Latest news with #GeordinHill-Lewis
IOL News
2 days ago
- Business
- IOL News
Property owners challenge City's new proposed fixed charges in court
Mayor Geordin Hill-Lewis at a council meeting where he tabled the draft budget for 2025/2026. Image: City of Cape Town/Supplied THE constitutionality of the City's decision to link certain fixed charges to property values in its amended Budget for 2025/26 will come under the spotlight when the South African Property Owners Association (SAPOA) hauls the DA-led administration to court. The organisation has taken issue with the City's cleaning tariff, the fixed water charge, and the fixed sanitation charge, saying these three items of the budget were in fact property rates imposed outside of the legislation which governs the imposition of such rates. However, Mayor Geordin Hill-Lewis believes that the court application is an attempt to go back to a system of regressive taxation which hits ordinary families, and the poor, the hardest. SAPOA's membership currently comprises more than 90% of the country's commercial and retail property industry, including some of the largest property-owning companies in South Africa. The properties owned by their membership include the V&A Waterfront (co-owned by Growthpoint), Canal Walk Shopping Centre (owned by Hyprop), Cape Gate Shopping Centre (owned by Hyprop), Table Bay Mall (owned by Hyprop), Tyger Valley Shopping Centre (co-owned by Pareto), Blue Route Mall (owned by Redefine), Gugulethu Square (owned by Vukile), Atlantis City Shopping Centre (owned by Vukile), Sable Square Shopping Centre (owned by Spear), and Cavendish Square (owned by Old Mutual). In his founding affidavit, SAPOA chief executive Nilesh 'Neil' Gopal said that the board resolved to take legal action to have the budget declared unconstitutional and invalid. 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 Next Stay Close ✕ 'They contravene the applicable constitutional and national legislative framework applicable to the imposition of rates and the levying of tariffs for municipal services,' he said in papers. Gopal added that while they acknowledge the city's rebates that they offer, it mostly is to aid pensioners and isn't sufficient to offset the impact the tariffs will have on them. 'These reductions and rebates do not detract from the fact that the three items are unlawful and should not have been introduced in the first place: A reduction or a rebate cannot save a charge which was unlawfully imposed,' he said. Gopal maintained that the continued rise in municipal costs had a significant detrimental effect on the costs of occupancy faced by tenants in commercial/retail properties. 'My point is that the systems of exemptions, reductions, and rebates established by the City under the Cleaning Tariff (as well as the Fixed Water Charge and the Fixed Sanitation Charge) are different from the Rates Act. It relies, however, on the General Valuation Roll ("GV Roll') established under the Rates Act. It is an impermissible parallel system of rates. 'For all these reasons, the Cleaning Tariff, while purporting to be a service, is a rate, but an unlawful one, because it does not comply, or even follow the scheme let alone the letter of the Rates Act,' he added. The relief SAPOA is seeking is to have the budget declared invalid. However, the order of invalidity should be suspended for two months to allow the city to deal with the revenue shortfall that will result from the invalidity of the three items. Hill-Lewis said the city cannot agree that wealthy property owners should be charged the same as lower-income or middle-class households. 'This would be regressive, would place a disproportionate burden on ordinary families, and would be patently unfair. 'The city's budget protects homes under R2,5m and extends rates relief to many more middle-class homes, all while preserving the city's critical infrastructure and service investments,' said Hill-Lewis. If SAPOA were to succeed in their argument, the effect would be 'to have ordinary families effectively subsidising the wealthiest property owners', said Hill-Lewis. 'Fixed charges linked to property value are a lawful, fairer, and equitable way for Capetonians to contribute within their means to our city's infrastructure programme and fixed service costs. Cross-subsidising – where the better off among us help to fund services for the less fortunate – is the only sustainable way to ensure a working city of hope for all,' said Hill-Lewis. The Cape Town Collective Ratepayers' Association (CTCRA), an association with 56 ratepayer associations and civic organisations from across Cape Town, has thrown its weight behind SAPOA's decision, saying: 'This case is not just of importance to the ratepayers of Cape Town. If left unchallenged, there is a realistic possibility that other municipalities in South Africa will adopt CoCT's methods. It is critical that the rule of law, fairness in service delivery, and constitutional accountability are upheld – not just for our city, but for the nation.' Cape Times
IOL News
3 days ago
- Business
- IOL News
Court battle looms as SAPOA contests Cape Town's controversial budget
