/ MEDIA STATEMENT / The content on this page is not written by Polity.org.za, but is supplied by third parties. This content does not constitute news reporting by Polity.org.za.

GOOD opposes the approval of the proposed Terms of Reference for the Municipal Public Accounts Committee (MPAC) regarding the investigation process for Unauthorised, Irregular, Fruitless, and Wasteful (UIFW) Expenditure in the City of Johannesburg. While we support the principle of accountability and the mandate of MPAC, the terms of reference fail to address critical issues of transparency, public involvement, and accountability that are fundamental to effective governance.

Lack of Public Scrutiny 

Currently, MPAC’s investigations and meetings are closed to the public, a practice that runs counter to the principles of transparency and accountability in the management of public funds. MPAC was established to play an oversight role in ensuring the executive’s responsible use of public resources. This role mirrors the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA) at the national and provincial levels, where all meetings and investigations are conducted in the open. Ministers, Director Generals, and even the President are subjected to public scrutiny in SCOPA, airing matters of public interest in full view of the nation.

It is unacceptable that the City of Johannesburg insists on shielding its City Manager, Mayor, and executive from a similar level of oversight. Residents have a right to know how investigations into UIFW expenditures are conducted, especially when these involve taxpayer money. The lack of transparency in MPAC’s operations undermines its credibility and raises questions about its effectiveness in holding the executive accountable.

Need for Public Involvement 

The matters being investigated by MPAC—unauthorized, irregular, fruitless, and wasteful expenditures—directly affect residents, as these expenditures represent a misuse of public funds that could have been allocated to service delivery and development. By keeping these investigations behind closed doors, the City denies residents the opportunity to observe the process, provide input, and hold their leaders accountable.

MPAC’s meetings and investigations should be held in public, as is the case with SCOPA. This would ensure transparency, foster trust between the City and its residents, and reinforce MPAC’s role as a watchdog over the executive. Public scrutiny is a cornerstone of good governance, and MPAC must align itself with this principle.

Flawed Oversight Framework 

The proposed terms of reference fail to adequately address how MPAC will ensure accountability beyond producing reports. The committee’s effectiveness depends on its ability to enforce corrective action, yet there are no clear mechanisms in the terms to guarantee that its findings will result in tangible consequences for those responsible for UIFW expenditure. Without this, MPAC risks becoming a toothless body unable to fulfill its oversight mandate.

Double Standards in Oversight 

The City of Johannesburg cannot demand accountability from its residents—through rates, taxes, and service payments—while shielding its executive from the same level of accountability expected

at national and provincial levels. By closing MPAC’s operations to public scrutiny, the City perpetuates a double standard that undermines public confidence in local government.

GOOD calls on the City Council to reject the proposed terms of reference and to revise them to ensure transparency, accountability, and public participation in MPAC’s UIFW investigation process. Specifically, we recommend:

Opening MPAC Meetings to the Public: Investigations and discussions must be conducted in public, similar to SCOPA, allowing residents to observe the process and outcomes.

Clear Mechanisms for Accountability: The terms of reference should include enforceable actions to address UIFW findings and ensure that those responsible are held accountable.

Enhanced Public Engagement: Residents should be encouraged to participate in the oversight process by submitting questions or concerns for MPAC to consider during its investigations.

Alignment with National Standards: MPAC must adhere to the same standards of transparency and accountability as SCOPA to uphold the principles of good governance.

If the City is serious about fostering trust and ensuring the responsible use of public funds, it must embrace public scrutiny as a tool for accountability. Until these changes are implemented, we cannot support the approval of the current terms of reference for MPAC’s UIFW investigation process. Public funds demand public accountability, and MPAC must rise to meet this standard.

Issued by Matthew Cook, GOOD National Chairperson and City of Johannesburg Councillor