Bongani Nkomo

Attendance

Present

58

Leave of absence

5

Absent without leave

0

Arrived late

1

Left early

0

Reasons given for leave: Private business (3), Other (1), Party business (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

2

Average wait to start

4 s

Average greetings first

3 s

Apology or leave of absence (1)

• 26 May 2026 · 00:14:14Private 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 (2), 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.

• 30 Sept 2026 · 09:23:20Item 31: Draft Inner City Street and Informal Trading Plan · 5 min 48 s

  Read what they said (827 words)

  Present, uh Madam Speaker. May I proceed?

  Right, let's shoot. Let's shoot.

  Thank you very much, uh Madam Speaker. I stand to speak on item 31, which is the Inner City Street and Informal Trading Plan. Speaker, before I move forward, um I want to make it clear that nobody disputes that Johannesburg needs order in the inner city. But before council is told that adopting another plan will create law and order, we need to ask a simple question: Why is there disorder in the first place? Is it because Johannesburg does not have rules? The answer to that question is no.

  In fact, the city already has an informal trading policy. We already have rules dealing with designated trading areas, prohibited areas, the allocation of stands, environmental health and safety, removal and impoundment, offenses and penalties. The existing framework already provides for council to designate trading areas, restrict or prohibit trading in particular places, prevent trading that obstructs traffic, entrances, and fire hydrants, and take enforcement action

  against unlawful trading. So our problem is not simply the absence of another plan. Our problem is implementation. In fact, this report admits that. It describes informal trading in the inner city as uncontrolled, organic, and unmanaged. It tells us that traders are operating at intersections, on roads, and even in traffic. It tells us litter is blocking stormwater infrastructure. It tells us fire hydrants and water infrastructure are being vandalized

  to access water, and that informal trading in its current state conflicts with city regulations. Those are enforcement failures, and yet the answer presented to council is another plan. Speaker, as usual, I'm expecting my colleagues from the ANC to disagree with me. I expect them to say, "Exactly, that is why we need this plan. It will finally bring law and order." But Speaker, a plan does not enforce a bylaw. A map does not issue a fine. A colored line on a map does not remove

  an illegal obstruction. A new trading bay does not stop somebody from setting up next to it illegally. And a council resolution in this case does not magically give JMPD the sustained personnel, resources, and operational capacity required to enforce bylaws. There's also the question of Lilian Ngoyi Street. The recommendation is that Lilian Ngoyi be declared a non-trading area. But where exactly are those traders going?

  The report before council does not give us that answer. These traders did not randomly choose Lilian Ngoyi Street. Their location reflects where customers and pedestrian traffic are concentrated. Ironically, the report itself recognizes precisely this economic logic. It says informal trading follows pedestrian movement because traders need access to customers, and that transport corridors attract intense trading because of exposure to customers. So if you remove a trader from a commercially viable location,

  where is the alternative site? How much foot traffic does it have? And what evidence shows that the trader can still earn a living there? This is not a minor detail. That is somebody's livelihood. But wait, Speaker, there's more. There's even a bigger contradiction. This plan proposes increasing designated trading space from 14,353 square meters to 21,446 square meters, aproximadamente 5,231 trading spaces.

  Yet the same document admits that there are resource, mandate, and budget limitations restricting intervention. So colleagues, the question we should ask ourselves is as follows: if we cannot adequately regulate the trading environment we have today, what gives us confidence that we can regulate an even larger one tomorrow? Speaker, Johannesburg has already demonstrated that concentrated enforcement can change conditions temporarily.

  We saw miracles and extraordinary mobilization in preparation for the G20 summit. But the important question was never whether Johannesburg could clean up and enforce its rules when international leaders were watching. The question was whether we could sustain it after they have left. That experience should caution council against confusing a temporary enforcement drive or a newly adopted document with sustainable urban management. Cape Town's framework illustrates this distinction. Yes, I said it, Cape Town.

  Because Speaker, how do we improve if we are benchmarking against ourselves? Speaker, if we are going to reclaim Joburg, we will need a framework that demarcates where trading is permitted and prohibited, and a framework that connects plans to permits, management responsibilities to enforcement requirements. Speaker, Johannesburg already possesses many of the basic legal powers it needs. What is missing is not another promise of order. What must be demonstrated is the capacity to deliver consistently.

  Before dramatically expanding trading spaces or removing traders from economically viable locations, council should have clear answers: Where will displaced traders go? Who will enforce the demarcated areas? What additional JMPD capacity has been allocated? What infrastructure will be provided? What is funded? And what is materially different from what Johannesburg already has? Because without credible answers to those questions, changing the map risks changing where the problem occurs

  rather than solving the problem itself. I thank you, Speaker.