Cape Town Mayor Geordin Hill-Lewis. Image: File While the City of Cape Town (CoCT) is proudly touting its amended Hope Budget for 2025/26, the South African Property Owners Association (SAPOA) is taking legal action over the city's decision to link certain fixed charges to property values. Even before being adopted in council, the city's budget has faced considerable criticism over its fixed charges, over which SAPOA will now be challenging in the Western Cape High Court. In his founding affidavit, SAPOA CEO Nilesh 'Neil' Gopal said that the board resolved to take legal action seeking to challenge three items in the budget, namely the Cleaning Tariff, the Fixed Water Charge, and the Fixed Sanitation Charge. They are hoping to have the budget declared unconstitutional and invalid. 'They contravene the applicable constitutional and national legislative framework applicable to the imposition of rates and the levying of tariffs for municipal services. Because they are linked to property values, the three items of the budget are in fact property rates imposed outside of the legislation which governs the imposition of such rates,' he said in papers. Gopal argued that the three items are inconsistent with the Constitution. SAPOA's membership currently comprises more than 90% of the country's commercial and retail property industry, including some of the largest property-owning companies in South Africa. The properties owned by their membership include the V&A Waterfront (co-owned by Growthpoint), Canal Walk Shopping Centre (owned by Hyprop), Cape Gate Shopping Centre (owned by Hyprop), Table Bay Mall (owned by Hyprop), Tyger Valley Shopping Centre (co-owned by Pareto), Blue Route Mall (owned by Redefine), Gugulethu Square (owned by Vukile), Atlantis City Shopping Centre (owned by Vukile), Sable Square Shopping Centre (owned by Spear), and Cavendish Square (owned by Old Mutual). In the court papers, they added that litigation was a last resort. Gopal added that while they acknowledge the city's rebates that they offer, it mostly is to aid pensioners and isn't sufficient to offset the impact the tariffs will have on them. 'These reductions and rebates do not detract from the fact that the three items are unlawful and should not have been introduced in the first place: A reduction or a rebate cannot save a charge which was unlawfully imposed,' he said in his founding affidavit. Gopal added that the continued rise in municipal costs has a significant detrimental effect on the costs of occupancy faced by tenants in commercial/retail properties. 'My point is that the systems of exemptions, reductions, and rebates established by the City under the Cleaning Tariff (as well as the Fixed Water Charge and the Fixed Sanitation Charge) are different from the Rates Act. It relies, however, on the General Valuation Roll ("GV Roll') established under the Rates Act. It is an impermissible parallel system of rates. 'For all these reasons, the Cleaning Tariff, while purporting to be a service, is a rate, but an unlawful one, because it does not comply, or even follow the scheme let alone the letter of the Rates Act,' he added. The relief SAPOA is seeking is to have the budget declared invalid. However, the order of invalidity should be suspended for two months to allow the city to deal with the revenue shortfall that will result from the invalidity of the three items. Mayor Geordin Hill-Lewis said the city cannot agree that wealthy property owners should be charged the same as lower-income or middle-class households. 'This would be regressive, would place a disproportionate burden on ordinary families, and would be patently unfair. 'The city's budget protects homes under R2,5m and extends rates relief to many more middle-class homes, all while preserving the city's critical infrastructure and service investments. In contrast, this court application by the richest of the rich property portfolio holders seeks to go back to a system of regressive taxation which hits ordinary families, and the poor, the hardest,' said Hill-Lewis. He added that if SAPOA were to succeed in their argument, the effect would be 'to have ordinary families effectively subsidising the wealthiest property owners'. 'Fixed charges linked to property value are a lawful, fairer, and equitable way for Capetonians to contribute within their means to our city's infrastructure programme and fixed service costs. Cross-subsidising – where the better off among us help to fund services for the less fortunate – is the only sustainable way to ensure a working city of hope for all,' said Hill-Lewis. Meanwhile, the Cape Town Collective Ratepayers' Association (CTCRA), an association with 56 ratepayer associations and civic organisations from across Cape Town, has commended SAPOA. 'This case is not just of importance to the ratepayers of Cape Town. If left unchallenged, there is a realistic possibility that other municipalities in South Africa will adopt CoCT's methods. It is critical that the rule of law, fairness in service delivery, and constitutional accountability are upheld – not just for our city, but for the nation.' [email protected]
IOL News
5 days ago
- Politics
- IOL News
City of Cape Town ready to square off against National Government over Public Procurement Act
