The Department of Public Service Administration had a central database of disciplined officials.
No plans are in place to perform lifestyle audits on any of the officials or councillors elected to positions of power following the 2026 local government elections.
National government recently confirmed that legislation did not make such levels of scrutiny mandatory, explaining that other mechanisms were in place to monitor conflicts of interest involving councillors.
The Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) elaborated on how councillors facing disciplinary proceedings were prevented from dodging accountability using resignation and redeployment tactics, but added that this did not prevent them from doing business with the state.
LIVE interactive map, latest news, multimedia and more!
View MapCode of conduct for councillors
The information was shared via written responses to questions submitted in parliament asking about the scrutiny of local government officials’ lifestyles and disciplinary records.
The DPSA explained that the Public Administration Management Act (PAMA) did not apply to municipal councillors and that the laws that did apply to local government did not make provision for audits.
“The PAMA is not applicable to municipal councillors. The Local Government Municipal Structures Act does not prescribe that councillors must undergo lifestyle audits. The conduct of municipal councillors is governed by this Act,” the DPSA stated last week.
However, the department explained that the Department of Corporate Governance and Traditional Affairs (Cogta) had put in place voluntary disclosure methods.
“Cogta is currently addressing this shortcoming by means of its code of conduct for councillors, through the disclosure of interests and the declaration of interests, and in its revised white paper on local government, that specifically addresses lifestyle audits for councillors,’ the DPSA stated.
Securing state contracts
An April briefing by the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) to the Standing Committee for Public Accounts revealed the extent of the rot within municipalities.
The SIU stated it had identified R1.1 billion worth of irregular payments dating back to 2012, including 222 disciplinary referrals and 362 referrals to the National Prosecuting Authority.
The DPSA has a central database of officials who were dismissed or had resigned under disciplinary clouds, but this database did not track the business interests of the relevant officials.
“The Central Register for Discipline Management (CRDM) is not intended to regulate the conducting of business with the state,” the DPSA stated, adding that National Treasury had its own database.
“National Treasury is responsible for the Central Supplier Database (CSD), where all prospective suppliers wanting to conduct business with the state are required to register.
However, DPSA confirmed that being listed on the CRDM was not a disqualifier from state contracts.
“Currently there is no legal prescript to prohibit those listed on the CRDM from conducting business with the state.
“A guiding legal prescript will have to be developed by National Treasury to impose such restriction,”
