The long-running legal battle over the future of the JB Marks Local Municipality is heading back to court, with the matter now set to be heard in the Gauteng Division of the High Court in Pretoria on August 28.

The Democratic Alliance (DA) is seeking to have the Municipal Demarcation Board’s (MDB) decision not to redetermine the boundaries of JB Marks reviewed and set aside. The party ultimately wants the municipality split back into the former Tlokwe (Potchefstroom) and Ventersdorp local municipalities, arguing that service delivery has deteriorated significantly since the controversial 2015 merger.

The latest development comes after the DA filed a replying affidavit in response to the MDB’s answering affidavit, with DA caucus leader in JB Marks, Hans-Jurie Moolman, alleging that the Board failed to follow the procedures required by law when it rejected calls for a demerger.

According to Moolman, the Board made several important admissions in its answering affidavit.

“The Board has failed to provide any meaningful answer to the review grounds advanced by the Democratic Alliance,” Moolman stated in the affidavit.

He argues that the MDB acknowledged it did not have sufficient information to make a final decision following a formal investigation meeting held in September 2023 and had intended to conduct further public consultations before reaching a conclusion. However, those consultations never took place.

Moolman further contends that the Board could not lawfully decide against a redetermination without properly considering the factors prescribed by the Municipal Demarcation Act and obtaining input from the JB Marks Municipal Council.

The court challenge follows the MDB’s decision on August 7, 2025, to reject requests to reverse the merger and maintain the current municipal boundaries despite growing pressure from residents and political parties.

More than 14 000 residents signed a petition supporting the demerger. The DA argues that the original merger between Tlokwe and Ventersdorp was politically motivated and implemented at the request of then Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, Pravin Gordhan, without adequate consideration of the long-term impact on service delivery and municipal administration.

“This political interference is further evidenced by the MDB’s refusal to conduct meaningful public participation before the merger and its disregard for recommendations contained in its own research,” Moolman said.

The DA maintains that research commissioned by the MDB prior to the merger warned of possible service delivery disruptions and recommended alternative interventions to assist Ventersdorp without dissolving existing municipal structures.

According to the party, many of those concerns have since become reality, with residents in both Potchefstroom and Ventersdorp experiencing ongoing challenges related to basic municipal services.

In 2023, after the MDB invited public submissions, the DA and other stakeholders formally requested that the Board reconsider the municipality’s boundaries. Although early engagements indicated that the Board was open to reviewing the matter, the process was later delayed before the request was ultimately rejected.

“This refusal is deeply troubling, especially given the severe decline in service delivery since the merger, a decline the MDB itself predicted,” Moolman said.

The DA has also raised concerns about documents submitted by the MDB as part of its defence in the court proceedings. In the replying affidavit, Moolman argues that several documents relied upon by the Board were not included in the official Rule 53 record of proceedings and should therefore not form part of the court’s consideration.

Earlier this year, Moolman confirmed that no party had filed papers opposing the DA’s review application despite having the opportunity to do so.

“Any party had the right to oppose. To date, nobody has filed any opposition,” he said at the time.

Instead, the MDB submitted the official record of its decision-making process, a standard step in review proceedings intended to place the court in the same position as the original decision-maker when assessing whether a decision should be reviewed and set aside.

The DA subsequently filed a supplementary affidavit and now a replying affidavit, which Moolman believes further strengthens the party’s case.

The party also claims that documents obtained after the MDB’s decision indicate that the Board’s own research supported the disestablishment of JB Marks and provided little justification for retaining the municipality in its current form.

“The MDB must be held accountable for providing flimsy and irrational reasons for its decision and for allowing political expediency to override the best interests of residents,” Moolman said.

Moolman stressed that the DA is not asking the court to decide whether JB Marks should ultimately be demerged.

“The DA seeks only orders reviewing and setting aside the decisions of the Board, and orders to ensure the Board takes a new, lawful decision,” he said.

The High Court is expected to hear the matter on August 28, where the legality of the MDB’s decision-making process will come under scrutiny as the fight over the future of JB Marks continues.