The Concerned Community Forum (CCF) takes strong exception to the communication shared by Councillor Naeem Patel on 13 October 2025. The screenshots circulated by Councillor Patel were shared in bad faith and served to misrepresent the CCF’s legitimate actions and damage the integrity of community representatives who worked tirelessly to ensure transparency in the ongoing Municipal Demarcation Board (MDB) process.
The CCF has, on numerous occasions, formally requested a public meeting with Councillor Patel to provide clarity and answers regarding the ward demarcation process and its implications for residents. To date, he has failed to comply with these repeated requests. Instead, Councillor Patel has embarked on a campaign of personal attacks and character defamation against members of the CCF, seemingly to divert attention from his own refusal to engage openly and transparently with the public.
MDB Clarification on Patel’s Allegations
Following the screenshots posted by Councillor Patel, the CCF directly engaged the MDB to seek clarity on the background to the serious allegations made against a member of the Forum — namely that the member was “spreading rumours,” “causing unrest,” and “lying” about the demarcation process.
The MDB’s response indicated that these allegations stemmed from a claim that the CCF petition suggested residents would be moved, thereby “causing unrest.” However, when reviewed objectively, the CCF’s objection and petition clearly and accurately referenced information drawn from official demarcation maps and registered voter data issued by the MDB itself. At no point did the CCF’s submission create or imply a perception of “people being moved.”
The objection was focused on the principle of voter dilution — that is, the impact of splitting the Rosina Sedibane Voting District and the administrative confusion that would arise should residents of Ward 61 be required to vote in Ward 51, or vice versa. The intent of the objection was therefore procedural and data-driven, not emotional or inflammatory. It sought to ensure that voter integrity, administrative accuracy, and ward accountability were preserved, in full compliance with the rights afforded to citizens under the Municipal Demarcation Act.
CCF Position on the Rosina Sedibane Split Voting District
The CCF notes that the 2024 Voters’ Roll confirms 1,555 registered voters in the Rosina Sedibane Voting District in Ward 61. The CCF’s concern arises from this split voting district in the MDB ward delimitation process Draft set 1 (published March 2025) and Draft set 2 – (published September 2025) comprising 900 voters in Ward 61 and 655 voters in Ward 51- citing that this is a mere “technical adjustment” to balance numbers still lacks clarity and adequate justification. The CCF’s objection, lodged in good faith, sought to ensure that such adjustments are explained transparently and that the community’s right to meaningful public participation is fully upheld.
The MDB clarified (on 13 October 2025) that, based on its internal spatial analysis, no residents are directly affected by the boundary adjustment in question, explaining that the area concerned refers to a population free zone, and not a populated residential area.
Cllr Patel must explain this in detail at a public meeting – this is still a grey area.
Against the backdrop of text messages sent to the MBD from the CCF on 13 and 14 October 2025:
ALL CORRESPONDENCE IS AVAILABLE AND CAN BE REQUESTED DIRECTLY TO THE CCF
Good morning, Hester
We are requesting clarity on the statement made about the individual concerned:
Spreading rumours, causing unrest and lying. These are harsh statements and have now caused distress within the community. The messages and screenshots suggest that the community is up in arms, protesting, etc. That’s hardly the case. The community is simply taking the opportunity (given to them by the MDB) to raise their objections and, in that, seek further clarity.Yes, there is, in fact, a petition signed by approximately 400 residents objecting to the draft set. Those are the voices of the residents.
How could the submission of this objection, which was in line with the MDB requirements, culminate into a statement made by yourself? (screenshot shared by Naeem Patel that was shared with the community).
After consultation with the residents of the ward.
A very fair question has been asked and remains unanswered – are the voters in the split voting districts going to vote in the wards where they are registered? Simply- VD 32980338 Spring of Living Water Church is a split VD.
1000 voters registered to vote in Ward 61 and 1956 are registered to vote in Ward 70.
The question is: Do the 1000 registered voters in Ward 61 vote for the Councillor in Ward 61 (even though they are geographically placed in Ward 70?) Similarly, with Rosina Sedibane – VD32952090 – Split voting district.
900 registered to vote in Ward 61
655 registered to vote in Ward 51
2024 – Ward 61 voters roll 1555 registered voters for this VD with names and addresses.
Do the 655 vote for a Councillor in Ward 51 or Ward 61?
Direct answers to these questions will clear any concerns and confusion.
In light of moving forward, in a respectable and amicable manner, can you please:
- Clarify the questions above
- Provide clarity against the backdrop of the statements being made about Mooloo. We would like to clarify both the above mentioned with the community since there have not been any public meetings held with the Councillor.
