Sixty-One People Consulted, Four Thousand Two Hundred Signatures Collected
Naledi District Council has P52 million of discretionary capital. Two proposals compete. The first is a new council office block at P46 million, replacing buildings the auditor has described as overcrowded and unsafe for records. The second is 11 borehole rehabilitations serving 6,800 people at P18 million, plus 24 clinic staff houses at P29 million. The council's five-year plan, approved after a consultation attended by 61 people in a district of 34,000, lists the office block as priority one. A youth group has since collected 4,200 signatures demanding the water and clinic housing, and has asked the national government to dissolve the council. Turnout at the last local election was 31%. The law requires the council to consult before adopting its plan, but does not define what counts as adequate consultation.
1. Was the council's decision legitimate? Distinguish between legality and legitimacy in your answer.
Read the worked answer
Legality. The council did what the law requires: it consulted, it adopted a plan, and the office block is within its competence. A court would find the procedure valid. Legality, though, only asks whether the right steps were taken.
Legitimacy asks whether the decision can reasonably be accepted by those it binds. Here the evidence is weak. Sixty-one people is 0.18% of the district, and nothing shows that those who attended were representative or that the objections raised were answered. The plan allocates 88% of discretionary capital to buildings serving perhaps a hundred staff, while 6,800 people lack reliable water and clinics cannot retain nurses. Turnout of 31% further weakens any claim that the plan reflects a settled public preference, and the 4,200 signatures - more than the number who voted for the whole council - demonstrate that an alternative preference exists and is organised.
Judgement. The decision is legal but not legitimate. But illegitimacy does not justify dissolution: that would punish elected representatives for a procedural gap the law itself leaves open. The remedy is to amend the budget and repair the process. Note the auditor's finding is real, not trivial - unsafe records are a genuine failure - so the office requirement should be phased, not dismissed.
2. Advise the council on what it should do now. Your advice should address both the money and the process.
Read the worked answer
The money. Reallocate within the P52m: fund the boreholes (P18m) and clinic houses (P29m) now, and phase the office block over two or three budgets, seeking central government's office accommodation allocation and cheaper refurbishment instead of a new block. If the P52m cannot cover both, then water and clinic housing win on the numbers - P18m for 6,800 people is about P2,600 per person served, against P46m for a building whose main beneficiary is the administration. The council should also publish the recurrent cost of each option, because staff houses and boreholes carry maintenance obligations.
The process. Adopt and publish a consultation standard before the next plan: notice in the local language through kgotla and radio, at least four weeks' notice, venues and times that working people and women can attend, minutes published with responses, and a feedback loop showing what changed and why. Then run a budget hearing with the youth group, not about them. Treat the petition formally: record it, respond in writing, and report to the full council.
Say what cannot be done. Explaining the auditor's finding and the phasing plan is what turns a refusal into a decision people can accept.
3. The youth group wants the national government to dissolve the council and appoint an administrator. Evaluate this demand.
Read the worked answer
The demand is understandable and probably counter-productive.
The case for it. If consultation is a formality and the plan serves the institution rather than the residents, the elected body has failed in its core function. Dissolution signals that the law's minimum standard is not a licence to ignore the public, and it can break a captured council quickly.
Against it. First, dissolution would remove the only body the signatories can vote out; an appointed administrator is answerable to the ministry, not to the 34,000 residents, and would have no stronger incentive to fund rural water. Second, it treats one budget as a systemic failure, when the deeper problem is that the law does not define adequate consultation - a national problem an administrator cannot fix. Third, it may discredit the very participation the group wants: turnout is already 31%, and a narrative that local government is pointless will lower it further.
A stronger strategy. Combine the petition with a formal objection under the planning process, request the district audit and the consultation record, stand candidates in the next local election, and press the ministry for a statutory consultation standard. The role of traditional leaders and the local member of parliament should be used to convene a public meeting, not to bypass the council. Accountability works best when it strengthens elected institutions rather than replacing them.