Neuren Pietersen

Attendance

Present

59

Leave of absence

5

Absent without leave

0

Arrived late

6

Left early

2

Reasons given for leave: Party business (2), Private business (1), No reason recorded (1), Other (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

3

Average wait to start

3 s

Average greetings first

0 s

In their words

Every time the chair gave them the floor in a transcribed sitting (3), 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 · 06:26:09Item 12 SCM Operational Status Report · 6 min 33 s

  Read what they said (921 words)

  Thank you, Speaker. Um Supply chain management sits at the center of how a municipality delivers services, builds infrastructure, and protects public money. Every contract, every project, every rand spent by the city moves through this system. When SCM is strong, the city can plan, procure, and execute with confidence. When reporting is thin or incomplete, the council cannot see what is happening inside the engine room of municipal delivery.

  That is why SCM oversight matters. It gives council the visibility needed to ensure that procurement is lawful, transparent, and aligned to the needs of Johannesburg's residents. Without clear, detailed reporting, oversight becomes guesswork, and the city cannot afford guesswork in its procurement environment. As we turn to Item 12, I must again raise a concern that has become impossible to ignore. Quarter after quarter, this council receives an SCM operational status report with a blank Annexure D,

  the section that should reflect our compliance with the Construction Industry Development Board's Register of Projects. And once again, we are told that no construction bids were advertised on the CIDB website because there were no construction-related bids, quote-unquote. Speaker, this line has become a ritual. It has appeared so often that it now reads less like a factual statement and more like a reflex. But oversight cannot be built on reflex. Oversight requires evidence. Oversight requires transparency.

  Oversight requires reporting that actually tells council what is happening in the city's construction portfolio, and this report does not do that, in spite of what our executive wants to reassure us. CIDB compliance is not optional; it is the law. The CIDB Act is unambiguous: every qualifying public sector construction project must be registered on the national Register of Projects before work begins. The RoP, Register of Projects,

  is not a bureaucratic formality. It is a national transparency tool. It is the mechanism that tells the country what is being built, by whom, for how much, and under which grading. It is a mechanism the Auditor-General uses to verify that municipalities are awarding construction work lawfully. When Annexure D is blank, it does not mean compliance; it means the city has provided no evidence of compliance, and that is the problem. We are seeing compliance language, not compliance practice. Speaker, this pattern has now stretched across multiple quarters:

  Q2, Q3, and now Q4. The same line, the same blank annexure, the same absence of detail. And yet the report assures us that all processes adhere to the MFMA, SCM regulations, and city policy. But compliance is not a slogan. Compliance is not a paragraph in a report. Compliance is demonstrated through documentation, verification, and reporting. And on CIDB, we are not seeing that. This is not a minor administrative gap; it is a systemic failure.

  The risks are real and serious. When CIDB reporting disappears, blind spots appear, and blind spots in construction procurement are dangerous. In other words, ghost projects become possible. Unregistered site handovers can occur without detection. Awards to unqualified contractors slip through the cracks. Irregular expenditure becomes likely. Audit findings become inevitable. Public trust erodes because there is no visible audit trail for infrastructure spending.

  Speaker, Johannesburg cannot afford blind spots in construction procurement, not now, not ever. We must remove move from blank pages to

  Real accountability. To restore credibility and lawful procurement, I propose the following. Number one, immediate CIDB compliance. Every qualifying construction project must be registered on the CIDB register of projects before site handover. No exceptions, no delays. Number two, transparent reporting,

  which our MMC has assured us is happening. On the contrary, Annexure D must never be blank. If there are no new projects, the report must list ongoing projects, their status, any changes in value, and any contractor updates. The city should publish its CIDB register online for public access. Consequence management. Repeated non-compliance cannot continue without accountability.

  Officials responsible for CIDB failures must face disciplinary action as required by the MFMA and CIDB Act. A Group Audit Committee must review CIDB compliance quarterly and report directly to Council. Number four, capacity building. SCM and project management officials must receive training on CIDB requirements and the proper use of the register of projects. Compliance cannot be achieved if officials do not understand the system.

  Before I conclude, I want to tell this chamber about something that happened on or around, um, oh, sorry, I struck that. Conclusion. Oversight requires visibility. Speaker, the message is straightforward. Council cannot fulfill its oversight mandate when critical reporting tools like the CIDB register of projects are left unused. The city's construction portfolio must be visible, traceable, and properly documented.

  Blank annexures and repeated explanations do not give council the assurance it needs to protect public funds or to monitor the progress of infrastructure delivery. Johannesburg's residents expect us to keep a close eye on how construction work is planned, awarded, and executed. That requires complete reporting, consistent compliance, and a commitment to closing the gaps that have become routine in the space. Strengthening CIDB reporting is not an administrative exercise. It is a necessary

  step towards restoring confidence in the city's procurement systems and ensuring that every project is accounted for from beginning to end. Johannesburg deserves better. It deserves a supply chain system that is transparent, accountable, and compliant in practice, not just in language. The DA stands ready to support the reforms needed to close these gaps and restore confidence in the city's procurement processes. The DA cannot support this incomplete item. I thank you.

