Joburg stalls release of R4.07bn misconduct files until after elections - Daily Maverick

The City of Johannesburg has pushed the release of records detailing R4.07bn in alleged financial misconduct beyond the 4 November elections, after an admitted nine-day administrative delay and an extension calculated in ‘court days’. A separate R45.16bn UIFW disclosure raises further questions about accountability, with the identities and disciplinary outcomes of 68 officials still out of public view.

Thirteen financial misconduct cases involving R4.07-billion, a secret council meeting, and officials whose identities have been kept hidden – and the City of Johannesburg only wants you to know about it after the November municipal election.

The City has revealed to Daily Maverick that its deadline for releasing records – sought through a Promotion of Access to Information Act (Paia) application – falls two days after the 4 November municipal election.

At the heart of what Daily Maverick is trying to obtain information on are two separate, and very different, financial accountability cases involving nearly R50-billion in public money.

The first is an internal City process involving 13 serious financial misconduct matters involving R4.07-billion, referred to the City’s independent Disciplinary Board during a closed council meeting on 22 July.

The second involves R45.16-billion in unauthorised, irregular, fruitless and wasteful (UIFW) expenditure accumulated over five years and dealt with through Auditor-General and council accountability processes.

The City disclosed the overall R45.16-billion figure in an open council response on 26 August. But the identities and disciplinary outcomes of 68 officials recommended for action following Group Forensic and Investigation Services (GFIS) investigations into a historical portion of that expenditure remain undisclosed.

The R4.07-billion matter was dealt with behind closed doors and the underlying reports remain secret.

In the R45.16-billion matter, the overall figure is already public. What remains hidden is who was recommended for disciplinary action, what allegations they faced and what ultimately happened to the cases against them.

The R4.07-billion case emerged from the City’s 52nd Extra-Ordinary Council meeting on 22 July.

The item was dealt with “in committee” – behind closed doors – and concerned the referral of 13 alleged financial misconduct cases to the independent Disciplinary Board.

Daily Maverick submitted a Paia application on 3 August, seeking the records behind the referral.

It sought the complete unredacted closed-door agenda item, executive report and official memorandum, as well as the council resolution and minutes recording the decision.

It also sought all forensic audit reports, internal investigation summaries, attachments and legal opinions considered in relation to the R4.07-billion referral; the formal referral letters and terms of reference sent to the Disciplinary Board; and any SAPS or Hawks referrals and CAS numbers relating to matters referred for criminal investigation.

The application also separately sought the City’s active register of financial misconduct cases pending before the Disciplinary Board for the 2024/25 and 2025/26 financial years, including statistical information showing how many officials had been suspended, disciplined, dismissed or subjected to financial recovery action.

The application stated that disclosure was sought in the public interest to enable independent investigative journalism into public expenditure, governance and consequence management.

Thembisa Zwane, the City’s Deputy Director: Public Information, confirmed in writing that the Paia application was received on 3 August, but was not referred for processing until 12 August because of what the City described as an “administrative oversight”.

“Due to an administrative oversight, the request was only referred for processing on 12 August 2026,” the notice signed by Zwane stated.

“We regret the delay in attending to the request.”

The City subsequently invoked section 26(1)(c) of Paia to extend the period for dealing with the application.

In the notice, Zwane said the City’s Paia section was “currently liaising with the relevant departments within the City which are believed to be in possession, custody and/or control of the records requested”.

The City said the consultation was necessary to establish whether the departments held the requested records and could not reasonably be completed within the original period.

Section 26(1)(c) provides for an extension where consultation among divisions of a public body, or with another public body, is necessary or desirable to decide a request and cannot reasonably be completed within the original period.

But the City’s notice then introduced a calculation that Daily Maverick has challenged.

“The period for dealing with your request is accordingly extended by a further 30 days (court days), until 06 November 2026,” the notice stated.

That is two days after Johannesburg voters go to the polls.

Daily Maverick formally challenged City Manager Floyd Brink and Zwane over the extension.

They were asked to provide the legal basis for calculating the Paia extension in “court days” and the calculation showing how the City arrived at 6 November.

They were also asked when the decision to extend the application was taken and when notice was first issued, given that the City acknowledges receiving the application on 3 August.

A further issue was raised under section 26(3)(c) of Paia, which requires an extension notice to advise a requester of the right to challenge the extension and the procedure and period for doing so.

Brink and Zwane were asked to identify where this information appeared in the notice and, if it had been omitted, to explain why.

Daily Maverick pointed out that the City’s stated deadline of 6 November falls two days after the 4 November municipal elections and asked whether the City would undertake to determine the application and release all records to which access was granted before voters went to the polls.

If not, the City was asked to explain why.

Brink and Zwane were given until 28 September to respond.

While the R4.07-billion records remained behind closed doors, another picture of Johannesburg’s financial accountability problems was emerging through a separate council process.

In a response paper tabled on 26 August, the City disclosed R45.16-billion in unauthorised, irregular, fruitless and wasteful expenditure over a five- year period.

The figure is separate from the R4.07-billion referral and should not be conflated with it.

Unlike the R4.07-billion matter, the overall R45.16-billion figure was disclosed through an open council process involving the City’s Auditor-General and financial accountability processes.

The response showed that R24.46-billion had been dealt with in a single financial year.

It also revealed that GFIS had investigated historical UIFW involving a R4.23-billion pre-2018 portion and that 68 officials had been recommended for disciplinary action.

Details relating to the officials were contained in a document referred to as Annexure A.

The City also disclosed that 86 criminal cases involving fraud, corruption, maladministration and asset theft had been registered with the police, with details contained in an Annexure B dashboard.

According to the council response, there had been no referrals to the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation – the Hawks – the Special Investigating Unit or the Special Tribunal.

The R45.16-billion figure is therefore not secret.

What the public still cannot see is Annexure A: who the 68 officials are, what conduct gave rise to the recommendations against them, what disciplinary action followed and what the outcomes were.

The City’s Paia office says it requires additional time to liaise with departments believed to possess or control the requested records and to establish whether those records are held by them.

Yet by 26 August, the municipality was able to provide council with detailed information about financial misconduct investigations, disciplinary recommendations and criminal cases – and to refer councillors to specific annexures containing further details.

The 3 August Paia application had itself specifically sought the City’s active financial misconduct register, Disciplinary Board records and information about criminal referrals.

That raises the question of why the City says it needs additional time to establish which departments possess or control records when substantial information on financial misconduct and disciplinary action had already been collated for Council.

Daily Maverick has now formally notified Brink and Zwane that it regards the application as having reached the point of “deemed refusal” under section 27 of Paia.

The notice challenges the City’s reliance on “court days”, arguing that section 26 permits an extension once for a further period of no more than 30 days and that Paia contains no provision for calculating that extension in “court days”.

It also challenges the extension notice on the grounds that it did not advise the requester of the right to challenge the extension and the procedure for doing so.

Daily Maverick’s position is that the extension notice is legally defective and cannot be relied upon to postpone determination of the application until 6 November.

The City has been given until 5pm on Friday, 9 October, to provide the requested records.

It has also been notified that, should the records not be released, Daily Maverick intends to pursue remedies available under Paia to compel disclosure. DM