• 26 Aug 2026 · 07:17:0111 and 12 · 7 min 54 s

  Read what they said (1063 words)

  Madam Speaker, residents of the City of Johannesburg, members of the media, fellow councillors, good afternoon. Speaker, the Democratic Alliance cannot support Items in 11, Items 11 and 12 in their current form. And I want to make our position clear. We are not opposed to development, we are not opposed to investment, and we are not opposed to unlocking the value of underutilized municipal land. But development must be responsible,

  evidence-based and in the long-term interest of, of the City of Johannesburg and its people. And these reports simply do not meet that test. Firstly, Speaker, the reports fail to adequately justify and demonstrate why the outright sale of these properties is the most viable option. The original consultation process for Item 11 contemplated alienation through sale and or long-term lease. Yet what comes before council today has somehow been narrowed,

  narrowed to an outright development sale. Where is the business case comparing these, those options? Where is the calculation showing what Johannesburg could earn from a 30, 40 or 50-year development lease? Where is the assessment of the future appreciation of this property? And where is the explanation for why the city should permanently surrender ownership of a strategic asset when it could potentially facilitate development, generate an income stream,

  and still remain, and still retain ownership for future generations? Secondly, Speaker, we are being asked to approve these sales before we even know what can, what can sustainably be developed on this land. EISD requires ecological assessments, wetland studies, fauna and flora studies and a sensitivity map. Critically, the report itself says, says that the extent and nature of the development will depend on the outcome of these studies.

  Those are not administrative boxes to tick afterwards. They determine the developable, the developable footprint. How can council responsibly sell land for development before it knows what portion of land can actually be developed? Speaker, that is how municipalities create white elephants and leave surrounding communities dealing with consequences. Speaking of consequences, Speaker, this brings me to my third point.

  The questions pertaining to infrastructure are nowhere near settled. JRA still requires traffic impact assessments examining the effect of the surrounding road network, access, circulation and parking. For Portion 4, a traffic impact assessment and site access study still needs to be undertaken. And the Transport Department has indicated-

  Councillor Nkomo, just hold on. Councillor Schay, these screens are not made to play games on. They are definitely not made to play games on. Please don't do that. No, I can see from here what's happening. I can see what every councillor is doing. I can see what every councillor is doing.

  Councillor Schay, don't. Councillor Schay, don't. Councillor Nkomo, can you go on?

  Thank you, thank you very much, Speaker. Sorry, sorry, colleagues. For Portion 4, a traffic impact assessment and site, site access study must still be undertaken. And the Transport Department has indicated that it requires further transport planning studies. Residents of Ward 98, who will be affected the most, are already experiencing pressure on the roads and municipal infrastructure. This in addition to the persistent electricity challenges which my colleague, Councillor Beverley Jacobs,

  has been championing. Before adding hundreds of additional residential units, offices and commercial activity, where is the City Power's capacity assessment? What additional load will this development place on the network? Can the existing substations and transformers carry it? What upgrades are required? What will they cost? And when will, and when will they be delivered? We cannot continue approving development first and expecting infrastructure to somehow catch up later.

  Infrastructure must lead development. Speaker, Item 12 is presenting more questions than answers. Within this report, there is also an issue that council should not simply brush aside. Johannesburg City Parks and Zoo objected because it had identified Portion 4 for possible expansion of a historical cemetery. The important point is that one municipal entity has identified a possible future municipal need for land that another entity now wants to sell permanently.

  Yet council is being asked to accept that this property is not required for municipal purposes. Surely that contradiction deserves proper resolution before disposal. There are also serious questions about the history of these properties. The annexures of Item 11 indicate that Portion 2 of Erf 1226 and Erf 1202 were previously awarded for development in 2006. But what trans- what, but that transaction was sub-

  that transaction was subsequently cancelled before, because of a developer non-performance. What happened? Were there development constraints? What lessons were learned? And how has JPC satisfied itself that council is not repeating the same mistakes 20 years later? Similarly, Portion 4 was, was previously taken to market. JPC's 2019/20 reporting records an RFP advertised in November 2019,

  closing in January 2020, with an anticipated investment value of approximately 200 million. Yet Item 12 does not properly tell council what, what, Item 12 does not properly tell council what became of that. Before we launch another disposal process, council deserves to know why the previous one did not produce the develop- the development it, it envisaged. Finally, Speaker, some of the consultation underpinning Item 11 is itself several years old,

  including comments from the councillor. The report records that departments and entities were approached from, for comments in February 2022. We are making this decision in August 2026. Infrastructure conditions change, electricity networks change, traffic volumes change, municipal requirements change. A decision of this magnitude should be based on current information and not stale assurances. So the DA's position is reasonable.

  We are not asking council to abandon development. We are asking council to do the responsible thing and defer Items 11 and 12. Bring us an updated infrastructure capacity assessment. Bring us traffic studies. Bring us City Power's assessment. Complete the environmental studies. Resolve the JCPZ objection. Explain the previous failed development processes. And most importantly, bring council a proper financial comparison between outright sale and a long-term lease, development lease.

  Only then can council make an informed decision about what, about what delivers the greatest long-term value to the people of Johannesburg. Until then, selling these properties would not be decisive leadership. It would be an irreversible and irresponsible decision made with incomplete information. Before I take my seat, Speaker, I would like to emphasize the DA do not support these items. I thank you.

Spoke on

• 30 Sept 2026 · 01:42:13Item 26: Amendment of Erf 56 Crown North development lease
• 30 Sept 2026 · 02:23:09Item 32: Economic Growth Strategy and Implementation Plan
• 30 Sept 2026 · 09:23:06Item 31: Draft Inner City Street and Informal Trading Plan