Mayor Geordin Hill-Lewis Image: Supplied The Constitutional Court has opened the ring for a sparring match between the City of Cape Town and National government, by granting the City direct access to challenge the controversial Public Procurement Act, a case with potentially far-reaching consequences for the autonomy of municipalities and the future of local service delivery across South Africa. The case, which now heads to the country's highest court, revolves around both procedural and substantive concerns: that the Act was passed unlawfully, and that its implementation would severely constrain municipalities' ability to respond quickly to critical infrastructure needs. Chief Justice Mandisa Maya issued directions on 14 July, giving national government until 8 August to file its answering affidavit. The City has until 22 August to respond. The Presidency has confirmed it will make its position clear in those legal filings. Presidential spokesperson Vincent Magwenya told Weekend Argus: 'Our responses will be contained in our papers, which will be made known against the court set deadline.' For the City of Cape Town, the case is not merely a legal formality. Mayor Geordin Hill-Lewis described the court's decision to grant direct access as a crucial development. 'We welcome the Concourt granting direct access to hear this vital matter. 'We believe the Act was passed unlawfully, with fatal shortcomings in public participation and parliament's procedures.' The City's application contends that the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) vote that passed the Bill was flawed because seven of nine provincial delegations did not have valid final mandates. This alone, the City argues, is grounds for the legislation to be invalidated. However, Mayor Hill-Lewis emphasised that beyond procedural defects, the impact of the law on everyday service delivery is at the heart of their opposition. 'Beyond these issues, the Act will slow down local service delivery and make it much harder for municipalities to procure quickly in response to local needs. "Local government must be able to act swiftly to resolve urgent water, sanitation, electrical, waste, and environmental issues. Instead, this bill will slow down municipalities via a massive new red tape burden and interference from other spheres of government. This is unconstitutional, and undermines local government's direct accountability to serving residents.' The Constitutional Court made a ruling this past week Image: File In a comprehensive set of written responses to Weekend Argus, the City expanded on specific operational concerns. These include restrictions on municipalities' ability to procure emergency services without central approval, and the creation of a single national Public Procurement Office (PPO), which will assume oversight of municipal procurement systems. 'Specialised services or goods might be needed for urgent repairs to water, sewer or electricity infrastructure that may pose serious environmental risk or danger to residents. In these cases for example, municipalities will no longer have the power to lawfully deviate from procurement regulations for urgent service delivery without centralised approval via the centralised national Public Procurement Office (PPO).' The City warned that if the PPO database fails or is delayed, procurement for urgent services at municipal level could grind to a halt across the country. Added to this, the legislation prevents municipalities from maintaining their own supplier databases or making payments outside the central system. These concerns are amplified by the cost and complexity of implementing the law. While the Act is not yet fully operational, the City says National Treasury is still in the process of establishing the necessary regulations and systems. 'The Act is not yet in full effect as the necessary regulations and systems are still being established by National Treasury.' Even so, the City is already anticipating the financial and bureaucratic burden that will follow if the legislation stands. 'Yes because there will likely be human resource costs and other operational expenses required to cope with the major new red tape and compliance burden.' The legislation introduces 36 new regulatory requirements still to be promulgated. Municipal officials warn these changes will create delays, legal uncertainty, and reduced flexibility to deal with time-sensitive contracts. One such example is the potential for long and complex appeals against tenders — which, under the Act, would block the finalisation of contracts until the appeals process concludes. The City says this will discourage public-private partnerships and hinder investment in infrastructure, particularly in fast-growing urban areas. Cape Town has not stood alone in its opposition. The City maintains that it has engaged every possible forum to raise its objections, including public participation processes, submissions to the South African Local Government Association (SALGA), and intergovernmental meetings. 'The City has opposed the legislation at every stage including via public participation and SALGA channels. The City is acting in the interests of all municipalities.' At the heart of the City's legal argument lies a constitutional principle: that local government is not merely a service provider for national mandates, but a constitutionally distinct and autonomous sphere with direct accountability to residents. 'As a starting point, local government has constitutional autonomy and direct obligations to residents which the bill unconstitutionally infringes, aside from any and all further negative impacts.' [email protected] Weekend Argus
IOL News
5 days ago
- Politics
- IOL News
This isn't a Budget it's a burden: Capetonians must rise against DA's punitive tariffs
