Nelson Mandela Bay opposition accuses coalition of U-turn on R23bn UIFWE write-off

The ACDP in Nelson Mandela Bay has accused Municipal Public Accounts Committee (MPAC) chair Luxolo Namette and Mayor Babalwa Lobishe of an embarrassing U-turn after backing a proposed R23-billion unauthorised, irregular, fruitless and wasteful expenditure write-off without first conducting an item-by-item investigation, only to now position themselves as champions of accountability.

The investigation they sought to bypass is meant to establish liability, determine whether money can be recovered, ensure consequence management and identify matters that warrant criminal investigation.

It took a blunt intervention from National Treasury’s deputy director-general for intergovernmental relations, Ogalaletseng Gaarekwe, on 19 August to derail the proposal. Gaarekwe told the city that MPAC’s recommendation for the council to approve a blanket write-off was unlawful and did not comply with Section 32 of the Municipal Finance Management Act (MFMA).

FOR CONTEXT

Plan to write off R23bn is illegal, Treasury tells Nelson Mandela Bay

August 23, 2026

The letter followed complaints from the ACDP and DA to Treasury, which had warned that MPAC’s recommendation to write off the unauthorised, irregular, fruitless and wasteful expenditure (UIFWE) was unlawful because it bypassed due process.

The city postponed Tuesday’s council meeting, which was due to consider the UIFWE matter among other items, and rescheduled it for Thursday.

ACDP councillor Lance Grootboom said he completely rejected the “dishonest spin of a media statement released today by Namette and Lobishe. It takes unbelievable political arrogance for this administration to issue a public statement pretending they are champions of accountability and against blanket write-offs, when everyone knows they were caught red-handed and stopped dead in their tracks by the National Treasury.”

Namette voted with the ANC and EFF during an MPAC meeting earlier this month to push through the staggering UIFWE bill write-off by way of filing an affidavit with the police and registering a case for investigation by acting city manager Lonwabo Ngoqo. 

In a statement published by the municipality on Tuesday, Namette said MPAC was intensifying its work to assess individual UIFWE.

“The work being undertaken by MPAC is specifically directed at ensuring that each UIFWE item is properly identified, profiled and assessed before any recommendation is made to council. Where there is evidence of wrongdoing, the appropriate accountability processes must follow. Where expenditure is recoverable, every reasonable effort must be made to recover it. Where matters require further investigation, they must be referred through the appropriate channels. 

“The R23-billion UIFWE balance is therefore not being treated as one amount that can simply be written off. MPAC is dealing with the individual matters that make up the register. This work is intended to ensure that council ultimately considers properly supported, evidence-based recommendations on each matter,” said Namette. 

Grootboom accused Namette of trying to “sweep” the massive debt under the carpet by relying on a blanket three-year prescription argument instead of conducting the required item-by-item investigation.

Gaarekwe warned that because prescription was central to the proposed write-off, the relevant dates and legal basis had to be verified before the matter could proceed.

She indicated that Ngoqo’s affidavit asked MPAC to investigate and recommend that all UIFWE on the register as at 30 June 2021 be written off as irrecoverable due to prescription.

“This appears inconsistent with the requirement of an item-by-item assessment. The inconsistency is clearer when the unsigned affidavit is considered. For the 2022 and 2023 financial years, the affidavit states that irrecoverability should only be determined after an item-by-item assessment.”

Gaarekwe said the unsigned affidavit was legally defective because it sought a broad write-off without first completing the required item-by-item assessment. 

Grootboom said the real intention of the coalition government was not accountability, but a calculated move to wipe the slate clean, protect negligent officials and politicians and shield them from personal financial recovery.  

“The ACDP stood against the coalition in that meeting, vigorously debated against the illegal item, and voted against it. We refused to let MPAC be used as a rubber stamp for a multibillion-rand cover-up and immediately escalated this material breach of the MFMA directly to National Treasury and the Auditor-General.

“National Treasury intervened and upheld the ACDP’s warnings in full. Treasury declared the administration’s write-off proposal legally defective, ordered the Acting City Manager to withdraw the submission, and issued a strict warning that any councillor voting for such an unlawful blanket write-off would face misconduct charges and personal financial liability.”

Grootboom said the statement from Namette and Lobishe was due to a forced retreat, compelled by Treasury.

“They are not heroes; they were put firmly in their place.”

Lobishe emphasised the City’s responsibility to confront its longstanding UIFWE problem openly and demonstrate to residents that it is taking action.

“Residents are entitled to ask what happened to public money and whether those responsible can be held accountable. We must answer those questions through evidence, due process and the law,” she said.

“At the same time, accountability must be based on facts and due process. We cannot declare a person guilty before the appropriate processes have been completed, nor can we describe every rand recorded as UIFWE as money that was stolen. Our responsibility is to establish what happened in each case and ensure that the appropriate action follows from the evidence. 

She said there was no blanket write-off process under way and that MPAC was undertaking an individual assessment of the matters contained in the UIFWE register. 

“Where there is liability, it must be pursued.”

DA councillor Gert Engelbrecht said it seemed as though the coalition was trying to save face with the statement, after concerns were raised about how the proposed UIFWE write-off was brought before MPAC.

“The facts remain clear: MPAC members were presented with an item that had not been provided in advance, despite the council Rules of Order requiring sufficient notice and an agenda to allow members to properly consider and prepare for matters before the committee.

“There were also no Section 32 reports provided to MPAC. Instead, members were presented with annual UIFWE amounts from 2009 to 2021, which collectively amounted to approximately R23-billion. 

“MPAC was presented with an affidavit and supporting documentation during the meeting and given approximately 30 minutes to consider the matter before it was put to a vote. Namette, with the ANC and EFF councillors, then used their majority to proceed with the item and recommended that it be taken to council.”

Engelbrecht said the DA welcomed National Treasury’s intervention, which reinforced the concerns it had raised at the MPAC meeting.

He said the DA could not support a blanket approach to writing off billions of rands without first examining the underlying transactions individually and establishing the circumstances behind each amount. DM