Oudtshoorn: No time to waste, Bredell must go now, says ANC

25 October 2021  

Following the Public Protector’s incriminatory report that MEC Anton Bredell had violated the Executive Ethics Code in Oudtshoorn, the African National Congress in the Western Cape Legislature calls on President Cyril Ramaphosa to insist that Premier Allan Winde acts now against the subverter of the constitution.

On Friday the Public Protector recommended that Premier Winde within a reasonable time, but no later than 14 days after receiving her report, submits a copy of the document and any comments about it, together with a report on any action taken or to be taken, to the Western Cape Provincial Legislature. He must also inform the Public Protector within 60 days of the remedial action that will be taken.

“There is no time to waste. Bredell is a serial offender. In our view he is unfit to hold public office and must immediately be axed as MEC for Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, as well as removed from the Western Cape Cabinet and Legislature,” said the Leader of the ANC in the Legislature, Cameron Dugmore.

Bredell does not act alone. “He is also the instrument the DA uses to attack municipalities we govern or are in coalition with other parties. He has allowed himself to be used by the Premier and the DA leadership. We call on President Ramaphosa to insist the Premier acts decisively against Bredell. 

“The Premier should stop procrastinating and putting his party first. We are tired of his reluctance to act against Bredell. It’s time for him to stop listening to the likes of Helen Zille and John Steenhuisen and act like the Premier of all the people of the Western Cape and fire Bredell. Another day in the office for Bredell places another question mark against the integrity, commitment to clean governance and the word of the Premier.”

In her report released on Friday, the Public Protector said she had investigated if Bredell had failed to take timeous appropriate action in connection with allegations of improper conduct against officials of the Municipality when he was requested to do so by the former Executive Mayor on 11 March 2019. And if he did, whether such failure was improper and constituted a breach of Executive Ethics Code.

She found Bredell’s first formal response to the serious allegations of misconduct and impropriety at the Municipality was 10 months after he had received the letter of complaint on 11 March 2019 from the Executive Mayor. 

Her report said: “This does not indicate diligence and promptness on his part to attend thereto and at least to obtain more information or the response from the Municipality to the serious allegations, as was required of him by section 106 of the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act, 2000 (Municipal Systems Act) section 136 of the Local Government: Municipal Finance Management Act, 2003 (MFMA) and section 5 of the Western Cape Monitoring and Support of Municipalities Act, 2014.

“The allegation that the conduct of the MEC was in breach of the Executive Ethics Code is therefore, also substantiated. He did not act in good faith and in the best interest of good governance at the Municipality. His conduct was also inconsistent with his office as MEC responsible for local government. The MEC’s conduct was improper and in violation of the provision of section 136 (2)(b) of the Constitution. It also constitutes a breach of paragraphs 2.1(a), 2.1(b), 2.1(c), 2.1(d) and 2.3(c) of the Executive Ethics Code,” the Public Protector’s report said.

The Public Protector also found allegations were substantiated that Bredell suggested to DA councillors that they should agree that the Western Cape Provincial Administration places the Oudtshoorn Municipality under administration.

The Public Protector said in her report: “The suggestion or contention by the MEC that he acted exclusively in furtherance of a matter that concerned his relationship with his political party and that his action fell exclusively within the pursuance of private interests as envisaged in the Executive Ethics Code, and therefore within the private sphere, is misdirected.”

The role of the MEC responsible for local government in a province is an objective one that focuses on the best interest of good governance and administration. In this matter, the MEC had concluded that the intervention by the Western Cape Provincial Government was necessary, even before he had considered the matter as contemplated by the relevant provisions of the Constitution, Municipal Systems Act and the Western Cape Monitoring and Support of Municipalities Act, 2014, to the extent that he even proposed it at a DA Caucus meeting where only councillors of the ruling party were present, the Public Protector said in her report.

“The conduct of the MEC in this regard was therefore not in accordance with the Constitution and the law. The allegation that the conduct of the MEC in that regard was in breach of the Executive Ethics Code, is also substantiated,” the Public Protector found.

In making the suggestion to DA Councillors as he did, she found, that the MEC did not act diligently and in good faith as he was required to do in terms of the Executive Ethics Code. “His conduct was also not in the best interest of good governance and consistent with his office. The MEC also exposed himself to the risk of a conflict between his official responsibilities as MEC and his private interest as a member of the DA. The MEC’s conduct therefore was improper.”

Issued by Cameron Dugmore on behalf of ANC, 25 October 2021