24 June 2025

The Edgar Legoale Foundation welcomes the Free State High Court’s recognition of the real suffering faced by the people of Ngwathe Local Municipality. However, we express serious concern about the Court’s decision to dissolve the elected municipal council under Section 139(1)(c) of the Constitution. While there is no doubt that service delivery has collapsed in many parts of the municipality, dissolving the council is not the most effective path forward. Rather, we believe the solution lies in strengthening oversight, enforcing accountability, and enabling collaborative administration between provincial and local leadership structures.

The foundation is concerned about the use of administrators from the province . History has shown us that the appointment of administrators under Section 139(1)(b) or (c) often fails to improve service delivery. Examples include the Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality, Matjhabeng and Mafube Local Municipality, all of which were placed under administration without meaningful improvements. Instead, in some cases, administrators have been accused of corruption, appointing friends and deploying politically aligned actors with no track record in governance. The Edgar Legoale Foundation opposes any intervention that removes democratic representation without strict accountability safeguards. We fear a scenario where Ngwathe becomes another cautionary tale of ‘administration without results.’

On 20 June 2025, Judge Daffue of the Free State High Court handed down a judgment in the matter of Afriforum NPC v Ngwathe Local Municipality & 14 Others (Case No. 2264/24). The court found the Ngwathe Local Municipality to be in breach of its constitutional obligations as set out under Section 152 and Section 153 of the Constitution. A declaratory order was granted, directing the Free State Executive Council to intervene, dissolve the municipal council, and appoint an administrator. The judgment pointed to persistent service delivery failures—especially relating to water, sanitation, electricity, and infrastructure management—as justification for this drastic measure.

The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, in Section 139(1)(c), allows the provincial executive to dissolve a municipal council when it has failed to fulfil an executive obligation. However, this provision must be used sparingly and as a last resort. Section 152(1) outlines the objects of local government, which include:
a) to provide democratic and accountable government for local communities;
b) to ensure the provision of services to communities in a sustainable manner;
c) to promote social and economic development;
d) to promote a safe and healthy environment;
e) to encourage the involvement of communities and community organisations in the matters of local government.

Section 153 further requires that a municipality structure and manage its administration, budgeting and planning to give priority to the basic needs of the community and to promote the social and economic development of the community. The Court’s finding that Ngwathe breached these provisions is constitutionally sound. However, the remedy prescribed—dissolution—is deeply flawed and potentially counterproductive to these very constitutional goals.

Residents of Ngwathe Local Municipality, including those in Parys, Tumahole, Heilbron, Vredefort, Edenville and Koppies, have experienced persistent service delivery breakdowns for over a decade. These include:

• Frequent and prolonged water outages lasting days, weeks, and in some areas, even months.
• Sewer spillages into streets and residential areas, posing serious health risks.
• Unstable electricity supply, damaging household appliances and affecting livelihoods.
• Collapsed waste management systems leading to uncollected refuse and illegal dumping.
• Inaccessible and deteriorating road infrastructure and potholes.
  
These failures constitute a direct violation of residents’ constitutional rights under Section 27(1)(b), which guarantees ‘the right to have access to sufficient water’, and Section 24(a), which ensures that everyone has the right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being.

While the Constitution allows for intervention by provincial government, case law including ‘MEC for Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning v Paarl Poultry Enterprises (Pty) Ltd’ emphasises that any intervention under Section 139 must be proportional, necessary, and procedurally fair. The Constitutional Court in ‘Premier, Western Cape v Overberg District Municipality’ further held that dissolution of council is a measure of last resort.

The Edgar Legoale Foundation believes that the Free State High Court’s decision may have prematurely applied Section 139(1)(c), without exploring less drastic and more stabilising measures such as placing the municipality under administration in terms of Section 139(1)(b), with clear performance timelines. We believe that working with the existing leadership who understand the local context can fast-track solutions.

Recommendations: Strengthening the Role of Fezile Dabi District Municipality:

Fezile Dabi District Municipality (FDDM) is licensed by the Department of Water and Sanitation to serve as an implementing agent. We recommend that the provincial government appoint FDDM as the primary implementation agent to execute water and sanitation recovery projects in Ngwathe. This would include:

• Deploying qualified engineers and technical teams to stabilise water supply infrastructure.
• Fast-tracking upgrades to sanitation systems and wastewater treatment plants.
• Coordinating emergency interventions in partnership with provincial and national departments.
• Mobilising additional funding and grants to address service delivery backlogs.
  
This approach allows for continuity, local expertise, and avoids the disruptions associated with completely dissolving elected councils. The people of Ngwathe need delivery, not political uncertainty.

The BATHO PELE principles — which translate to ‘People First’ — are the cornerstone of public service in South Africa. These include consultation, service standards, access, courtesy, information, openness and transparency, redress, and value for money.
Ngwathe Municipality’s failure to consult communities, provide accessible and dignified services, or respond to grievances directly contradicts these principles. However, dissolving the council without meaningful local engagement further distances residents from the very governance structures meant to represent them.

The challenges in Ngwathe are structural, historical, and beyond the capacity of the municipality alone. National Treasury and the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA) must establish a special intervention package. We recommend:

• A Municipal Bailout Fund, similar to SOE support packages (e.g., Eskom).
• Ring-fenced funding for water, sanitation, electricity, and refuse infrastructure.
• Deployment of technical task teams from DBSA, SALGA and DWS.
• A community accountability forum including civil society, labour and ward councillors.

The Edgar Legoale Foundation fully acknowledges the hardship faced by the people of Ngwathe and agrees that urgent intervention is required. However, we reject the solution of council dissolution as premature and risky. We call on the Free State Provincial Government and Ngwathe Local Municipality to appeal the judgment and pursue a more inclusive and stabilising path.

The residents of Ngwathe do not deserve more disruption. They deserve clean water, working toilets, lights that stay on, roads that function, and leadership that listens. We remain committed to partnering with government, communities, and civil society in delivering this vision.


Issued by Edgar Legoale Foundation

For more information and Interviews: Nthabiseng Molejane, Foundation Manager and Spokesperson at 082 287 2290 (Available on WhatsApp and Call) or email at nthabiseng@edgarlegoale.com

www.edgarlegoale.com