, it was Investec that requested the removal of this clause, transforming the guarantee from a secured instrument to an unsecured one. 'The original Stanbic guarantee was secured, but Investec itself asked for the security to be removed,' the defence argued, raising concerns about Investec's internal oversight and defense further emphasized that Singh's involvement is based on presumption rather than evidence. 'The State's own witness conceded Rushil Singh was not directly involved,' the defence said. 'Singh's implication rests solely on the assumption that he must have known about a cash backing requirement, a notion without contractual or factual basis.'Adding to the scrutiny of Investec's role are allegations that several Investec employees received personal benefits from Nishani Singh, related to the loans. The Star has learnt of a new man on the story, referred to as Mr X reportedly received monthly payments of R19,000 through a shell company registered in his name from December 2020 to October 2021 — the period during which the loan agreements were being structured and finalized. Mr X. also received a lump sum payment of R70,000 in August 2020 and may have received a R2 million contribution towards his Pretoria home's construction. After resigning from Investec in June 2021, he joined BIG as a director with a reported monthly salary of R300, other bank employees were linked to questionable benefits. Mr X.2 received two Sandton City gift vouchers worth R10,000 each, given during active loan negotiations. Mr X.2 was given a fully paid Sun City trip in December 2016. The defence suggests these benefits breached banking ethics and could constitute inducements.
eNCA
2 hours ago
- eNCA
Eskom may face Competition Commission
JOHANNESBURG - The South African Independent Power Producers Association is pushing back against Eskom. READ: Energy Action Plan | Flipping the switch on power monopoly SAIPPA is considering laying a complaint to the Competition Commission against the power utility for inviting larger power users to enter into long-term energy purchase agreements. The association considers the move anti-competitive as Eskom will now be able to sell solar energy generated at the utilities old power stations to larger power users. The agreements range from five to 25 years for a minimum of 10 mega watts. Energy expert, Professor Vally Padayachee, gave eNCA his insight on this issue.