Faiez Jacobs is slamming the DA-led City Council for turning its back on the very people who built this City. Image: Pixabay I write this not as a politician, but as a son of this city. Cape Town taught me resilience and pride. It raised me in the shadow of Table Mountain, on the proud Cape Flats and with the hope of its people. But today, I write with a heavy heart and a burning conviction because this uncaring DA City of Cape Town council, our home, is turning its back on the very people who built it. Mayor Geordin Hill-Lewis says this budget is 'pro-poor.' But the facts, and the pain playing out in homes across this city, tell a very different story. Let's Be Clear: The Poor Are Not Being Carried by the Wealthy The City tells us that wealthy households are now contributing more to uplift the poor. It sounds noble. It sounds just. But it's simply not true. The 7 billion in national allocations from the Treasury , not local council cross-subsidies is what actually funds free basic services and sanitation. in national allocations from the Treasury , is what actually funds free basic services and sanitation. Out of this, the City has only budgeted 7 billion for such services. That means national taxpayers not local generosity are lifting the most vulnerable. 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 ✕ Where is the other monies going? In other words, the 'redistributive' claim is a myth dressed in spin. the poorest in the city are supported by national funds, not by progressive uplifts from affluent households. The working-class, the pensioner, the young professional, and the struggling homeowner you are being made to carry the burden. Homeowners Are Not the Enemy They're the Collateral Damage Cape Town is one of the most unequal cities on Earth. But instead of tackling that with vision and innovation, this budget turns to the easiest target: your home. Your rates and service charges are now tied not to your usage but to your property's market value. It is grossly unfair. By correlating fixed service charges like the new 'cleaning tariff,' water, sewerage, and electricity to property valuations, the City assumes that property value equals income. But in Cape Town, property prices have surged far faster than household incomes. Why because it has become the playground of the rich making it unaffordable to ordinary Capetonians. Real Data shows: Draft budget proposes average property rates hikes of 7.96 %, with values over R3 million facing over 20 % increases . New fixed charges set by valuation: Cleaning tariff: ~R477/month; Sewerage: ~R157/month ;Electricity connection fixed charge: +39 % ; Water connection fixed charge: +113 %, Crazy is it not.. Combined, this adds ~R920/month extra for a R4.2 million property regardless of usage. Specifically Bergvliet and Meadowridge, residents report this bill increases. That's nearly R11,000 per year just in extra fixed charges. This is outrageous! Where is the outcry, Capetonians??? Electricity Tariffs: Above and Beyond The City applied to NERSA for a 14.5 % electricity tariff increase, vastly outstripping national average hikes of around 14 %, already high by global standards .Remember, in 2023/24 they implemented 17.6 % almost 2 % above the NERSA-approved 15.1 %. Despite public opposition and legal challenges over these above-inflation increases, the City insists it's simply covering its "cost-to-supply" but we know its daylight robbery and opaque revenue grab. Let's talk about what that really means: A retired couple in Lansdowne , living in a home they paid off 30 years ago, now face nearly R1,000 more every month not because they're using more water or electricity, but because their area's property prices have risen. , living in a home they paid off 30 years ago, now face nearly not because they're using more water or electricity, but because their area's property prices have risen. A young family in Ottery, barely making ends meet, receives a bill increase of 28%, simply because their home was revalued. No extra luxury. No extra income. Just extra pressure. Ons sukkel. Ons kry swaar. This is NOT fairness, equity or redress. It's financial cruelty with a smile. This is not creative budgeting. It's a cynical cash grab from people who cannot afford it. What If Your Parent Lives Alone? Imagine your mother, a widow in Mitchells Plain or Grassy Park, living on a state pension. Her home is modest, but its value has risen over time. Now, her monthly account has doubled yet she still boils one kettle, washes one load, and uses barely any electricity. She's being punished for staying in the home she raised you in. Does that sound like justice to you? 14,000 People Spoke. Will You Be Next? In the recent public comment process, over 14,000 Capetonians wrote in protest. Mayor Hill stop being tone deaf. Residents' associations from across the city from Khayelitsha to Kuilsriver, from Durbanville to Wynberg have all said: this is not right. We don't want handouts. We want fairness. We're not refusing to pay. We're refusing to be exploited. Don't Let Them Tell You This Is About Equity Mayor Hill-Lewis says 'wealthier areas are paying more so poorer areas can get more' and 'Homes above R7 million could see increases over 20 %,' he says, 'to invest in poorer communities.' That's not what the budget shows. In reality: Poorer areas are funded by national government grants , not through municipal ratepayers. , not through municipal ratepayers. The City's budget increases are not tied to actual service usage . New charges appear less redistributive and more like value-based wealth extraction , muffled behind pro‑poor rhetoric . New charges appear less redistributive and more like , muffled behind pro‑poor rhetoric Your ability to pay is not being considered. Only your area and your home value. So, who benefits from this budget? Who gets richer, while you get squeezed? Fair taxation means paying for what you use, not how much your home is worth. It's Time to Draw a Line in the Sand Capetonians, we are a proud people. From Bonteheuwel to Bishop Lavis, from Bo-Kaap to Bishops Court we built this city brick by brick, spirit by spirit. This is not just a fight about budgets. It's a fight for dignity. For fairness. For a city