Opposition parties in Nelson Mandela Bay have dismissed the ANC’s bid to remove deputy mayor Gary van Niekerk from his position, calling it politically opportunistic, procedurally flawed and a distraction from the city’s worsening service delivery crisis.
Meanwhile, some within the coalition said they had not had an opportunity to read the contents of the motion.
Van Niekerk, a member of the National Alliance, is part of the ANC-led coalition in the metro.
The coalition includes the ANC (47), EFF (8), DOP (2) and NA (3), with the AIC and PAC having a seat each.
This brings the total number of seats to 62 in the 120-person council.
The coalition often receives support from the UDM’s lone councillor.
The opposition consists of the DA (48), ACDP (2), FF+ (2), PA (2), AIM and GOOD with one seat each.
The motion was submitted by ANC councillor Luyanda Lawu and seconded by the ANC’s Thembinkosi Mafana.
ANC regional chair Siphiwo Tshaka would not confirm if the party would push ahead with its motion, saying the regional working committee was meeting at 6pm on Monday.
“That motion is one of the items on our agenda today.”
GOOD councillor Lawrence Troon said the motion showed how the ANC was immoral and void of any integrity.
“The ANC has vehemently defended him in the past for the same reasons listed in the motion.
“It shows the ANC is a party without integrity. They do not deserve to govern.
“The idiots that tabled and seconded the motion do not understand the rules of council.
“You can’t remove him in a motion of exigency.
“There is no way to remove a deputy mayor, speaker, chief, or mayor through such a motion.
“These people are rushing to get rid of Gary because of my motion in August.
“These are desperate attempts. Tomorrow, I will speak against the motion.
“When it comes to matters of principle, my personal feelings have nothing to do with it.
“It will be interesting if the speaker allows this motion to even be tabled.”
FF+ councillor Bill Harington said the irony was that the reasons the ANC cited to justify his removal were widely known when they welcomed Van Niekerk as a coalition partner.
“The allegations referred to by the ANC in its motion were not only historically known, but even more recent claims and controversies surrounding Van Niekerk were repeatedly raised in the council chamber.
“Despite this, the ANC chose to ignore the warnings, simply because it served their political purpose to bring down the previous coalition government, consisting among others of the VF Plus, DA, ACDP, UDM and other partners.
“Today, they use the same reasons they ignored then as justification to remove him from his position.
“This conduct exposes the ANC’s opportunistic politics.
“It confirms that for the ANC, principles are subordinate to retaining power and political survival.
“If the ANC truly believed that these allegations render a person unfit to hold public office, they should already then have regarded it as unacceptable.
“However, they deliberately decided otherwise because it offered them a political advantage.
“The events simultaneously raise serious questions about the nature of the National Alliance.
“Over the past period, the party has shown that personal and individual political interests are often placed above the interests of the residents of Nelson Mandela Bay.
“It is precisely this kind of politics that has fuelled instability in the metro and repeatedly left residents second.”
He said the ANC could not pretend to be driven by principles.
“They were willing to ignore all warning signs when it suited them, and are now trying to correct their own political decision by citing the same reasons they deliberately ignored at the time.
“The FF+ will consider the motion on its merits when it comes before the council.”
In his motion, Lawu cited Van Niekerk’s ongoing cyber fraud case as one of the reasons he should be removed.
Van Niekerk’s case centres on his appointment of Boqwana Burns Incorporated back in 2022 to handle various legal matters at a cost of R575,000.
His position as speaker of the council at the time was uncertain because suspended city manager Noxolo Nqwazi declared vacancies in the council held by his party, the National Alliance.
It is further alleged that Boqwana Burns was not on the municipality’s list of approved legal service providers and that by appointing them, Van Niekerk had attempted to circumvent the Municipal Finance Management Act.
“During this time, [the deputy mayor] was briefly removed from council and his position as council speaker due to his party’s internal matters,” Lawu wrote.
DA councillor Rano Kayser raised concerns about how the motion had been initiated.
“We believe the motion is incompetent. In terms of the rules of order, a motion of no confidence must be substantive and mature for 10 days in the office of the speaker.
“Any entertainment of such a motion will open the risk of litigation against the metro.
“Ultimately, ratepayers would have to pay for a process that could have been done legally.
“We don’t support how the motion has been brought. We have a responsibility to protect the money of our ratepayers.”
AIM councillor Khusta Jack said the motion was an inconsequential petty-politicking exercise between the mayor Babalwa Lobishe and her deputy.
“Lobishe has mobilised her forces to retaliate against her governing coalition partner Van Niekerk after he publicly attacked her for poor leadership.
“AIM will not dignify such political frivolity by taking part when the metro is facing the severest service delivery crisis it has seen in many years.
“It says a lot about their leadership qualities and civic priorities that the mayor and her deputy are focusing their energies on a political mudslinging exercise (and wasting the council’s resources in the process) while the people of Nelson Mandela Bay are struggling with brown water in their taps and prolonged electricity outages.”
EFF councillor Khanya Ngqisha said his party had not yet seen the motion.
“We can’t comment at this particular moment to say we’re going to support it or not before the caucus sits.”
PAC councillor Bassie Kamana said his party viewed the motion in a serious light.
“This time, we weren’t hoping to be viewing motions against anyone, whether the mayor or deputy mayor.
“The PAC caucus will look at the merits of the motion at 5pm today.
“We view anything shaking the governance of the coalition in a serious light.
“There’s now a cold war between the mayor and deputy mayor, which is not right for the stability of the coalition.”
UDM councillor Luxolo Namette said neither side had approached him about the motion.
“We’ll abstain from the vote as long as we’ve not been consulted.
“This would be reversing the gains of this municipality.
“It’s going to create instability, and we don’t want that now based on the challenges we have, especially around service delivery.”
Van Niekerk could not be reached for comment.
Follow The Herald WhatsApp channel today and stay connected to the stories shaping our world.
The Herald
