Bets on Johannesburg mayoral elections exceed R700,000, raising questions for regulators

Fransin Hayam, a member of the City of Town's mayoral committee on public services and health, issued a statement regarding the 'confusion and misinformation' surrounding a notice issued by the city's Environmental Health Practitioners (EHP) to a resident in Durbanville concerning feeding birds in the backyard.

The essence of the initial notice

The alleged violation of the by-law first became known after GOOD secretary general and mayoral candidate Brett Herron spoke out against the city's 'Orwellian over-regulation'. The notice instructed the resident to cease 'feeding any wild animals not kept in captivity, as prohibited by Section 28(2) of the Animal Keeping By-law.'

The document stated: 'Inspection of the aforementioned premises on June 1, 2026, showed that birds were being fed directly from the ground, which is a breach of Section 28 (2) of the above-mentioned By-law. As the responsible party, directly or indirectly, for the aforementioned condition, or as the owner or tenant of the above-mentioned property, I hereby call upon you to remedy this condition within twenty-one (21) days from the date of this document....' The letter further stated: 'Failure to comply with these requirements makes you guilty of an offence and subject to a fine. We appreciate your cooperation.'

Reaction from politicians

Commenting on the notice, Herron stated that it meant that 'an official decided that your backyard does not belong to you. That sparrows at a feeder are a compliance issue. That the discretion of the environmental inspector now extends to your private space, nullifying your right to enjoy your home as you see fit.'

He emphasized that the issue was not about birds, but about a city that constantly finds new aspects of citizens' lives to regulate and new justifications for doing so.

Herron cited examples of other restrictions, mentioning that Cape Town residents were previously told they could not paint the Palestinian flag on their wall, and also mentioned a time test where more than six minutes of dog barking within an hour is considered a public nuisance. He concluded that the current situation with feeders is just minor, almost ridiculous violations that demonstrate a pattern of 'creeping authoritarianism', where rules are set for everything happening inside one's own home.

He added that a healthy ecosystem includes birdsong, and a healthy democracy implies the freedom of citizens to feed them. Herron stated that Cape Town residents do not need permission to live in their homes, and they will continue to insist on this until officials stop interfering.

Clarifications from authorities

Hayam noted that significant confusion and misinformation had arisen. She stated that the notice, which began circulating on social media, 'became fodder for politicians seeking to incite false anger'. She clearly clarified: 'The city has not banned bird feeders, and this resident was not issued a notice simply for having them.'

According to her, the reason was that a neighbour complained about an excessive number of animals and dirt in the yard, which attracted rodents. The inspection found that the conditions were unsanitary, and there were many birds, cats, rabbits, and other animals in the house and outside. Furthermore, structures like 'Wendy houses' were used to keep birds, which lacked approved plans. Hayam explained that the scattering of seeds and general uncleanliness could attract rodents, which is why the notice was issued. Generally, feeding birds is not prohibited unless it becomes a hygiene and rodent problem and causes neighbour complaints, as in this case.

She also specified that Environmental Health Practitioners usually monitor public areas, whereas issues in private spaces most often arise from complaints. Hayam added that in the nearly five years since this by-law came into effect, only four such notices have been issued, again, due to the risk of exacerbating existing health/public order problems. She expressed regret that legitimate and necessary actions by officials attempting to protect and promote public safety have turned into a cheap attempt to gain political points.

The South African financial regulator issued a statement regarding the temporary withholding of the equitable share transfer for July. On July 7, 2026, Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana confirmed that the National Treasury has suspended payments of this largest unconditional grant to local authorities, including Johannesburg and about 70 other municipalities.

Scale of Financial Problems

Reports indicate that the exact number of affected municipalities ranges from 69 to 75, which points to chaotic municipal reporting. However, the scale of the problem is undisputed: nearly a third of South Africa's 257 municipalities are effectively under financial scrutiny.

Mechanism for Payment Suspension

This decision was not a sudden attack but the result of a methodical escalation. In December 2025, a warning letter was sent demanding quarterly reports on Unauthorised, Irregular, fruitless and wasteful expenditure (UIFWE). Subsequently, on June 19, 2026, the Mayor of Johannesburg, Dada Morelo, was given only seven days to explain why the city's transfer should not be stopped, citing debts of R1.2 billion to Rand Water and R3.7 billion to Eskom. Despite Morelo submitting a response to the council, the Treasury deemed it insufficient.

The mechanism applied, stipulated in Section 216 of the Constitution in conjunction with Section 38 of the Municipal Finance Management Act (MFMA), exists precisely for such situations: it allows the national budget to cease payments to municipalities that consistently mismanage public funds, rather than rewarding inefficiency with new funds every quarter.

Johannesburg's Issues

The inclusion of Johannesburg in the list is the main news, but it is the least unexpected aspect of the situation. The metropolis presented an adjusted budget for 2025/26 without funding, meaning projected expenditures exceed realistic revenues. This is comparable to a company forecasting expenses it does not plan to cover.

Furthermore, the city resisted Treasury pressure regarding the cancellation of a R10 billion wage agreement with the South African municipal workers' union (Samwu), which the Treasury deems illegal, while simultaneously increasing its management staff by approximately 700 positions. Ironically, this year the city received a loan of R3.8 billion from the German development bank KfW, funds that were injected even when the metropolis could not pay its creditors within the legally mandated 30 days. This contrast between the inflow of foreign financial development and unpaid debts to domestic suppliers illustrates a governance failure that money alone cannot fix.

Overall Crisis and Regional Differences

The comparative picture raises serious concern. According to the Consolidated Local Government Report for 2024/25, prepared by the Auditor-General, municipalities across the country have accumulated R145.21 billion in irregular expenditure and about R24 billion in fruitless and wasteful expenditure.

The Free State province, often overlooked amidst the political drama in Gauteng, actually leads the Treasury's retention list, affecting 16 of its municipalities, including Mangaung, the provincial capital. North West holds similar positions. Conversely, the Western Cape has the fewest municipalities on the list, consistent with its historically stronger audit results under local government led by the DA. This provincial disparity indicates that the crisis is related not so much to the competence of any single mayor, but to entrenched administrative cultures, which analysts have long compared to Eskom, where accountability gradually erodes until a crisis forces intervention.

Corrective Measures, Not Punishment

The Treasury insists that this is a corrective, short-term measure, not a punishment, and expects there will be no direct impact on service delivery, as municipalities retain other revenue sources such as tariffs and fees. To restore transfers, municipalities must submit signed debt repayment plans to creditors and written commitments from mayors never to adopt unjustified budgets starting from 2026/27.

However, the deeper risk lies in systemic contagion: municipalities failing to pay debts threaten the solvency of Eskom and water utilities, which in turn limits national infrastructure investment. SALGA, representing municipalities, has so far offered only a reserved reaction, promising to 'communicate its position in due course,' which is a telling silence given the magnitude of the stakes.

The Future Test

Section 216 is a blunt instrument for the Treasury; the sharper question is whether the follow-up management prescribed by the MFMA, through municipal Public Accounts Committees investigating UIFWE, will occur. Historically, South African municipalities have treated funding threats as a matter for negotiation, not an existential threat. Whether the Johannesburg council can finally realize that its R97 billion budget must be genuinely funded, and not just politically justified, will determine if this freeze becomes a turning point or just another entry in the worn cycle of warnings, bluffing, and subsequent recovery.