By Johnathan Paoli
The DA in Tshwane has condemned the ANC-led coalition for what it calls reckless misuse of public funds, following a scathing Gauteng High Court ruling that set aside the metro’s controversial “city cleansing levy.”
DA Tshwane caucus leader Cilliers Brink said the judgment not only nullified the levy but also exposed serious flaws in the city’s legal strategy and governance.
“The extent to which Tshwane’s ANC coalition is wasting taxpayers’ money is revealed by the recent judgment of the Gauteng High Court setting aside the so-called city cleansing levy,” Brink said.
The ruling followed a successful legal challenge by AfriForum, which argued that the levy—introduced in the previous municipal budget—was unlawful.
The city claimed the fee aimed to improve waste management and cleanliness, but the court found no clear legal or policy basis for it, rendering it both procedurally and substantively unjustifiable.
Brink said the DA would write to City Manager Johann Mettler requesting an internal investigation into the city’s handling of the case and whether any officials or politicians—particularly EFF council leader and MMC for Environment and Agriculture Obakeng Ramabodu—should be held personally liable for the legal costs.
“The DA will write to Tshwane’s City Manager to investigate the City’s handling of the case, and whether there are grounds to hold MMC, EFF council leader Obakeng Ramabodu or any other politician personally liable for wasted legal costs. AfriForum took the levy on judicial review, as well as setting aside the levy, the judge was scathing about the City’s conduct of the case,” said Brink.
“Not only did the court point to the failure of the metro to produce policy documents on which its defence of the levy was based. The court also criticised the overreach of the metro in employing three counsel to argue the case as well as the production of hundreds of pages of essentially irrelevant documents.”
The judgment flagged multiple procedural irregularities and a lack of candour by the city’s legal team.
In paragraph 156, the court found the city had misled the court by denying that private waste companies paid access fees to use municipal landfill sites—a claim disproven by evidence. Paragraphs 157 and 158 criticised the city for introducing new justifications during proceedings that were absent from original documents. Paragraph 160 noted the city failed to supplement its submissions despite evidence from AfriForum undermining its case.
The court also condemned the city for submitting hundreds of pages of irrelevant material (paragraph 170) and slammed its legal strategy, including the briefing of three counsel and the absence of its lead advocate at the hearing (paragraphs 172–175).
The judge warned of possible ethical implications for presenting what it described as an “unmeritorious defence.”
Brink said the DA had opposed the levy during council debates, calling it a thinly veiled attempt to raise revenue without improving services.
“The same budget that introduced this levy did not even increase the allocation for city cleansing. There was no intention to improve the quality of waste management,” he said.
Instead of taking responsibility for the legal defeat, Brink said Ramabodu had announced the city would appeal the ruling—an action the DA called “futile and fiscally irresponsible.”
The DA has vowed to pursue full accountability, beginning with a probe into whether officials and councillors can be held personally liable for the costs of the failed legal defence.
INSIDE METROS