that belongs to all who live in it not just those who can afford to survive it. What Can You Do Now? Speak to your councillor. Demand they reject any budget that punishes residents based on property value alone. don't vote for them if they do not stand for you. Demand they reject any budget that punishes residents based on property value alone. don't vote for them if they do not stand for you. Join your rates and residents' association like SANCO , groups like CTCRA or Bergvliet Meadowridge are submitting collective objections. They're taking legal steps. Add your voice. They're taking legal steps. Add your voice. Spread the word. Share your bill. Talk to your neighbour. Use social media. Attend, arrange public meetings or request virtual participation Share your bill. Talk to your neighbour. Use social media. or request virtual participation Sign the petitions. SAPOA and civil coalitions are mounting challenges support them. SAPOA and civil coalitions are mounting challenges support them. Stay informed. Read the budget. Understand the terms. Don't be fooled by smooth DA spin and smoke and mirrors. demand a phased-in approach to tariff restructuring, volume-based billing, and targeted support for vulnerable households Final Word: Don't Let Them Take Our City From Us This is our city. Not theirs to manage with spreadsheets and spin. We are not ATMs. We are citizens. We are not silent. We are strong. So stand up. Push back. Speak out. Let us fight for a Cape Town that is fair, compassionate, and just not just for the wealthy, but for all who call this place home. We owe it to our parents. We owe it to our children. We owe it to ourselves. You know this , why are you not acting? Let's act now. Before the city we love becomes unlivable for the very people who gave it life. * Faiez Jacobs – Former Member of Parliament | Activist | Public Servant | Citizen of South Africa ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.
The South African
6 days ago
- Business
- The South African
Mayor Geordin Hill-Lewis slams Cape Town's wealthy property owners
Cape Town Mayor Geordin Hill-Lewis has launched a strong defence of the city's newly implemented municipal charge reforms, following a legal challenge by the South African Property Owners Association (SAPOA), which represents some of the country's wealthiest commercial real estate stakeholders. SAPOA has taken the City of Cape Town to the High Court, seeking a review of a key feature in the City's 2025/26 'Invested in Hope' budget: the decision to link fixed municipal service charges – such as for water and electricity infrastructure – to property value rather than applying flat rates across the board. Hill-Lewis has criticised SAPOA's position, stating that its objection to the new charge model is an attempt by large-scale property owners to avoid paying their fair share. 'They argue that the biggest property owners should pay the same as low-income families. That is simply regressive and patently unfair,' said Hill-Lewis. The mayor emphasised that the policy change was designed to protect lower-income households, particularly homes valued below R2.5 million, while ensuring that higher-value properties contribute more equitably to maintaining the city's public infrastructure. The city scrapped its old 'pipe levy' model, which based charges on the size of a property's water connection – a system Hill-Lewis said unfairly charged small homes and luxury mansions the same fixed fees. 'Our new model aligns charges with the value of the property, which is a more accurate reflection of a household's or business's ability to pay,' he said. The change supports Cape Town's planned R40 billion infrastructure investment over the next three years, which the city says is necessary to maintain and expand vital services across all communities. SAPOA argues that the policy is legally questionable and will place undue pressure on commercial property owners and investors. The association is seeking a court ruling to overturn the implementation of the value-based charge system. However, Hill-Lewis dismissed SAPOA's court bid as an attempt to 'go back to a system where ordinary families subsidise the wealthiest portfolio holders in the country.' The mayor also defended the principle of cross-subsidisation, stating that all residents – especially those with the financial means – have a responsibility to support equitable infrastructure development. 'Even households with solar panels or boreholes rely on the City's infrastructure in emergencies. Fixed infrastructure costs exist whether people consume services or not.' He explained that a flat charge, as SAPOA prefers, would disproportionately affect poorer households, taking up a much larger percentage of their income compared to wealthier residents. Hill-Lewis said the city had consulted with SAPOA and other stakeholders throughout the budgeting process. While SAPOA acknowledged the city's infrastructure needs, it failed to offer any workable alternative to the current approach. The city maintains that linking charges to property values is both legally sound and socially responsible, and plans to defend the policy in court. 'Cape Town must remain a city of hope,' Hill-Lewis concluded. 'To do that, everyone must contribute fairly to the systems that serve us all.' The High Court is expected to hear the matter in the coming weeks. If SAPOA succeeds, the ruling could set a precedent for how municipalities across South Africa structure their service charges in the future. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1 Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.
