R15 million gone but no results
INANDA - The Inanda Swimming Pool Project started in 2016 and there is no progress.
Almost 10 years later, the eThekwini Municipality has little to show for the R15-million reportedly spent on it.
The metro now wants more money and three years to complete the project. eNCA reporter Nkosikhona Malinga-Mnisi filed this report.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
15 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Nelson Mandela Bay faces electricity crisis: proposed 12.8% tariff hike sparks controversy
Citing spiralling non-technical electricity losses, the Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality's application for a 12.8% electricity tariff increase has revealed that the metro's electricity department will not generate any revenue or surpluses this year. However, there is some relief for old-age homes and residents of housing estates and residential complexes. 'The phenomenon of increasing electricity bulk purchases and spiralling decreases in electricity sales has reached unprecedented levels, to the point where the electricity service has become unable to generate its own revenue or any surpluses as per the historical model for this service,' the Nelson Mandela Bay municipality stated in its application to the National Energy Regulator of SA (Nersa) for an increase of 12.8% across the board for all categories of electricity users. The metro's non-revenue electricity losses for the financial year that ended in March 2025 stood at R1.049-billion, caused by factors including meter tampering and illegal connections. The draft budget for the metro, which was noted last week by the city council and was scheduled to be debated on Thursday, 5 June, also stated that the electricity department would have to be subsidised by municipal rates to remain viable. Opposition parties said the electricity department would bankrupt the city if a successful turnaround plan were not implemented. Earlier this year, the metro's executive mayor, Babalwa Lobishe, tried unsuccessfully to have R449.8-million relating to 30 tenders in the electricity department written off without the matter being investigated by the Municipal Public Accounts Committee. Nersa has, this year, decided to make all the municipal applications for electricity price increases public and has asked that the public send their comments. 'Nersa requires that all municipalities calculate their electricity tariffs based on the costs incurred in supplying customers,' said Nersa spokesperson Charles Hlabela. This is a legal requirement in line with a high court ruling obtained by the Nelson Mandela Bay Business Chamber. 'This requirement will be enforced to all municipalities for their 2025/26 electricity tariffs. Should the municipality fail to comply with this requirement, it will face a risk of having its tariffs not approved,' said Hlabela. He said Nersa valued input from all stakeholders and would consider written submissions alongside a thorough analysis of each application. Further issues were also touched on by the metro in its application. In its motivation for the electricity tariff increase, the municipality stated: 'The business of the Electricity and Energy Directorate is continuously plagued by a scourge in electricity theft, tampering and illegal connections as well as tariffs which were historically not cost reflective.' The metro, which derives R7.5-billion a year from electricity sales, said two main factors had led to the increase: Eskom bulk purchases had been increased by 12.74%; and Municipal salaries had been increased by 7.75% in line with the collective bargaining agreement. The metro said it was gearing up to implement an advanced metering infrastructure programme to reduce energy losses, improve revenue protection and enhance operational control. Some relief It offered some relief for residents of residential complexes and old-age homes, who had been incorrectly billed under the industrial and commercial bulk supply tariff, 'despite the actual end-user being classified as a residential customer in the NMBM Consolidated Billing System. 'This also comes as a direct result of numerous complaints received from this cohort of customers who deemed the current tariffs unfair, as they were being treated in the same way as businesses due to the tariff structure.' The application acknowledged that 'preventative maintenance and innovative switching methods can be game changers, ensuring that the system can handle fluctuating demand while reducing unexpected failures. 'A proactive approach could also lead to efficiencies in resource allocation as preventative maintenance often costs less than reactive repairs.' However, the application continued, 'It is unfortunately not possible to increase the Repairs & Maintenance Funding Allocation to the desired level.' The metro promised to do so within the next three years. It said there was no 'growing interest' from private generators or businesses looking to take advantage of wheeling arrangements. 'Illegal connections, tampering with metering equipment, infrastructure vandalism and access to properties are the dominant challenges faced in some of the electrification areas. Customer education, awareness interventions, audits and replacement of illegal connections with legal connections continue to receive special attention. 'The influx of people migrating to the metro and the associated need for accommodation result most of the time in the illegal construction of informal housing, contributing to the Electrification Programme complexity,' said the metro in its application. DM
IOL News
a day ago
- IOL News
Overturned Cholota extradition will not affect Ace Magashule asbestos trial
The National Prosecuting Authority is considering its options after Moroadi Cholota's extradition was overturned Image: Supplied The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) says the Bloemfontein High Court judgment upholding Moroadi Cholota's special plea of lack of jurisdiction will not impact the trial of the rest of the accused. It will meanwhile consider its options, including possibly appealing against the judgment. 'The NPA will specifically consider options to appeal considering the potential impact of the judgment in respect of the case against Ms Cholota, and broader extradition processes,' NPA spokesperson Mthunzi Mhaga said. He explained that it should be noted that this judgment has no bearing on the trial against the other accused that is expected to resume on Wednesday (June 4) as Cholota was an accused person and not a state witness. The NPA remains confident in the strength of its case against the accused and said it was ready to proceed when the trial resumes. 'The members of the prosecuting team always acted with the highest standards of ethical conduct, guided by the evidence and information available at any given time,' Mhaga said. The court found on Tuesday that it has no jurisdiction to try the former Free State premier Ace Magashule's personal assistant in the R255-million asbestos case, as her extradition from the US was unlawful. The judge upheld her special plea regarding the asbestos removal tender following a trial-within-a trial to ascertain whether Cholota's extradition process by the South African authorities was done lawfully. While a Free State director of Public Prosecutions applied for Cholota's extradition, Judge Philip Loubser found that this power lies with the Justice Minister and with the National Prosecuting Authority. Thus, he said, the extradition was not done lawfully and it is not valid. 'This court does not have the power to try you. You are free to leave,' the judge told Cholota. Cholota was one of 18 accused in the high-profile trial where the accused are facing a host of charges relating to alleged fraud, corruption and money laundering. All of the accused had pleaded not guilty and denied any involvement in the allegations against them. Cholota was studying in the US at the time of her extradition and was at first regarded as a state witness, before it was decided to add her as accused no 17 to the criminal trial. In challenging her extradition, Cholota claimed that the State had lied or misrepresented to the US authorities that there was a case for her to answer in South Africa. In delivering his judgment, Judge Loubser said there was no need to go into these arguments, as he found the extradition process was wrong in law. The only two witnesses who testified during the extradition challenge were Hawks officials. The Cholota camp did not call any witnesses.
