uThukela Water Crisis: DA Heads to High Court as Municipal Leadership Snubs Oversight
BY: CHANON LECODEY MERRICKS | ONLINE EDITOR
uThukela Water Crisis: DA Heads to High Court as Municipal Leadership Snubs Oversight
The Democratic Alliance (DA) in the uThukela District Municipality has initiated High Court proceedings against the municipality (Case No. 2026-162871) as part of an ongoing effort to address systemic service delivery failures and financial mismanagement.
Court Application Details
Case Number: 2026-162871.
Hearing Date: The matter is set down for the opposed roll on 19 October 2026.
Relief Sought: The DA is requesting that the High Court:
Declare that the municipality has breached the constitutional rights of its residents by failing to provide reliable access to water.
Place the municipality under administration in terms of Section 139(1)(c) of the Constitution, which includes the potential dissolution of the current Council.
Establish ongoing court supervision to ensure compliance with any issued orders.
Core Allegations & Context
The DA’s application is supported by affidavits from residents across the district—including Ladysmith, Estcourt, Bergville, and Ezakheni—who cite frequent water shortages.
Financial Mismanagement: The party cites R1.314 billion in Unauthorized, Irregular, Fruitless, and Wasteful (UIFW) expenditure and nine consecutive years of disclaimed audit opinions.
The RASP Consultants Dispute: A protracted legal battle with RASP Consultants CC (Vivah Technologies) regarding unpaid water-sector work from 2019. This dispute previously led to the attachment of municipal bank accounts by the Sheriff in early 2026, which disrupted salary payments and essential service operations.
Service Delivery Collapse: Allegations that the municipality has consistently failed to meet the legal requirement of providing at least 25 liters of potable water per person per day, despite repeated warnings from the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) and official Blue/Green Drop reports.
Status of Municipality
While the DA is seeking a new intervention under Section 139(1)(c), the municipality has previously faced financial distress that required intervention under the Municipal Finance Management Act (MFMA).
The municipality maintains that it is working to implement a "budget funding plan" to address unfunded budgets and improve its audit standing.
No comments:
Post a Comment
KASIPEOPLE