The Matjhabeng budget for the 2025-’26 period as tabled last week was strongly opposed, and will be re-tabled after due process has been followed, and when the Integrated Development Plan (IDP) has been considered by all of the wards in
Matjhabeng.
“The DA in Matjhabeng and the EFF strongly dispute the version of events as described in the recent article quoting FF Plus councillor Manie Pretorius, regarding the adoption of the 2025-’26 municipal budget,” says DA councillor René Steyn.
She says that contrary to what was implied, the DA and EFF did not support the Integrated Development Plan (IDP) nor the budget.
“In fact, the DA vehemently objected to the IDP, raising serious concerns about the procedural flaws in the public participation process.
“It was noted in the council sitting that the IDP process had become a mere compliance exercise and failed to reflect authentic community engagement.
As such, the DA proposed that the IDP be referred back for proper stakeholder consultation, as required by legislation.”
– René Steyn, DA councillor
“As such, the DA proposed that the IDP be referred back for proper stakeholder consultation, as required by legislation,” says Steyn.
She says it must be emphasised that the IDP and budget are intrinsically linked.
The IDP forms the basis of the budget; therefore, if the IDP is found to be procedurally or substantively defective, the budget cannot be credibly adopted.
The DA stated unequivocally that the budget remains unfunded, as has historically been the case in the Matjhabeng Municipality. Approval of such a budget would only serve to entrench financial mismanagement.
EFF councillor Thomas Macingwane confirms that the budget did not go to vote.
“I opposed the budget and the IDP, as the municipality did not follow due process. The budget is informed by the IDP. The IDP must go back to all of the wards, and only then will the budget be tabled for formalisation. This budget is not yet final, in its current form it is unrealistic, and the people will not be able to afford it.”
– Thomas Macingwane, EFF councillor
“I opposed the budget and the IDP, as the municipality did not follow due process.
“The budget is informed by the IDP. The IDP must go back to all of the wards, and only then will the budget be tabled for formalisation. This budget is not yet final, in its current form it is unrealistic, and the people will not be able to afford it,” says Macingwane.
Cllr Marie van Rooyen of the DA says the party explicitly dissociated itself from the adoption of both the IDP and the budget, and placed these objections on record.
“The FF Plus, in contrast, did not object to the content of the IDP itself – a key shortfall in their position – only to later oppose the budget. This inconsistency was noted and criticised during the meeting,” says Van Rooyen.
They concur that it is important that the public receives an accurate account of proceedings, especially in the context of the municipality now being placed under administration. Misrepresentations only serve to confuse residents and detract from efforts toward genuine accountability and financial recovery.
In an article that can be read on Vista’s online platforme, vistanews.co.za, Manie Pretorius of the FF Plus said that the FF Plus was the only party that had opposed the budget vote.
