ActionSA rejects the suggestion by DA mayoral candidate Cilliers Brink that our party stood by while allegations against Tshwane Chief Financial Officer Gareth Mnisi were treated as misconduct of a less serious nature.
Accountability begins with an accurate account of the decisions that were actually taken. The Council record tells a different story.
It was ActionSA that tabled the amendment calling for the allegations against Mnisi to be classified as serious misconduct. The DA supported that amendment, while the ANC and EFF supported treating the allegations as less serious.
Brink’s claim that ActionSA looked the other way therefore omits the most important fact about our role in the proceedings: ActionSA actively proposed the very disciplinary classification that the DA now says should have been adopted.
The circumstances surrounding the vote are equally important.
Nineteen DA councillors were initially absent from the Council meeting. Thirteen subsequently returned and sought to withdraw their leave applications, but the Speaker excluded their votes.
Had those 13 votes been counted, ActionSA’s amendment would have succeeded and allegations against Mnisi would have been classified as serious misconduct.
Brink’s further allegation that Mayor Dr Nasiphi Moya is fighting the DA in court is also contradicted by the separate legal positions taken by the respondents.
The Executive Mayor was cited as a respondent and elected to abide by the court’s decision. The City Manager adopted a similar position. It was the Speaker, acting in his own capacity and on behalf of Council, who initially opposed the application.
Being cited as a respondent is not the same as opposing an application. Nor can the Executive Mayor simply direct the Speaker to abandon a legal position taken in the exercise of his separate statutory responsibilities.
The EFF’s statement yesterday raises a different question of accountability.
The EFF now demands Mnisi’s immediate precautionary suspension, despite having supported the classification of the earlier allegations as conduct of a less serious nature.
Its statement acknowledges that Mnisi returned to work following the July disciplinary proceedings, but fails to explain its own voting position during those proceedings.
Furthermore, the EFF directs a 48-hour demand at the Executive Mayor without explaining how that demand could be implemented lawfully.
The authority to suspend the CFO rests with the Municipal Council under the applicable disciplinary framework. Council is currently in recess ahead of the local government elections. Any renewed suspension must therefore follow the prescribed statutory process, rather than a unilateral instruction from the Mayor.
ActionSA has consistently maintained that serious allegations against senior municipal officials must be investigated and dealt with through lawful disciplinary processes.
We supported serious disciplinary action against Mnisi in July. We continue to support the proper investigation of any new evidence that may emerge.
The reported SARS operation yesterday is a serious development, but its findings must be established through the appropriate investigative processes. It should not be used to replace evidence with political accusation.
Residents are entitled to a complete account of what happened in Council on 9 July 2026, including how each party voted, why the 13 votes were excluded and what positions the various respondents adopted in court.
Accountability begins with an accurate account of the decisions that were actually taken.
ActionSA remains committed to ensuring that allegations of misconduct are properly investigated and that those responsible for wrongdoing face the consequences prescribed by law.
ActionSA Sets the Record Straight on DA and EFF Claims Concerning Tshwane CFO Mnisi
ActionSA rejects the suggestion by DA mayoral candidate Cilliers Brink that our party stood by while allegations against Tshwane Chief Financial Officer Gareth Mnisi were treated as misconduct of a less serious nature.
Accountability begins with an accurate account of the decisions that were actually taken. The Council record tells a different story.
It was ActionSA that tabled the amendment calling for the allegations against Mnisi to be classified as serious misconduct. The DA supported that amendment, while the ANC and EFF supported treating the allegations as less serious.
Brink’s claim that ActionSA looked the other way therefore omits the most important fact about our role in the proceedings: ActionSA actively proposed the very disciplinary classification that the DA now says should have been adopted.
The circumstances surrounding the vote are equally important.
Nineteen DA councillors were initially absent from the Council meeting. Thirteen subsequently returned and sought to withdraw their leave applications, but the Speaker excluded their votes.
Had those 13 votes been counted, ActionSA’s amendment would have succeeded and allegations against Mnisi would have been classified as serious misconduct.
Brink’s further allegation that Mayor Dr Nasiphi Moya is fighting the DA in court is also contradicted by the separate legal positions taken by the respondents.
The Executive Mayor was cited as a respondent and elected to abide by the court’s decision. The City Manager adopted a similar position. It was the Speaker, acting in his own capacity and on behalf of Council, who initially opposed the application.
Being cited as a respondent is not the same as opposing an application. Nor can the Executive Mayor simply direct the Speaker to abandon a legal position taken in the exercise of his separate statutory responsibilities.
The EFF’s statement yesterday raises a different question of accountability.
The EFF now demands Mnisi’s immediate precautionary suspension, despite having supported the classification of the earlier allegations as conduct of a less serious nature.
Its statement acknowledges that Mnisi returned to work following the July disciplinary proceedings, but fails to explain its own voting position during those proceedings.
Furthermore, the EFF directs a 48-hour demand at the Executive Mayor without explaining how that demand could be implemented lawfully.
The authority to suspend the CFO rests with the Municipal Council under the applicable disciplinary framework. Council is currently in recess ahead of the local government elections. Any renewed suspension must therefore follow the prescribed statutory process, rather than a unilateral instruction from the Mayor.
ActionSA has consistently maintained that serious allegations against senior municipal officials must be investigated and dealt with through lawful disciplinary processes.
We supported serious disciplinary action against Mnisi in July. We continue to support the proper investigation of any new evidence that may emerge.
The reported SARS operation yesterday is a serious development, but its findings must be established through the appropriate investigative processes. It should not be used to replace evidence with political accusation.
Residents are entitled to a complete account of what happened in Council on 9 July 2026, including how each party voted, why the 13 votes were excluded and what positions the various respondents adopted in court.
Accountability begins with an accurate account of the decisions that were actually taken.
ActionSA remains committed to ensuring that allegations of misconduct are properly investigated and that those responsible for wrongdoing face the consequences prescribed by law.