• 30 Sept 2026 · 06:13:10Item 11 SCM deviation and ratification report · 5 min 45 s

  Read what they said (827 words)

  Thank you, Honorable Speaker, members of council. I rise to address Item 11, which reports on the City of Johannesburg's procurement deviations, contract extensions, and the use of transversal contracts. Let me begin by acknowledging the positive steps taken in this period. There were zero deviations and zero contract amendments under Section 116, and only one procurement item from another organ of state. Does this mean that the bucket has stopped leaking, or does it indicate that there is no water in the bucket?

  I have a feeling it may be the latter. Moving on, I wish to focus on the two transversal contracts approved for Environment and Infrastructure Services Department, specifically for repairs, maintenance, and commissioning of air quality monitoring equipment and stations. These contracts, valued at over 7.9 million rand, are directly linked to the implementation of the city's Clean Air Zone policy as outlined in Item 18 tabled here at well, tabled in um August last month.

  The need for services, Clean Air policy. There is no doubt that the services being procured are essential. The Clean Air Zone policy is a flagship initiative to improve air quality, protect public health, and ensure Johannesburg meets both national and international air quality standards. The baseline assessment on Item 18 in August confirms that air pollution remains a significant challenge, disproportionately affecting vulnerable communities. The deployment and maintenance of air quality monitoring infrastructure is therefore not just justified,

  but urgent and necessary. Questioning, however, the need for these services is clear. I must question why the city has chosen to procure them through a national transversal contract. According to my case study on SCM oversight, one of the persistent challenges in our supply chain management is the lack of transparency and effective oversight, particularly when procurement processes are centralized or removed from direct council scrutiny. Transversal contracts,

  while offering a um potential efficiencies and economies of scale, can also obscure local accountability and reduce the ability of council to ensure that procurement aligns with our specific needs and priorities. We only need to look at the recent findings of the Municipal Public Accounts Committee, as detailed in Item 29 of August, to understand the risks. The transversal contract used for Afrirent, together with Avis, resulted in over 1.6 billion rand in irregular expenditure.

  The MPAC investigation found that the use of transversal contracts under MFMA Section 36, Regulation 36, led to significant breaches of procurement regulations. The committee has now recommended disciplinary action against officials involved and possible criminal investigations. This case demonstrates that transversal contracts, if not properly overseen, can result in massive financial losses, undermine public trust, and expose the city to legal and reputational risks.

  My case study from 2023 reinforces this point, highlighting that the current system often allows the consequences of poorly awarded contracts to surface only years later, by which time officials may have left the municipality and recovery of funds becomes difficult or impossible. The Afrirent case is a stark reminder that the use of transversal contracts must be accompanied by robust oversight, transparency, and clear justification. The case study recommends that council should have a more active role in observing

  SCM processes, not to interfere, but to ensure transparency and accountability. When transversal contracts are used, it is even more critical that council is provided with clear justifications. So why was a transversal contract chosen over local procurement processes? We don't know. How does this approach ensure value for money, quality, and alignment with the city's unique requirements? This is not specified. What mechanisms are in place to monitor performance

  and address any issues that arise during the contract period? We will only find that later, in years to come. My conclusion and recommendations: that while I support the urgent need to implement the Clean Air Zone policy and the associated procurement of air quality monitoring infrastructure, I urge that the administration to provide council with a detailed rationale for the use of transversal contracts in this context. Let us ensure that our commitment to good governance, financial sustainability,

  and service delivery is matched by a commitment to transparency, oversight, and public value. Let us learn from the Afrirent experience and ensure that every procurement decision is subject to the highest standards of accountability and scrutiny. After the 4th of November, the residents and businesses who believe in Johannesburg can be assured of a government that will put simple, user-friendly systems in place that will improve SCM oversight and accessible to public scrutiny.

  Thula! Abantu bogajdla nina.

  Councillor, can you just hold on?

  Speaker, can I be protected?

  Who's that? No, guys, don't do that, please, councillors. No, don't do that. Councillor Pietersen, carry on.

  So I repeat, after the 4th of November, the residents and businesses who believe in Johannesburg can be assured of a government that will put simple, user-friendly systems in place that will improve SCM oversight and accessibility to public scrutiny. I thank you.

