Abuse of Discretion at Expense of Democratic principles enshrined in the Constitution.

At the Council meeting today, the Speaker curtailed and refused debate on proposed amendments to the City’s budget for the 2015/2016 year. We believe that this abuse of discretion was in conflict with the Constitution of South Africa which allows Councillors the right to participate and thus share the views of the residents which they represent in Council.
The budget regulates almost R33 Billion of residents money and a sham allowance was made for participatory democracy. The facts are as follows:
The 2015/2016 budget speech was delivered by the Executive Mayor at a special council meeting.  He took approximately 90 minutes to deliver the speech. The debate and discussion of the budget was deferred to a further special meeting. At this meeting a total time of 75 minutes was allocated for this purpose. Of this the DA was allowed 15 minutes.  20% of the total time. In addition the reply time of the Executive budget is unlimited. The DA have 82 of the 210 Councillors in the Metro which represent 39% of the total. The Speaker allowed these speaking allocation which was understood to be allowed as a discussion on the budget speech.  When the tabling of the actual IDP and Budget reports was made. She said that no debate would be allowed on the items other than the consideration of Amendments. On tabling an amendment, I as proposer was allowed to speak but the Speaker then refused to allow any other speakers on the amendment and put the item to the vote.
This allocation of time and subsequent refusal to allow debate on the tabled budget and proposed amendment, was done in terms of Rule 15 of the Rules and Orders By-Laws,2012. This rule states: “The procedures and the applicability of all the provisions of the Rules of Orders during the consideration of the budget by the Council will be dealt with in the discretion of the Speaker.”
Section 160 2 (b) and (c) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996, prohibits the delegation of the approval of budgets or the imposition of rates and other taxes, levies and duties,  and insists that the Municipal Council only can take this decision. In addition at Section 160 3(a) requires a Majority of the Members of a Municipal Council must be present before a vote may be taken on any of these matters and must be approved by a Majority of Members not merely a majority of those present.
Section 160 (6) allows a Municipal Council the right to make by-laws which prescribe rules and orders for – (a) its internal arrangements; (b) its business and proceedings.  It is these rules which have been adopted by the Metropolitan Council of which Rule 15 above was used by the Speaker to limit the debate to such an extent that the Democratic Participatory core of the Constitution of South Africa has been overridden. These principles are clearly in acted in the Constitution at Section 160 (7) where a Municipal Council must conduct its business in an open manner. Further at Section 160 (8) the Constitution clearly spells out the intention that Members of a Municipal Council are entitled to participate in its proceedings in a manner that a) allows parties and interests reflected within the Council to be fairly represented, b) is consistent with democracy; and c) may be regulated by national legislation. It is thus too important to be overridden by a Local Government By-Law.
I submit that the Rule 15 of the By-Law which grants a discretion to the Speaker to determine procedures for debate can never be allowed to make a farce out of Democracy and the founding provisions of the South African Constitution for a multi-party system of democratic government to ensure accountability, responsiveness and openness. Proper debate and discussion are at the core of what was intended in Section 152 (1) which states the object of local government is to provide for democratic and accountable government which encourages the involvement of communities and community organisations in the matters of local government.
The total Revenue Budget total R29 178 022 000. The total Capital budget amounts to R3 856 566 000. There are over 3 million residents whose lives are directly affected for the next 12 months as a result of this which is arguably the most important report adopted by a municipal council. This is supported by the numerous provisions in the Municipal Finance Management Act and the Constitution of South Africa which provides for the approval of a Municipal Budget.
The Budget of the city is not a trivial matter and can not be approved without proper debate. I believe that the limitation of debate is such a contravention of the principle and purpose set out in the Constitution and thus its limitation has brought the integrity of the vote into question. Members of the Municipal Council have not been provided with the inputs to allow them to exercise an informed decision and thus the vote of approval was taken in breech of the Constitution and should be set aside until adopted at a Special Council meeting where proper debate in terms of the Constitution has been allowed.
In the SAPOA vs Johannesburg Metropolitan Council case, the court indicated that disputes affecting the budget of a Metro should be heard before the budget is implemented or else the court has little power to unscramble the eggs. For this reason the dispute concerning the approval of the Tshwane Metropolitans 2015/2016 Medium Term Revenue Framework (The Budget) is a matter of extreme urgency as it becomes effective on 1 July 2015.
The DA will review our options in consultation with residents of the City but are angered at the rubber stamp approach been consistently applied to important issues by the Speaker of Council. Proper debate allows for Members of Council to hear the arguments which may prevent disastrous decision as was taken by the City despite the warnings of the DA in the contractual matter with PEU for Smart meters.  We have issued a demand to the City requesting that this Budget vote be re-tabled for proper discussion and re voting.