We thank you in advance.
MDB responses:
These time stamps serve as official evidence of engagement and reflect the CCF’s consistent, transparent, and factual approach to correspondence with the MDB — in stark contrast to Councillor Patel’s selective and misleading dissemination of partial information.
14 October 2025 @ 05h51 – Since the ward councillors is elected by the majority of residents, I have asked him to confirm with his residents in the ward that they are not being affected, since ward councillors have been in engagement in the process since July 2024.
14 October 2025 @ 12h15 – Inputs provided to me during the technical configuration stage, was worked in and as the process developed, relooked up until the stage we are now in 2x checking, and in your case clarifying that none of the objectors are affected. The ward councillor’s role is to communicate info to and from residents since he was elected by majority of residents and it stands legislatively. Where residents do contact MDB directly, for whatever their own reasons, I engage with them and also update the ward councillor, since changes to the ward would affect them 1st, residents raising matter with him as ward councillor.
14 October 2025 @ 17h04 – People will vote in the ward they physically reside in. IEC maps are usually used by them for this since it’s part of their registration process after they have dissolved the splits in the appropriate adjacent VD. At stage of registration a VD will be part of only one ward.
At 17h51 – the CCF responded to the MDB requesting the following:
- Full disclosure of all bilateral communications with Councillor Patel, as Patel continues to post selective MDB responses without disclosing his own queries or representations. This selective communication distorts the narrative, undermines community confidence, and threatens the credibility of the public participation process.
- A copy of his submission to the MDB (as per his WhatsApp message)
- We also forwarded a copy of the screenshots and his WhatsApp message to the MDB.
To date we have not received any response from them.
The CCF remains committed to engaging constructively and transparently with the MDB, the City of Tshwane, and all relevant authorities. We call upon both the MDB and Councillor Patel to act with professional integrity, ensuring that all records, clarifications, and communications are made public and contextualized.
WHAT ELSE IS COUNCILOR PATEL HIDING:
In his WhatsApp message to the community on 13 October 2025, he once again, denied that Ward Councillors’ have any responsibility to hold public meetings to clarify the Demarcation process – clearly, the MDB has a very different stance and has been confirmed in numerous communications.
THE ONE HUNDRED DOLLAR QUESTIONS:
- When was there any indication of community unrest?
- Why was all the focus put onto Rosina Sedibane?
- Was it to divert a discussion around the Springs of Living Waters (Mooiplaas) split VD – 1000 registered voters? Of course it was.
THE COMMUNITY DEMANDS A PUBLIC MEETING WITH COUNCILLOR PATEL – THE
MEETING THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE HAD SINCE APRIL 2025 – THE MUNICIPAL DEMARCATION BOARD HAS CONFIRMED THAT IT WAS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY!!!
Moosa Hassim from the CCF says: Naeem Patel – answer to your WhatsApp message on 29 June 2025:
Dear Residents,
After carefully considering various factors, including the number of registered voters, population, technical aspects of demarcation, infrastructure, potential new voters, ward size in square kilometers, and number of households, I’ve explored different scenarios to meet the Demarcation Board’s criteria for forming a ward. Based on my analysis, the only feasible proposal I, as the ward councillor, after receiving feedback from the community on WhatsApp and email, put forward to the Demarcation Board is to maintain the current ward boundaries with a minor adjustment. I suggest adding ONLY the farming area from the bridge outside Erasmia (before Jalapors farm) up to the Cheese Shop to our ward. This addition would balance the numbers as required. It’s worth noting that in 2021, although the area between the Bridge (Jalalpor Farm) in Erasmia and the Cheese Shop voted in Erasmia (Ward 61), they fell under ward 70 (Councillor Marika Kruger Muller) for service delivery purposes. Further, I suggest that the split VD of Mooiplaats remains in WARD 70 of Cllr Marika Kruger. I’m still open to suggestions from residents before submitting my final proposal to the Board on Monday morning.
Cllr Naeem Patel
THE COMMUNITY WANTS TO SEE THE AREA ON A MAP AND SHOW US PROOF OF WHICH WARDS THE ILLEGAL SETTLEMENT IS GEOGRAPHICALLY LOCATED IN.
The CCF stands firm in its principles of truth, accountability, and community unity. We will not be silenced or intimidated by defamatory tactics and reaffirm our dedication to safeguarding the democratic rights of Ward 61 residents and ensuring that the demarcation process reflects the will, facts, and welfare of the people.
To join the Concerned Community Forum, please send a WhatsApp message to 066 390 0404
