(Illustration: Kevin Momberg) Seven of the City of Johannesburg’s 22 most senior managers failed to meet their performance targets in the 2023/24 financial year – yet continued to receive full salaries, with no penalties beyond the withholding of performance bonuses.
These are the most recent finalised performance outcomes available, with the City confirming that no subsequent reviews have been completed since the 2023/24 financial year, citing the absence of a permanent city manager.
The City has declined to identify the officials or the departments they lead, despite repeated requests – effectively shielding key service delivery portfolios from public scrutiny.
These are Section 56/57 senior management positions responsible for core service delivery, overseeing the City’s largest departments and directly accountable for infrastructure, finances and day-to-day operations. The 22 managers are paid between R3.38-million (the City Manager) and R1.3-million (Head: Private Office of Executive Mayor).
Also of concern is that of the City’s 22 senior managers, not only did seven fail to meet performance targets, but four key posts are currently filled in an acting capacity, raising questions about stability and oversight at the top of the administration.
Civil society groups and opposition parties say the consequences of underperformance are already visible on the ground – from deteriorating infrastructure to missed delivery targets – and warn that the City’s performance management system appears to carry little real consequence.
The lack of transparency comes as Johannesburg faces mounting service delivery failures, infrastructure backlogs and financial strain, raising questions about accountability at the highest levels of the administration.
The Joburg Crisis Alliance has argued that missed targets at the senior level translate directly into service delivery failures, while opposition councillors have questioned why officials who fail to meet agreed benchmarks remain in their posts without sanction.
Under the Municipal Systems Act and the Municipal Performance Regulations for Municipal Managers and Managers Directly Accountable to Municipal Managers, municipalities are required to implement performance management systems for senior officials, including annual assessments and corrective action where targets are not met.
These frameworks allow for measures ranging from performance improvement plans to disciplinary processes and, in cases of sustained non-performance, termination of contracts.
However, the City has not indicated whether any corrective steps have been taken against the seven underperforming managers, nor whether performance improvement plans or disciplinary processes have been initiated.
Well over a year after the failure to meet targets, residents are still waiting for accountability from the City regarding these officials.
Daily Maverick requested updated 2025/26 salary information for senior managers from the City two months ago, but did not receive a direct response. Instead, the City referred to existing budget documents, which set out what each position earns, but do not identify the individuals occupying those roles or link remuneration to performance outcomes.
This leaves key gaps between what is published in the budget and what is disclosed about accountability.
Performance reviews behind
City spokesperson Nthatisi Modingoane admitted the performance reviews of Section 56 managers for the 2023/24 financial year were still not complete, but were “almost at finalisation stage”. New City Manager Floyd Brink, appointed in December, will conclude and sign off the outstanding components, with finalisation anticipated by year-end, he added.
“For the 2024/25 financial year, reviews will only be conducted once the Annual Report process has been completed by March 2026, ensuring assessments are grounded in verified institutional performance information and aligned to Auditor-General outcomes,” he said.
This means residents have had no confirmed performance outcomes for senior managers for two consecutive financial years, even as infrastructure failures, billing crises and service disruptions intensify.
Corrective action has only included non-payment of performance rewards, targeted training, and in some cases, contracts not being renewed for non-performing managers, said Modingoane.
Asked whether any senior manager’s remuneration had ever been withheld or clawed back due to poor performance, he said: “No senior manager’s remuneration has ever been withheld or clawed back. The evaluation process is objective, with rewards recommended only on the basis of audited performance results.”
“The City Manager, supported by the City’s Group Strategy, Policy Coordination and Relations committee, oversees performance management. Monitoring occurs quarterly through mentoring sessions, with formal reviews twice per year, and reports are tabled to Council mid-year and year-end,” said Modingoane.
Acting posts and vacancies undermine delivery
At least four senior management posts are currently filled in an acting capacity, but the City has not clarified how long these officials have been acting or when permanent appointments will be made.
One previously vacant position — Executive Head of Social Development — was filled at the end of March, with the Council confirming the appointment of Martin Ngwako Lebea after he had already been serving in an acting capacity.
However, several other critical posts remain vacant, including Head of Public Safety, Executive Director of Human Settlements, and Group Head of Communications and Marketing – all central to stabilising service delivery.
Civil society responds
“The implications of seven of the 22 targets not being met would translate into actual service delivery failure — and that should be of great concern,” said Yunus Chamda of the Johannesburg Crisis Alliance (JCA).
“When governance failures translate into service delivery collapse, we have to call it out. The JCA is non-partisan but not apolitical.”
At a public meeting in March, the JCA further delivered a blunt message to officials: accountability means that if you do not deliver, you must step down.
Johannesburg is already buckling under billions owed in staff payments, financial pressure on Johannesburg Water, instability at City Power and delays in infrastructure maintenance.
These accountability gaps come against the backdrop of the R10-billion wage agreement with Samwu tied to the 2026/27 budget.
Civic groups warn that the deal is unfunded and unsustainable, threatening to deepen the City’s financial crisis.
Chamda has condemned what it describes as a disconnect between leadership decisions and the realities facing residents.
“Johannesburg is facing severe financial strain – yet councillors have approved salary increases for themselves while withdrawing a critical Adjustment Budget at the last minute,” he added.
“With the City owing billions in outstanding staff payments, struggling entities short of funds, and City Power mired in instability, these decisions signal a troubling lack of urgency and accountability.”
But without up-to-date performance data, clarity on acting appointments, or consequences for failure, residents are left with little visibility into whether senior leadership is delivering.
The picture that emerges is stark
Senior managers paid despite failing performance targets, with no financial penalty;
Performance reviews years behind, leaving residents without accountability data: and
Vacant and acting posts in critical portfolios, undermining service delivery.
For residents, the result is clear: governance failures at the top continue to translate directly into breakdowns on the ground. DM