David Stanley Dewes

Attendance

Present

44

Leave of absence

17

Absent without leave

1

Arrived late

6

Left early

1

Reasons given for leave: Private business (12), Other (2), Party business (1), Council business (1), Ill health (1).

"Absent without leave" means the signed minutes of a meeting held while they were on council neither list them as present nor excuse them, and no similar name appears that day, so misspellings in the minutes don't count against anyone. Each square links to the minutes.

In the chamber

From the 10 sittings transcribed so far in their term. Times are approximate, to the nearest transcript line.

Not present when called

0

Times given the floor

1

Average wait to start

6 s

Average greetings first

0 s

Apology or leave of absence (6)

• 30 Sept 2026 · 00:25:53No reason given. Leave of absence reported by Cllr Avant-Smith; no reason given. sitting
• 27 Aug 2026 · 00:04:44Party business. Apology given on his behalf. sitting
• 27 Aug 2026 · 00:09:05Leaving early. DA leave of absence: attending the aldermen policy item, then leaving. sitting
• 26 Aug 2026 · 00:41:43Party business. DA apology for party business. sitting
• 30 Jul 2026 · 00:01:35Party business. Listed by the DA whip as on leave of absence. sitting
• 26 May 2026 · 00:14:43Party business. Leave of absence tabled by a DA whip. sitting

In their words

Every time the chair gave them the floor in a transcribed sitting (1), newest first. The words are the AI transcript of that stretch of the livestream (Argon), so they can include the chair or an interjection; the time link is the place to check.

• 25 Jun 2026 · 07:29:04Item 64 · 6 min 2 s

  Read what they said (617 words)

  Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on item 64, all protocol observed. Today, council has been asked to extend a lease over a valuable municipal asset with a market value of 65 million for a further 20 years. Yet before us are serious legal, contractual and financial questions that need to be asked. The first question is simple.

  What happened to enforcing the conditions of the original lease signed in 1997? The agreement was clear. It contained specific obligations, specific timelines and specific consequences. If the lessee failed to meet those obligations, the lease would be cancelled and the property would revert back to council. That is not my interpretation.

  That is what the contract required. Yet here we stand more than 29 years later. Can I repeat that? 29 years later, we are being told that development remains incomplete because of delays in relating to park closure, rezoning and approvals. The very obligations the lessee undertook to fulfill when signing the lease

  in 1997. So if these obligations were not met, the obvious questions are why was the lease not cancelled? Why was the agreement not enforced? Why was the public asset not returned to council as the contract required? The DA's key concerns here is JPC's failure to enforce existing lease conditions. While the proposed lease extension

  may ultimately unlock the completion of the development and the associated community benefits, the matter highlights a more fundamental problem of JPC's failure to adequately enforce the conditions of an existing lease agreement for over 29 years. Development timelines were not enforced, resulting in significant delays between the original approval and the implementation of the project.

  The city has lost substantial potential revenue through the failure to regularly review and adjust the rental levels to reflect prevailing market conditions over the lease period. Municipal land remained underutilized for extended periods, preventing the city from realizing the full economic and social benefits originally envisaged. Insufficient

  monitoring and reporting mechanisms have allowed non-compliance and project delays to continue for 29 years without timely intervention. The absence of regular performance assessments meant that JPC had limited opportunity to evaluate whether the developer was meeting contractual obligations and development milestones. Please pay attention.

  The current request effectively seeks to remedy historical shortcomings in the lease administration rather than addressing only the future development potential of the site. The DA want to recommend the following urgent interventions, as we are solution-driven and not just here to raise gross failings and complete lack of consequence management

  by the ruling coalition and in particular Johannesburg Property Company. Simple. Shape up or ship out. JPC must implement stronger governance measures for long-term municipal lease agreements, which should include one, regular compliance audits, two, mandatory development milestones and reporting, three, periodic market-related

  rental reviews, four, performance-based lease monitoring, five, early intervention mechanisms when lease conditions are not being met. I have a copy for the MMC Mnisi if she is truly committed to accountable governance. Most importantly, municipal land is a public asset. Failure to enforce lease conditions not only undermines accountability,

  but also results in direct financial losses to the city and delays the economic and social benefits intended for local communities. Going forward, oversight is required to ensure that municipal assets generate maximum value, sustainable revenue, and tangible community benefits. Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, the DA cannot support this item for the simple reason

  that our request that the item be referred to National Treasury for ratification was ignored as we had legitimate concerns that the lease has been extended on the previous occasions and the Municipal Finance Management Act could have been abused to rectify major JPC failures. I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Spoke on

• 25 Jun 2026 · 07:27:34Item 64: amendment of Lenasia Erf 7327 lease (MFMA s116(3))