WHAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A QUARTERLY FEEDBACK MEETING ON SERVICE DELIVEREY MATTERS IN Ward 61 BY COUNCILLOR NAEEM PATEL ORGANISED BY THE SPEAKERS OFFICE… TURNED OUT TO BE A FIASCO.
The Concerned Community Forum has been inundated with calls of concern following the
meeting that took place on Tuesday, November 4, at the Laudium Community Centre, with
only about 30 residents attending. Clearly, support for Patel is dwindling, as even members
from his Ward Committee were absent.
“It was the community’s understanding that City Officials would be present to provide feedback on the agenda points outlined in the communique. Thereafter, a question-and answer session was expected to take place to address the numerous challenges and concerns affecting the Ward.” The meeting started at 19h15.
Out of a three-hour meeting – 2 hours and 15 minutes was spent on:
- Self-honarary award:
By his own account: No number of threats to pursue legal action will ever deter him – he is entirely unfazed, even by the involvement of a so-called “flamboyant” attorney. The arrogance was apparent when the Councillor repeatedly referenced his status as THE ELECTED WARD COUNCILOR elected by the people, boasting that he could easily contest the next elections and achieve the same result. He further emphasized his supposed dedication, claiming to be a very hardworking Councillor, who begins his day at 5am and only returns home at 9pm - “Unelected group” of keyboard warriors – as Councilor Patel refers to the CCF.
While we find no need to justify our existence, it is important to reaffirm that the Concerned Community Forum (CCF) was established by residents, for residents – born out of a genuine need for a safe, respectful, and inclusive platform where community members could raise their concerns without fear of insult or intimidation. Unfortunately, several residents have reported receiving intimidating phone calls after expressing their views in community groups. We remind all residents that every individual has a constitutional right to free speech and participation in community matters. Any attempts to silence, threaten, or intimidate individuals for exercising these rights are unacceptable and contrary to democratic values. - Political Undertones at the Meeting
The meeting appeared to adopt the tone of a political campaign, characterised by persistent criticism of the PR Councillors. Councillor Patel repeatedly displayed clear resentment toward the PR Councillors, including Cllr Prajay Ramjee. Their attempts to fulfil their duties and raise legitimate community concerns were often met with open hostility and efforts to discredit them — typically followed by his familiar refrain: “I am the duly elected Ward Councillor, and only I have the authority.” Despite frequently emphasising that both he and the PR Councillors earn the same salary, Councillor Patel appears resentful when they actively perform their responsibilities and engage directly with the community. In light of this, we pose a fair and reflective question to residents: Would you prefer PR Councillors who work diligently for the community and earn their salaries with integrity — or those who remain silent out of fear of criticism? - DISGUSTINGLY – Why was the Cllr responding to the accusations made by residents in the media at a service delivery meeting.
Councillor Patel’s conduct during the meeting reflected a complete lack of leadership and decorum. Instead of using the platform to address community issues constructively, he used the opportunity to pursue a personal vendetta against certain residents. His behaviour — marked by hostility, bias, and disregard for accountability — was unbecoming of a public representative and deeply disappointing to those who expected transparency and solutions. Councillor Patel shamelessly launched a personal attack on a resident from White Blocks, accusing her of betrayal after he claimed to have supported her with grocery vouchers worth R1 500 per month from May 2024 to April 2025, allegedly from his own pocket. He went on to allege that, once this support ended, she accused him of trying to extort R50 000 from her. This public humiliation of a resident – in her absence and without giving her any right of reply – was not only unethical but deeply unbecoming of a public representative. Such behaviour reflects personal animosity, poor judgment, and a serious misuse of authority under the guise of community leadership. Laudium Sun article – May 30, 2025
Councillor Patel continued his onslaught, proudly declaring that this was his “favourite story” – a shocking public attack on Mariam Hoosen, a resident who was not present to defend herself. Instead of giving the full or truthful background of the matter, which had already appeared in the Laudium Sun on August 29, 2025, he twisted the narrative to suit himself, making accusations of water and electricity tampering – in the presence of City officials, In his tirade, Councillor Patel went as far as exposing Ms Hoosen’s personal information, including the street where she lives and her pending legal case against him — a blatant violation of privacy and dignity. What he conveniently left out, was the real story: Councillor Patel had wanted to purchase her house, and when he discovered the property, she intended to buy, he undermined the sale by making a counteroffer. Mariam Hoosen said that the outcome speaks for itself – “Councillor Patel now resides in the very same house that we had intended to purchase. This is not leadership — it is an abuse of power, manipulation, and a personal vendetta carried out under the guise of public service. There are also inconsistencies in the figures he mentioned: initially, the amount was stated as R400 000, yet later he referred to R29 000. Where did that figure come from? Furthermore, what authority does he have to access or scrutinise my municipal account without my consent? To add to this, Council officials have visited my home repeatedly, purportedly under instruction to inspect my electricity meter.” - GATING
