Consolidated questions and responses from Bitou Municipality

Dear Members,

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Acting Municipal Manager's Responses to RPA Questions

The Plett RPA wrote to Acting Municipal Manager (AMM) Williams and Mayor Kamkam on 20 October 2026, seeking answers to a wide range of outstanding questions dating back to August, concerning municipal governance, financial accountability, infrastructure, service delivery and public safety.

Mr. Williams' response in the link below, received on 31 October, is disappointing. While he has responded to most of the numbered headings, many answers are superficial, incomplete or avoid the questions altogether. In several instances, he has simply referred us to PAIA, cited confidentiality, or directed us to pursue other avenues rather than providing the information requested.

This is not meaningful engagement with a residents' association seeking accountability for the expenditure of public funds and the performance of its municipality. The recurring impression is that answering difficult questions is regarded as an inconvenience rather than an obligation to the public.

The full set of questions and the municipality's responses are attached, but the following responses are particularly concerning:

1. The cost of suspending senior officials (Item 3)

Williams has provided none of the information requested on the cost of suspensions, disciplinary proceedings, legal fees, acting allowances, hearing postponements or compliance with prescribed remuneration limits.

His excuse is that this information involves personal information about third parties and must be obtained through PAIA. This is an unacceptable blanket response. We are asking what public money has been spent, not for private details about employees. Ratepayers are entitled to know what prolonged suspensions and disciplinary processes are costing them. The Municipality cannot use confidentiality as a convenient shield against financial accountability.

2. Recovery of public money (Items 4.1–4.3)

Three responses raise serious questions about the Municipality's approach to recovering public funds and holding officials accountable:

• Former Municipal Manager Ngoqo: Mr. Williams says the money owed has prescribed, based on advice from the Manager: Legal Services. If that is so, then has the person(s) who failed to recover the money been held accountable? The Municipality has a duty to protect its finances and pursue the recovery of money owed.
• Mr Lotter: Mr. Williams claims that the agreement under which approximately R1 million was paid was confidential, and that no further action is necessary. Public money does not become confidential simply because the Municipality enters into a supposed confidential agreement. Senior officials' salaries and benefits are required to be public per the MFMA.
• CFO Mapeyi's furniture purchase: Mr. Williams confirms that the R92,000 has been repaid but conveniently avoids the more important question: was the CFO disciplined for financial misconduct? Repayment does not automatically resolve the question of accountability. The circumstances surrounding this transaction raise legitimate questions about financial controls and the standard of conduct expected from the Municipality's most senior financial official.

3. Mayor's Grants-in-Aid – refusal to provide information (Item 6)

Mr. Williams has again failed to provide the outstanding Grants-in-Aid documentation requested under PAIA. Rather than resolving the matter, he has effectively invited the RPA to take legal action.

Is this really what is best for the Municipality and its ratepayers – forcing a residents' association to go to court to obtain information about the allocation of public funds?

Given the irregularities already identified by the RPA, the lack of transparency is particularly troubling. We can only question why the Municipality is so reluctant to disclose the records. The possibility of serious maladministration or fraud cannot simply be dismissed. Transparency, recovery of public funds and accountability must take precedence over protecting those responsible.

4. Appointment of the Manager: Governance and Compliance (Item 7)

Mr. Williams has refused to address the substantive questions surrounding the appointment of the Manager: Governance and Compliance. He has provided neither the selection panel details nor the due diligence undertaken on the successful candidate. A general reference to the Recruitment and Selection Policy is not an answer to questions about whether the appointment was properly conducted and the candidate appropriately vetted.

The Municipality has a critical responsibility to ensure that the person entrusted with governance and compliance is suitably qualified and beyond reproach. This appointment warrants further investigation.

5. Water security and water losses (Item 8)

Despite repeated concerns raised by the RPA over the past year, Mr. Williams has provided no meaningful short-term water security plan for the coming summer. His response does not identify the measures that will be operational by 1 December, explain the status of damaged infrastructure or address the additional capacity required.

The Keurbooms river pumps have been in urgent need of refurbishment since May 2026 while Bitou Management has proved unable to procure the necessary repairs to this critical element of essential water services infrastructure. With water and sanitation capacity already under pressure, and the prospect of an El Niño drought, this lack of urgency is alarming. Residents are expected to conserve water, yet the Municipality cannot provide a convincing account of what it is doing to secure supply and reduce losses.

6. Deputy Mayor's firearm disciplinary matter (Item 15)

Mr. Williams says the disciplinary hearing involving Deputy Mayor Kolwapi was held "in-committee" (in secret) and that he is therefore unable to comment.

This raises a fundamental question about transparency and the proper conduct of Council business. The RPA's position is that the applicable MFMA requirements and Council procedures must be followed, including the requirement for appropriate reporting to an open Council meeting. A disciplinary matter involving an elected public representative should not simply disappear behind closed doors without proper public accountability.

Why was the matter dealt with in secret, and what is Council seeking to conceal from the public?

7. A wider pattern of non-accountability

The concerns above are not isolated. Across the 15 subject areas, Mr. Williams has failed to provide important information on:

• The reasons for repeated failed airport tenders and who has been held accountable.
• The actual tourism expenditure and interim arrangements for the coming season.
• Continuity of the Ganse Vallei wastewater treatment works design and adequate peak-season contingency measures for the Keurbooms pumps.
• Water-quality test results, sewage pump-station backup arrangements and sewage spill prevention.
• The High Street contract value, variations, payments, procurement compliance and revised completion date.
• Road maintenance programmes.
• The extent and age of the Municipality's backlog of unauthorised, irregular, fruitless and wasteful expenditure, and the accountability for write-offs.

These are not obscure administrative matters. They concern the basic responsibilities of a municipality and the use of public money.

Conclusion and Way Forward

The overall impression is of an administration that is defensive, reluctant to disclose information and unwilling to confront uncomfortable questions. Repeatedly telling the RPA to submit PAIA applications or seek legal remedies is not an acceptable substitute for transparent and accountable governance.

The RPA is not asking for favours. We are asking questions on behalf of residents and ratepayers who fund this Municipality and have every right to know how their money is spent, how decisions are made and why important services and projects are failing.

The RPA should not have to resort to litigation simply to obtain basic information about public expenditure and municipal administration. But neither should the Municipality be allowed to avoid accountability by refusing to answer legitimate questions.

We will continue to pursue these matters, and where necessary, escalate them through the appropriate legal and oversight channels.

Kind regards,
Tony Blignaut

PDF documentView the questions and responsesDownload