Johannesburg mayor Kabelo Gwamanda. (Photo: Luba Lesolle)
A motion by the Democratic Alliance (DA) on Thursday afternoon seeking the dissolution of the City of Johannesburg council was unsuccessful after 165 members out of the 228 present voted against it.
To succeed, the party needed at least 180 councillors to back the motion. Of the DA’s 71 councillors, 63 voted in favour of dissolving the council.
The DA initiated the motion, saying that the leadership in the metro was “incompetent” and that the dissolution of the council would have addressed the political instability attributed to the leadership of the ANC and the Economic Freedom Fighters.
Mayor Kabelo Gwamanda welcomed the failed motion, saying that the council stopped the DA’s “dysfunctional attempts” to destabilise the council.
“Once more, the council of the city has refused to be held [to] ransom by the DA and its deliberate attempts to gain political relevance at the expense of service delivery to the over six million residents of the city.
“In November 2021, the residents of the city elected the current council, whose current constitution is a reflection of the democratic choices of the citizens of our city. To seek to undermine the wishes of the electorate is a violation of the very democratic principles the DA claims to represent and fight for. As the government of local unity, we will continue to defend the rights of the council and the democratic choices of the residents of the city,” Gwamanda said.
He added that the city is increasingly concerned about the DA’s behaviour in the affairs of the council and administration of the city.
“Through frivolous litigations and motions, the DA has sought by all means to collapse and render Johannesburg dysfunctional as it has done in Tshwane. It has sought to collapse every tenet of good governance and democratic outcomes to satisfy an insatiable appetite to lead the city.”
ActionSA dismissed the motion as “immature and lacking substance.”
The DA in the city has said that the failure to dissolve the council amounted to an “injustice for the many residents who experienced poor service delivery”.