CASE NO. in the Matter Between: the CITY of CAPE TOWN
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA ( CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) CASE NO. In the matter between: THE CITY OF CAPE TOWN Applicant and THE PREMIER OF THE WESTERN CAPE First Respondent THE MINISTER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT Second Respondent AND HOUSING IN THE PROVINICAL GOVERNMENT OF THE WESTERN CAPE THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE NATHAN ERASMUS N.O. Third Respondent GEORGE PAPADAKIS N.O. Fourth Respondent HERDIE VERMEULEN N.O. Fifth Respondent AFFIDAVIT I, the undersigned JACOB DIEDERIK SMIT, do hereby make oath and say: [A] INTRODUCTION AND PARTIES 1. I am the chairperson and speaker of the applicant’s council as contemplated in s 36(1) of the Local Government: Municipal Structures Act 117 of 1998 (“the Structures Act”). I am duly authorised by the applicant to make this affidavit. The facts are within my personal knowledge save where the context indicates otherwise, and are true. Submissions are based on legal advice. 2. The applicant is the City of Cape Town , a municipality with legal personality duly established as a category A municipality in accordance with the Structures Act. Its principal offices are at the Civic Centre, 12 Hertzog Boulevard , Cape Town . I shall refer to the applicant as the City. 3. The first respondent is the Premier of the Western Cape , Ebrahim Rasool, with his office at 27 Wale Street , Cape Town . I shall refer to him as the Premier. He has the power in terms of s127(2)(e) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (“the Constitution”) read with s37(2)(e) of the Constitution of the Western Cape, 1997 Act 1 of 1998 (“the WC Constitution”) and s1(1) of the Western Cape Provincial Commissions Act 10 of 1998 (“the WC Commissions Act”) to establish commissions of inquiry. 4. The second respondent is the Minister for Local Government and Housing in the Provincial Government of the Western Cape (“the WCPG”), Mr Qubudile Richard Dyantyi, with his office at 27 Wale Street , Cape Town . The second respondent is, in relation to the Western Cape , the “MEC” referred to in s106(1) of the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000 (“the Systems Act”). I shall refer to him as the MEC. 5. The third respondent is the Honourable Mr Justice Nathan Erasmus in his capacity as chairperson of the commissions of inquiry to be referred to hereunder, care of the office of the secretary to the commissions, Mr Z. Twala, at Attorneys Cliffe Dekker, 8th Floor Cliffe Dekker Place , 11 Buitengracht Street , Cape Town . The third respondent is a Judge of the Cape Provincial Division of the High Court of South Africa, having been appointed to that office in terms of s 174 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act (Act No. 108 of 1996). 6. The fourth and fifth respondents are the other two members of the said commissions, namely Mr George Papadakis (a forensic accountant, and the managing director of Gobodo Forensic and Investigative Accounting (Pty) Ltd) and Ms Herdie Vermeulen (an attorney, described in the media as a local government expert). They are both cited care of the office of the secretary to the commissions, Mr Z. Twala, at Attorneys Cliffe Dekker, 8th Floor Cliffe Dekker Place , 11 Buitengracht Street , Cape Town . 7. No relief is sought against the third to fifth respondents unless they should oppose the application. [B] PURPOSE OF APPLICATION 8. The purpose of this application is to set aside: 8.1 the Premier’s establishment on 19 March 2008 of a commission of inquiry with the third to fifth respondents as its members, insofar as concerns paragraphs 1 to 10 of its terms of reference; 8.2 an earlier decision by the MEC, made on or about 27 November 2007, to appoint the said respondents as investigators under s106(1)(b) of the Systems Act and the related decision of the Premier, made on or about 29 November 2007, to establish a commission of inquiry with the said persons as its members; 8.3 the appointment of a commission of inquiry under the chairmanship of the third respondent in respect of paragraphs 1 to 12 of the terms of reference published in Proclamation No. 5 of 2008 in the Western Cape Provincial Gazette Extraordinary 6510, on 19 March 2008, on the grounds of constitutional incompatibility with the principles of the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers. 9. I shall refer to the commission established on 29 November 2007 as the first Erasmus Commission and the commission established on 19 March 2008 as the second Erasmus Commission. The Premier disestablished the first Erasmus Commission when appointing the second Erasmus Commission. However, for reasons which will become apparent it is necessary to deal at some length with the establishment of the first Erasmus Commission and to have it formally set aside on grounds to be set out later. Where I refer hereunder to the setting aside of the second Erasmus Commission, I mean the said Commission insofar as concerns paragraphs 1 to 10 of its terms of reference. 