The Makhado Municipality this week confirmed that a vital and decisive “consultative” meeting for land and home owners in Makhado (Louis Trichardt) to receive their inputs and to determine their views and mood towards proposed new taxation policies, took place on a Sunday morning, at a time when the majority of the affected people were attending church services and other religious activities.

An official media release from the Makhado Municipality states that appropriate information in accordance with the Property Rates Act was “presented, discussed and adopted” at an IDP stakeholders meeting which was held at the Social facility in Rissik Street at 10:00 on 21 May, 2006, which was a Sunday.

The media release came in response to a news report published on August 18 this year, in which the Chairpersons’ Association alleged that proper consultation did not take place and that the municipality deliberately deceived stakeholders about the nature of the meetings which they attended. The CA argued that the municipality is busy steamrolling the process to pave the way for a new taxation dispensation which will have disastrous consequences for the entire community. It warned that an expensive and protracted legal battle, together with possible widespread public protest action, can be expected if council proceeds with its wayward actions.

The Municipality’s verbatim official response, issued under the name of its PRO, Mr Peter Muleya, reads:

With reference to the article dated 18 August 2005, contained in page 1 until 2 under the heading of “New Tax Headache.” We hereby clearing the incorrect information reported by Chairpersons Association regarding our failure to conduct a stakeholders meeting during the process of adopting the Property Rates Act, no. 6 of 2004. The correct version is as folows:

On 28 April 2006 we had issued a public notice for consultative process meeting for Property Rates Act, no. 6 of 2004 in terms of Section 4 (i)(a) for public meeting dated 11 May 2006. On the 11th May 2006 a community consultative process meeting was held at 15:00 at the Municipal Social Facility in Rissik Street. Subsequently the Chairpersons Association had attended the same consultative meeting together with other stakeholders. It is quite incorrect to apportion the blame on ourselves. On 21 May 2006 an IDP stakeholders meeting was held at the Social Facility in Rissik Street at 10:00. The Property Rates Act, no. 6 of 2004 was presented, discussed and adopted at the IDP Stakeholders meeting.

Finally we want to indicate that consultation process with stakeholders had been conducted in line with Chapter 4, embodied in the Municipal Systems Act, Act 32 no. 6 of 2000. We also encourage the Chairpersons Association in future to check their facts correctly before making any public statement.