• 30 Sept 2026 · 05:56:40Item 10 SCM Acquisition Status Report · 7 min 3 s

  Read what they said (938 words)

  Thank you, Speaker. I do rise virtually to speak on the Acquisition Status Report reflecting bids considered and approved by the Accounting Officer for between April and June 2026. Speaker, colleagues, when council receives an SCM acquisition report, we expect a document that empowers oversight, not one that merely records activity. Oversight is not a ceremonial function; it is a constitutional duty,

  and it cannot be exercised when the information placed before us is incomplete, superficial, or silent on the very checks that determine whether procurement was lawful. This quarter's report once again reflects a pattern we have seen too often: a list of awards without the evidence that proves compliance. It tells us what happened, but not whether it happened within the law. And that gap is not academic; it is material. Speaker, the MFMA is clear. Compliance is not a matter of interpretation or opinion;

  it is a legal standard, and that standard requires positive verification, not assumptions. Yet the report before us gives council supplier names, award amounts, B-BBEE levels, and CIPC numbers, but it does not give council information that actually matters for MFMA compliance. This is the recurring weakness in our SCM reporting: we are given activity, not assurance. The CSD is the backbone of compliance, and it is missing.

  National Treasury and COGTA do not certify suppliers as MFMA compliant; they only publish lists of suppliers who are prohibited or restricted. This means the responsibility for confirming compliance lies entirely with the municipality, and the only authoritative tool for doing so is the Central Supplier Database. The CSD verifies SARS tax compliance, bank account legitimacy, director identity, government employment conflicts,

  CIDB grading—remember this one, because it is coming up again in Item 12—and whether a supplier is restricted. None of this appears in the report. Speaker, without CSD verification, council cannot confirm that a single award in this report meets MFMA requirements, and that is unacceptable. The suppliers referenced—Geospace International, Reabetswe Comm and Events, and Mema Tech Trading—do not appear on Treasury's restricted supplier list.

  They do not appear in COGTA's irregular supplier advisories. They are not prohibited, but that does not mean they are compliant. Compliance requires evidence, compliance requires documentation, and it requires verification. The MFMA does not allow us to infer compliance from silence. Speaker, meaningful oversight requires meaningful information. This report fails to provide: number one, CSD supplier registration summaries,

  the only authoritative compliance evidence, not included. Number two, SARS tax compliance status, otherwise we...

  TCS pin, the TCS pin. VAT numbers are listed, but VAT registration is not tax compliance, not included. Speaker, colleagues, a key part of lawful procurement is confirming that every supplier meets their tax obligations. And for that, the city must rely on the SARS tax compliance status pin. The TCS pin gives us a real-time view of a supplier's standing with SARS and is the only recognized method for verifying tax compliance under the MFMA.

  It replaces outdated certificates and ensures that the information we rely on is current, accurate, and issued directly by SARS. Without a verified TCS pin, the city cannot thus demonstrate that a supplier was eligible for award at the time of the contract was issued. This is not a technical detail. It is a core safeguard that protects Johannesburg from irregular expenditure and ensures that public money is spent only on suppliers who meet the legal requirements set out for doing business with the state.

  Number three, conflict of interest declarations. We must know whether any director is a municipal official, councillor, or linked to another bidding entity, not included. Number four, BBBEE certificate validity and sector alignment. Levels are listed, but validity is not confirmed, not included. Number five, sector-specific compliance checks. For industrial or safety-sensitive contracts,

  a HASA compliance must be verified, not included. Speaker, without these checks, council cannot confirm legality, cannot assess risk, and cannot protect the city from irregular expenditure, which is the real reason we sit in council. We have to raise the standard of SCM reporting. The city cannot continue producing reports that give council half the picture. Oversight is not possible when information is incomplete,

  and accountability is not possible when compliance is assumed rather than proven. Our SCM reporting must evolve. It must become professional, evidence-based, and aligned with the MFMA. We must insist on reports that are complete, verifiable, transparent, and useful. Oversight is not strengthened by volume. It is strengthened by quality. What must change immediately?

  I propose that future SCM acquisition reports include CSD supplier registration summaries for every awarded supplier, SARS TCS pin verification results, conflict of interest declaration outcomes, confirmation of BBBEE status, certificate validity, and sector alignment, sector-specific compliance checks where applicable, and a clear statement saying all suppliers have been verified as MFMA compliant based on CSD and supporting documentation.

  This is not an unreasonable demand, and I will make this speech available to the executive should they need some notes. So, in closing, Speaker, oversight is only meaningful when the information before council is complete, accurate, and capable of supporting lawful decision-making. We cannot continue receiving reports that tell us what was done, but not whether it was done correctly. Johannesburg deserves procurement that is transparent, defensible, and compliant, not procurement that leaves council guessing.

  Let us raise the standard. Let us insist on evidence. Let us restore confidence in the city's procurement systems. Residents and businesses deserve an administration they can believe in, and this will happen when the good citizens of Johannesburg vote for the Democratic Alliance on both ballots on the 4th of November. I thank you.

Spoke on

• 30 Sept 2026 · 05:56:05Item 10: Group SCM Acquisition Status Report (April-June 2026)
• 30 Sept 2026 · 06:12:47Item 11: SCM deviations, ratifications and transversal contracts report
• 30 Sept 2026 · 06:25:50Item 12: Group SCM Operational Status Report (April-June 2026)

Promises

• 30 Sept 2026 · 06:02:52The DA councillor will give his speech on SCM reporting standards to the executive as notes.