Following another controversial post by Ward 61 Councillor Naeem Patel, regarding the outcome of a Section 79 Petitions Committee sitting, the community of Ward 61 has been left outraged and demanding answers over the allegations and claims contained therein.
In response to growing concern amongst residents, the Concerned Community Forum (CCF) addressed a detailed letter to the Section 79 Petitions Committee on 08 June 2026 seeking clarification regarding the matters raised in Councillor Patel’s public communication.
Apart from an acknowledgement of receipt from a Democratic Alliance councillor, there has been a deafening silence from the Committee itself. As expected, no response was received from the Chairperson of the Committee, who represents the African National Congress. A further follow-up email was sent by the CCF on 17 June 2026, yet to date no response has been forthcoming. The continued silence has only fuelled suspicions amongst residents and intensified calls for transparency regarding what transpired behind closed doors.
Background to the Matter
The concerns raised by residents extend far beyond the contents of Councillor Patel’s post.
According to the CCF, the document apparently placed before the committee does not appear to be the final Memorandum of Demands adopted by residents, but rather a draft version that had been circulated during the campaign.
The CCF points out that, after months of crippling water and electricity failures and repeated pleas for assistance, residents embarked upon a peaceful protest on 27 January 2026. During the protest, a signed Memorandum of Demands, supported by more than 200 residents, was handed to former MMC Kholofelo Morodi — the only member of the Mayoral Committee to respond to the community’s increasingly desperate calls for help. (Laudium Sun, 30 January 2026)
Far from ignoring the community, former MMC Morodi subsequently returned to Ward 61 on 16 February 2026 with the relevant officials and facilitated an action plan to address several of the service delivery and pressing infrastructure challenges facing the area.
(Laudium Sun, 20 February 2026) The petition was not abandoned; it was superseded by a more urgent and effective process.
The CCF explains that, while residents had initially embarked upon a petition campaign, the urgency of the situation and the impending month of Ramadan made it clear that the formal process would not deliver intervention within the required timeframes. Residents therefore prioritised a Memorandum of Demands and direct engagement with the City to secure immediate measures and minimise disruption during the holy month, while longer-term solutions could be pursued. Once the City responded and implemented the agreed interventions, the continuation of a separate petition process became both unnecessary and duplicative. This naturally gives rise to a question that is now being repeatedly asked throughout the community:
If residents consciously chose not to pursue the formal petition route because the City had responded and acted, how and why did an allegedly defective petition later find its way before the Section 79 Petitions Committee? Questions Surrounding the Petition Process. According to the public communication circulated by Councillor Patel, the petition before the committee was allegedly unsigned, lacked contact details and failed to comply with the City’s by-laws.
However, residents argue that these claims themselves raise a number of troubling questions.
· Who received the petition?
· Who assessed it for compliance?
· Who authorised it for processing?
· And how did a petition allegedly deemed procedurally defective ultimately find itself before the Section 79 Petitions Committee?
“If the community had consciously chosen the Memorandum of Demands route and had ceased pursuing a formal petition because the City had already acted, how and why did an allegedly defective petition later appear before the Section 79 Petitions Committee?”
“These questions strike at the very heart of administrative accountability” said Lushika Mooloo from the CCF. Political Commentary Raises Further Concerns Mustafa Hasware from the CCF also expressed concern regarding the highly political nature of the feedback that followed the hearing.
“According to the CCF, the communication issued by Councillor Patel after the sitting did not merely deal with procedural issues but reportedly contained references to a “former disgraced ActionSA MMC”, highlighted the role played by the Democratic Alliance, and specifically identified how individual councillors had voted. What should have been a concern for the Ward Councilor – given that the residents of Ward 61 were affected – seemed to have been a victory for him”.
The CCF believes that the emphasis on political parties and personalities creates a troubling perception that residents’ concerns may have become the subject of political point-scoring rather than being considered objectively on their merits.
Residents are therefore asking whether the matter was dealt with strictly on procedural grounds or whether political considerations played a role in the discussion, handling and subsequent communication surrounding the outcome.
Demand for Records
In its correspondence to the Petitions Committee, the CCF requested copies of the committee agenda, minutes, attendance register, official resolution and records of deliberation in order to establish precisely what transpired.
The CCF maintains that if the process was conducted fairly and strictly in accordance with established procedures, the official records will vindicate the Section 79 Committee and put an end to speculation. However, if those records reveal that political considerations influenced the discussion, handling or public communication of the matter, residents believe that those responsible must be held accountable. The CCF further argues that if the petition was indeed procedurally defective, residents are entitled to know why the alleged shortcomings were not identified earlier and why an opportunity was not afforded to correct and resubmit the document. This question will also tie directly in with the question – When was Councillor Patel informed about the sitting? Lushika Mooloo from the CCF commented that “the Councillor surely would have had sufficient notice to rectify the document in correlation with the CCF. After all, public participation mechanisms are intended to facilitate engagement and resolve concerns – not to create procedural obstacles that prevent communities from being heard”.
Silence Speaks Volumes
More than two weeks after the initial request for clarification, Imran Ahmed from the CCF commented that “the absence of any meaningful response from the Committee leadership has only deepened public concern”.
FOR MANY IN WARD 61, THE ISSUE HAS NOW MOVED BEYOND THE PETITION ITSELF. IT HAS BECOME A MATTER OF TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY AND PUBLIC TRUST.
THE CONCERNED COMMUNITY FORUM are now asking a simple question: If there is
nothing to hide, why the silence? As the controversy continues to simmer, one thing is clear: the people of Ward 61 are no longer prepared to accept political narratives and unanswered questions in place of facts. As stated by the Concerned Community Forum in its letter to the Committee:
“Residents are entitled to transparency, accountability, and a full explanation of what transpired.”
Until the official records are disclosed, the questions surrounding the Ward 61 petition and the events of 05 June 2026 are likely to remain a matter of considerable public interest.
-Lushika Mooloo (Concerned Community Forum).