The metro’s draft Rural Development Plan is facing mounting scrutiny after the Freedom Front Plus warned that the document does not comply with the Municipal Finance Management Act (MFMA) and may expose the metro to significant financial and legal risk.

According to the FF Plus, although the plan outlines noble intentions such as integrating rural communities, preserving agricultural land, and improving infrastructure, it appears to violate multiple legal provisions and fails to meet basic budgeting requirements.

In its current form, the party said, the plan could amount to what experts call a ‘dangerous unfunded mandate’, placing the capital city in a position where it commits to large capital projects without confirmed revenue sources.

Councillor Lenor Janse van Rensburg of the FF Plus delivered an uncompromising assessment: “The plan as drafted simply cannot be implemented legally. It breaches the MFMA, it sidesteps fiscal discipline, and it misleads both Council and the public by pretending massive projects carry ‘no financial implications’. This is unacceptable.”

She provided an analysis of the core issues raised and their implications for residents of Pretoria.

Firstly, she flagged several direct contraventions of the MFMA, describing them as “severe breaches that compromise governance and transparency”.

Janse van Rensburg highlighted that the draft plan violates Section 15 of the MFMA, which clearly states that no municipality may incur expenditure unless it is both appropriated in the budget and backed by adequate funding.

She argued that the plan violates this clause by proposing major capital projects without any related budget allocations.

She further points to a breach of Section 17(2), which requires all capital projects to be clearly itemised in the municipal budget and incorporated into the multi-year capital programme.

“The seriousness of these violations cannot be overstated,” she warned. “They undermine the very principle of fiscal discipline that the MFMA exists to protect.”

In essence, the metro is accused of presenting a development blueprint that is neither funded nor authorised, placing it outside the bounds of lawful municipal planning.

One of the most alarming oversights, according to Van Rensburg, is the absence of a Service Delivery and Budget Implementation Plan (SDBIP), an essential legal instrument that connects the city’s budget to service delivery goals.

Section 53(1)(c) of the MFMA requires mayors to submit an SDBIP for Council scrutiny.

This document should outline targets, timelines and budget alignment for every major project.

Yet the Tshwane metro’s rural development plan includes no such attachment.

Janse van Rensburg is blunt: “Tabling massive infrastructure projects like the Rietvlei Water Treatment Plant without an SDBIP is a direct failure to comply with the MFMA. Without an SDBIP, the plan is not only unfunded, but it is wholly unimplementable and unlawful.”

She argued that the metro is effectively committing itself to projects for which it has no guaranteed funding.

“This is not just a technical breach,” she insisted. “It undermines the credibility of the metro and places both taxpayers and rural communities at risk.”

While the metro appears eager to move into the public consultation phase, she said that doing so would be premature and unlawful.

She emphasised that the party supports rural development and spatial justice in principle, but insists that all initiatives must be fully funded, financially prudent and legally compliant.

Do you have more information about the story?

Please send us an email to bennittb@rekord.co.za or phone us on 083 625 4114.

For free breaking and community news, visit Rekord’s websites: Rekord East

For more news and interesting articles, like Rekord on Facebook, follow us on Twitter or Instagram or TikTok or WhatsApp Channel