Residents raised strong concerns about the closure of gates, particularly during daytime hours. It is widely understood that gates on high-traffic routes cannot be permanently closed, and where temporary closure is necessary, a guard must be stationed to manage access. This, however, is not the case for several permanently closed gates across Laudium and Erasmia. Moosa Hassim (CCF) asked Aniel Soma on why certain gates remain closed during the day. Mr Soma responded that if a road is “not busy,” its closure “does not affect anybody.” When Moosa requested the Traffic Impact Report, Aniel Soma added that they were under no obligation to answer residents’ questions. Councillor Patel has repeatedly stated that he is not directly involved in the gating project or any related tender processes. He maintains that his role is limited to serving as a liaison between the gating project committee and the Tshwane Metro Police Department (TMPD). Furthermore, he has acknowledged his close association with Moulana Anwar from Khan’s Tactical Security but emphasised that he has had no direct involvement in any decision-making or tender adjudication processes related to the project. Moosa Hassim from the CCF says that “This raises the obvious question: If Councillor Patel is not involved, why does he feel compelled to repeatedly defend himself?” And how is it that he serves as an administrator on the Gating WhatsApp group — the same group that was mysteriously disbanded following the alleged “hacking” of his number?Transparency in Tender Process Questioned
During the meeting, Aniel Soma, Chairperson of the Laudium Gating Committee (LGC), was questioned about the quotation process for his area, the Hillside Homeowners Association, and how the tender was ultimately awarded. Mr Soma explained that the lowest quote was not selected, claiming that “various factors, including working relationships with security providers” were taken into consideration. This response raised further concern — how can there be a ‘working relationship’ before any work has even commenced? Mr Soma went on to state that Khan’s Tactical Security quote was R 45 000, while PAJ Community Patrollers quote was R 140 The massive discrepancy between the two figures prompted calls for transparency and accountability. Imraan Ahmed (CCF) has formally requested that all quotations be made public, allowing residents to compare costs and specifications openly. He stressed that “it makes no sense for one quote to exceed another by nearly R 100 000, especially when residents’ repeated requests for transparency have been ignored. It has become imperative that these quotations be brought into the public domain so residents can see exactly what they are paying for – and why.”
Once again, this exchange highlights that the Gating Project remains riddled with inconsistencies, unanswered questions and a lack of transparency. Residents are urged to continue demanding clarity and accountability from the Laudium Gating Committee until satisfactory answers are provided. - DEMARCATION
The Councilor feels the need to drag this on, once again, to mislead the community. Simple and straight forward Councilor Patel – You have on many occasions, in your own messages admitted that you have been involved in the process. The MDB has confirmed, on numerous occasions, that the Ward Councilor and Ward Committee had an obligation to communicate the process to the public. Timestamped Responses by Hester Marias the Municipal Demarcation Board on 14 October 2025: 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 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. Lushika Mooloo from the CCF said: “The Ward Councillor sings the same tune time and again. He is fully aware of the MDB process and knows that Ward Councillors were consulted from the very beginning — since the technical input phase of the Ward delimitation process. A good leader takes accountability, not refuge in repetition.” - CYBERBULLYING
According to Councillor Naeem Patel, if a derogatory message is posted on a group, the group administrator can be held legally responsible – either for posting it themselves or for failing to delete such content. He stated, “That’s the law.” Lushika Mooloo from the Concerned Community Forum (CCF) has requested formal clarification from Councillor Naeem Patel: “If, as Councillor Patel claims, group administrators are legally responsible for derogatory messages posted or left undeleted, was this same ‘law’ not applicable on 27 June 2025 at 18h35, when a WhatsApp message – sent by an Admin on the Ward 61 Residents Association group – slandered two members of the Concerned Community Forum? Furthermore, the same defamatory message was subsequently shared across multiple public platforms by Councillor Patel himself. If Councillor Patel is genuinely concerned about the law, then he should equally recognise that public defamation and the shaming of residents constitute a serious violation of South African law and the principles of ethical public leadership.” - THE LAND INVASION
The issue of the illegal settlement in Erasmia has now turned into a blame game, with Councillor Naeem Patel reportedly placing responsibility on one of the property owners, Gerad Rouke. Residents are questioning why the public has not been informed about the status or composition of the committee that has been handling this matter – and what tangible actions have been taken to date. Councillor Patel has publicly stated that structured houses, and even businesses and restaurants, have begun to emerge within the settlement. This raises serious questions:
- How is such development taking place without intervention from By-Law Enforcement or Building Control and Planning departments?
- Who is being held accountable for these clear violations>
Adding to the concern is a cryptic inconsistency in how proof of residence is being handled.Ordinarily, residents of Laudium, Erasmia, or Claudius would not require official proof of residence letters, as they would typically either own or rent their homes. However, on 28 July 2025, Councillor Patel publicly stated on social media that his office issues “thousands of proof of residence documents every year,” noting a “significant surge in July and August due to school applications,” amounting to approximately 2,500 requests during that period, which are “provided free of charge.” This prompts a crucial question: Who exactly were these proof of residence documents issued to — and for what purpose?
The Ultimate Question to Councillor Patel:
What is the true purpose of these quarterly feedback meetings?
Are they meant to serve the residents and promote accountability, or are they simply platforms to impress City officials and display authority?
If you are interested in joining the Concerned Community Forum, please send a WhatsApp to 066 390 0404.
.