Legal Ignorance and Political Mismanagement Created the Very Crisis It Now Seeks to Exploit

The statement is as remarkable for its legal ignorance as it is for its political opportunism.

The DA accuses the Executive Mayor of failing to recommend an extension of the CFO’s precautionary suspension. The problem with this allegation is simple. The Local Government: Disciplinary Regulations for Senior Managers expressly provide that a precautionary suspension automatically lapses if a disciplinary hearing has not commenced within three months. More importantly, they go even further by expressly prohibiting Council from extending that period.

There was therefore no lawful recommendation the Executive Mayor could have made, because there was no lawful decision Council could have taken.

To criticise the Executive Mayor for failing to exercise a power that the law expressly prohibits demonstrates either a fundamental misunderstanding of the legislation governing municipal disciplinary proceedings or a deliberate attempt to mislead the public.

Even more improbable is the DA’s attempt to rewrite history.

ActionSA notes that the Democratic Alliance has now approached the High Court to challenge aspects of the Council meeting of 9 July 2026. While that process must take its course, the DA cannot escape the fact that this litigation stems from its own political mismanagement.

The DA made the extraordinary decision to grant leave of absence to 13 of its 69 councillors, almost one in every five members of its caucus, for one of the most consequential Council meetings of the current term. Whether those councillors later returned or not is ultimately beside the point. The DA’s own decision to grant leave created the circumstances that gave rise to the dispute it is now asking the Court to resolve.

Ironically, the DA’s own court papers acknowledge that it was ActionSA that tabled amendments recommending that the allegations against the CFO be classified as serious misconduct and that disciplinary proceedings be instituted on that basis.

Instead of ensuring its own caucus was present to support those recommendations, the DA now seeks to portray itself as the defender of accountability while blaming the Executive Mayor for the legal consequences of Regulations she has neither the authority nor the ability to override.

South Africans deserve an opposition that understands the law before commenting on it, and that takes responsibility for its own decisions before seeking to blame others.