Daily Maverick
a day ago
- Daily Maverick
Judgment against Hlophe is an important step to protect the integrity of SA's legal system
You simply cannot keep Dr John Hlophe out of the news. This time he is at the receiving end of a judgment of a full bench of the Western Cape Division of the High Court which upheld applications by the Democratic Alliance, Freedom Under Law and Corruption Watch that the National Assembly had incorrectly appointed Hlophe as one of the six members of Parliament to serve on the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) in terms of section 178 (1) (h) of the Constitution. The judgment was penned by Judge Nobulawo Mbhele from the Free State, and judges Annali Basson and TP Mudau from the Gauteng Division of the High Court, all of whom were designated to hear this case given Hlophe's previous position as Judge President of the Western Cape Division of the High Court. The reader is reminded that after a 16-year protracted legal process costing the taxpayer approximately R10-million, the President removed Hlophe from office as a judge in terms of section 177 of the Constitution. The question, therefore, given his impeachment as a judge, arose as to whether the National Assembly (NA) could legally designate Hlophe as a member of the JSC. The first question of importance was whether the dispute was moot, as Hlophe had resigned from the JSC before this dispute was heard by the court. The court, however, held that the dispute remained live because 'any further designation process by the NA must take place with this court's guidance on whether the NA had a discretion to consider the fitness of the nominee for designation to the JSC in terms of s 178 (1) (h) of the Constitution' and whether it had acted lawfully when it designated Hlophe for appointment to the JSC. Hlophe had raised the argument, supported by the MK and EFF parties, that he was eminently qualified to serve on the JSC because he has a doctorate in law and had served as a judge and because the Constitution had not provided specific qualifications or criteria for a person designated to the JSC. The court accepted that section 178 (1) (h) of the Constitution does not specifically constrain the power of the National Assembly to designate a member to the JSC, other than to require that half of the designated members must be from opposition parties. However, that on its own did not suffice to give definitive content to the appointment process. As the court pointed out, the National Assembly must act rationally, meaning that its action must be rationally connected to the purpose for which a power is exercised. Further, section 165 (4) of the Constitution requires that the National Assembly must assist and protect the courts to ensure their independence and impartiality, dignity, accessibility and effectiveness. The judgment noted that public confidence in the judiciary's composition and its role in the administration of justice is vital. While the test of 'fit and proper' was not expressly included for appointing someone to the JSC, the court referred to a judgment by the Constitutional Court, Helen Suzman Foundation v the Judicial Service Commission (2018). In that judgment, the Constitutional Court placed considerable importance on ensuring that those entrusted with the responsibility of nominating and designating lawyers for membership of the judiciary must be suitably qualified to do so. The court warned that a rule that threatened the ability to appoint the best candidates for the judiciary 'would have serious consequences for the judiciary and consequently our constitutional democracy as a whole'. To have an impeached judge as a member of the JSC effectively means that the National Assembly had appointed someone who might have been formally eligible, but 'was not substantially suited for appointment to the JSC'. Improper exercise In appointing Hlophe to the JSC, the Western Cape Division of the High Court said, the National Assembly was 'required to consider whether [he was] suitable for appointment'. The NA did not exercise such discretion, and indeed mistakenly laboured under the impression that it did not even have such discretion. As a result, the designation of Hlophe without any proper consideration of his suitability was an improper exercise of a discretion possessed by the National Assembly to ensure that a designee to the JSC was 'fit and proper for the purpose of nominating judges'. What is also significant was the manner in which the full bench treated the reaction of Hlophe and his MK party to a previous order in which a full bench had granted an interim interdict restraining Hlophe from participating as a member of the JSC. The MK party had reacted by referring to the 'incompetent, irrational, absurd and blatantly political judgment of the Western Cape High Court, which is regrettable but not surprising'. Neither the MK party leader, Jacob Zuma, nor Hlophe, nor the MK party had publicly distanced themselves from the scandalising of the court. Accordingly, having found that the presence of an impeached judge prejudiced the JSC's ability to discharge its constitutional function, the full bench held that derogatory statements Hlophe made about the retired judge Azhar Cachalia, representing Freedom Under Law, justified a punitive cost order. Both Hlophe and the MK party were ordered to pay the applicants' costs on an attorney and client scale. The judgment is of extreme importance. It asserts the centrality of the JSC to the integrity and legitimacy of the judiciary and the need to ensure that members of the JSC are suitably qualified for purpose. The National Assembly is not there to act as a rubber stamp confirming a political party's wish. That an impeached judge could be held up as a person who could sit on the JSC and contribute to the appointment of judges only has to be stated to confirm the irrationality of the National Assembly's initial decision. The judgment also represents an important step by the judiciary to protect the integrity of the legal system against the kind of flagrant abuse which has characterised this sad Hlophe saga. Is it too much to hope that in the future, courts will protect the integrity and reputation of the judicial institution by ordering punitive costs when litigants or their legal representatives engage in flagrant contempt for the judiciary and its process? DM