10. The first Erasmus Commission was appointed to enquire into the City’s investigation of one of its councillors Badih Chaaban (“Chaaban”), in particular the City’s engagement of a firm of private investigators George Fivaz & Associates (“GFA”). The City’s investigation (which spanned the period June-September 2007) culminated in a finding by the disciplinary committee of the City’s council on 19 October 2007 that Chaaban was guilty on six counts of misconduct and in a decision by the council itself on 31 October 2007 that in terms of clause 14(2)(e) of the Code of Conduct for Councillors (Schedule 1 to the Systems Act) the MEC be requested to remove Chaaban from office. 11. The said request was made to the MEC on 5 November 2007, but the MEC has failed to remove Chabaan from office and instead, only on 26 March 2008 advised the City Manager that he had elected to appoint junior counsel to perform an investigation in accordance with clause 14 of the Code of Conduct for Councillors, Schedule 1 to the Systems Act. The MEC’s advices are not a little peculiar in the sense that the investigation commissioned by him appears to be parallel to the investigation that the Commission appointed on 19 March 2008 has been mandated to undertake. 12. The WCPG is controlled by the African National Congress (“the ANC”), which currently has a majority in the Western Cape provincial legislature. The MEC and the Premier are members of the ANC. 13. The City’s council is currently led by a coalition of the Democratic Alliance (“the DA”), the Independent Democrats (“the ID”), the African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP), the Freedom Front Plus (“the FF+”), the United Democratic Movement (UDM) and the Universal Party (UP). The councillors of these parties collectively constitute a majority in the City’s council. The DA has the largest representation on council among the coalition members. 14. The City’s executive mayor, Helen Zille, is a member of the DA and its national leader. I am a member of the FF+. 15. At provincial and local government level, the Western Cape and the City represent a major political battleground between the ANC and the DA. The ANC, which previously controlled the City, is anxious to wrest control of the City back from the DA-led coalition. Conversely, there is a credible prospect that the DA (either on its own or in coalition) will take control of the Western Cape at the next general election in 2009, and the ANC is obviously anxious that this should not occur. 16. The City contends, for reasons to be detailed below, that the MEC and the Premier acted unlawfully and irregularly in establishing the first Erasmus Commission. The City submits that there are substantial grounds for reaching this conclusion without determining the subjective considerations which caused the MEC and Premier to act as they did. Nevertheless, the City avers that they were motivated by party-political considerations and by a desire to embarrass or discredit the political parties which make up the coalition, in particular the DA. In so doing, the MEC and Premier abused their powers and were not acting in good faith. 17. The terms of reference of the second Erasmus Commission cover substantially the same matters as the first Commission and some additional matters. The City contends, again for reasons to be detailed below, that the Premier acted unlawfully and irregularly in establishing the second Erasmus Commission. These reasons include the fact that its establishment is tainted by the same improper motives which led to the establishment of the first Erasmus Commission. 18. The conduct of the MEC and Premier in establishing the first and second Erasmus Commissions is not only unlawful and irregular, but is highly prejudicial to the City’s ratepayers and to the inhabitants of the City and the Western Cape . As I shall show in due course, large sums will be wasted during the course of the Erasmus Commission’s inquiry, all for the ostensible purpose of ascertaining whether the City was guilty of irregularly expending sums which are trifling in comparison to those which have been and will in the future be occasioned by the establishment of the Erasmus Commission. [C] LEGAL BACKGROUND 19. The legal position is primarily a matter for argument. However, to understand the City’s application it is necessary briefly to make reference to the relevant statutory framework. [C1] Local government 20. The City is a municipality in the sphere of local government.