Get ready for the big debate… Let the truth be heard
Following calls by the Municipal Demarcation Board (MDB) for interested parties to make proposals on the proposed boundary change for Ward 61, two proposals were submitted. The more detailed and practical one seemingly came from the Concerned Community Forum (CCF), led by Lushika Mooloo, who was present with Imraan Ahmed, Yusuf Ismail, and Cllr Prajay Ramjee, during a meeting held this past Monday (July 7). Cllr Patel, who arrived late with Shaheen Wahab, Paul Bennet, and Naeem Nawab, presented a separate proposal. After the meeting, Lushika told the Laudium Sun that Cllr Patel attempted to challenge the CCF’s submission using false and misleading claims and accused him of misleading the community. Lushika added, “It became apparent that Cllr Patel was not transparent with the community. In fact after we made our presentation, Cllr Patel insisted that we leave the room before he made his presentation. We believe that the time has come for Cllr Patel to be exposed in this matter and we therefore challenge him to a public debate, at a time and place to be agreed on by both parties. Seeing that Cllr Patel has blocked our number, we are prepared to liase with Yunus Essop (known to both parties), so that an amicable agreement to work out the logistics of a program for the debate on the demarcation process, can be reached. We hope our challenge will be accepted in the interest of transparency. We would suggest that a person, such as our esteemed Judge Jody Kollapen, chair such meeting.”
CCF’s proposal on demarcation more acceptable by board
Concerned Community Forum (CCF): MDB Engagement Reveals Key Clarifications and Exposes Misrepresentation by Ward 61 Councillor
Date: 07 July 2025
CCF represented by Lushika Mooloo, Imraan Ahmed, Yusuf Ismail, Supported by Councillor Prajay Ramjee (Action SA PR Councillor)
MDB Recognises CCF’s Input and Clarifies Key Issues:
During a recent engagement with the Municipal Demarcation Board (MDB), representatives welcomed technical input from the Concerned Community Forum (CCF) and provided much-needed clarity on several aspects of Draft Proposal 1 affecting Ward 61. The MDB acknowledged the CCF’s structured submission and noted its relevance to spatial logic, infrastructure realities, and service delivery capacity. The MDB also offered technical corrections where previous political statements had caused confusion, validating the need for accurate community-based advocacy.
Rosina Sedibane VD – No Residential Impact
One key concern was the proposed split of the Rosina Sedibane Voting District. The MDB clarified:
- The proposed boundary adjustment affects only the reservoir area, which is non residential and designated as a utility zone.
- No homes or residential streets will be moved or reassigned.
- The 655 registered voters added in this zone are not physically relocated but included to balance norm compliance in Ward 51. This directly contradicts the Ward Councillor’s 10 March 2025 WhatsApp message claiming residential areas like Taj and Himalaya Street would be moved to Atteridgeville — a false and misleading statement.
CCF Submissions: Spatial Accuracy & Service Delivery Concerns
- Mooiplaas Inclusion Rejected
- CCF highlighted that Mooiplaas/Spruit is spatially aligned to Ward 48, being closer to Sunderland Ridge. Including it in Ward 61 — which already bears the service strain of Itireleng (30,000+ residents) — would overburden infrastructure and cripple service delivery.
- Hoekplaas – Exposing a Grey Zone The CCF revealed that Hoekplaas residents vote in Ward 61 but receive services from Ward 70, a long-standing administrative mismatch. Shockingly, the Ward Councillor was unaware of which ward Hoekplaas falls under, wrongly claiming it belonged to Ward 48.
- The CCF clarified that these residents are registered at Erasmia Primary School VD — firmly part of Ward 61 — and that the MDB must formally resolve this contradiction.
- Gerhardsville Excluded by Councillor Despite being directly impacted by the proposed changes, Gerhardsville residents were never consulted by the Ward Councillor.
- In contrast, the CCF actively engaged the community, explained the draft demarcation proposal, and is committed to ensuring residents are fully informed and able to decide their future inclusion. Councillor’s Conduct: Exclusion, Silence, and Spin
The Ward 61 Councillor arrived 30 minutes late to the MDB meeting, accompanied by Shaheen Wahab, Paul Bennet, and Naeem A Ward is not Imraan Ahmed of the CCF said the CCF wants to ensure that Ward 61 residents are informed, empowered and heard. Nawab.
He excluded CCF observers from attending or witnessing his submission, despite the CCF’s process being transparent and public facing.
He has not released the content of his MDB submission to the community — a serious breach of public accountability. Most disturbingly, on 29 June 2025 at 20h47, the Councillor publicly claimed victory for a supposed proposal to add:
“ONLY the farming area from the bridge outside Erasmia (before Jalapors farm) up to the cheese shop…”
This very area — Hoekplaas — is already part of Ward 61. The CCF had to publicly correct this misinformation.
So, we ask: Was this truly a victory — or a misleading attempt to claim credit for what already exists?
Misrepresentation of Outcomes: Councillor Claims Credit for CCF’s Work Despite being absent in community facilitation, refusing to host a public meeting, and excluding the CCF from MDB presentations, the Councillor issued a public message attempting to take credit for the positive outcomes of the MDB engagement. He failed to acknowledge the CCF’s role, its mandate from residents, or its detailed technical submissions that led to these
outcomes. This deliberate erasure disrespects the community’s voice and the volunteers who stepped in where elected leadership failed.
Conclusion: Transparency, Not Tokenism The MDB engagement delivered three key
confirmations: No residential impact in Rosina Sedibane VD.
Mooiplaas is spatially and administratively unsuitable for Ward 61.
The Hoekplaas and Gerhardsville anomalies require formal resolution.
The CCF remains committed to:
Fact-based, community-driven advocacy, Transparent updates across all affected areas, And ensuring Ward 61 residents are informed, empowered, and heard.
”A Ward is not defined by lines on a map alone — but by the people it serves. Let the people be heard.”