Suliman Rajah writes:

The Herald reports on a proposed 25-year solar power purchase agreement by the JB Marks Municipality. The article quotes Section 33 of the Municipal Finance Management Act. But it quotes it out of context.

Section 33(1)(a) of the MFMA requires that before a municipality enters into a long term contract that commits future financial years, the municipality must first have passed a resolution by council. Not after public comment. Before. The sequence is council resolution first, then draft contract, then public comment, then final approval. The article makes it sound like the public notice is the first step. It is not. Council should have debated and voted on this before any notice went out.

The article also does not mention Section 46 of the MFMA. Section 46 requires that any contract to generate or distribute electricity must be consistent with the municipality’s integrated development plan and its service delivery budget implementation plan. Has council amended those plans to include this 130MW private plant? The article does not ask that question.

But here is the biggest omission. The article quotes Section 33 as if that is the only law that applies. It completely avoids Chapter 11 of the MFMA. Chapter 11 deals specifically with public private partnerships. That is what this is. A 25-year agreement with a private company to build, own, and operate a power plant and sell electricity to the municipality is the definition of a PPP. Chapter 11 requires a feasibility study, a PPP committee, approval by the National Treasury, and adherence to the Public Private Partnership Manual issued by Treasury.

The article does not mention Chapter 11 even once. It reads as if the municipality is exempt from those requirements. It is not.

The municipality must first comply with Chapter 11, then Section 46, then the full text of Section 33 including subsection (1)(a), then council resolution, then National Treasury approval.

Now let me be clear about what I am actually saying. I am not opposing solar power. I am opposing a deal that locks poor people into 25 years of private profit while the municipality skips the legal steps designed to protect the public. The DA councillor quoted in the article talks about transparency but does not mention Chapter 11 either. The Freedom Front Plus councillor worries about the length of the deal but does not name the law that requires a full PPP process.

The ANC signs these deals. The DA oversees them without demanding Chapter 11 compliance. The private company profits. The government pretends the law is being followed. And the article helps them by quoting the MFMA out of context.

The public comment period ends on May 29. Submit your comments. But also demand to see the Chapter 11 feasibility study. Demand the council resolution required by Section 33(1)(a).

Demand proof that Section 46 has been satisfied. And if those documents do not exist, demand that this deal be stopped immediately.

Read the MFMA yourself. Chapter 11 is not optional.

The views and opinions expressed in this reader’s letter are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views, policies or position of the Potchefstroom Herald, its editorial staff or publishers.