Speaker, I truly hope that your DA councillors will have the guts to listen to this address and respond to its content and not again come here with stories about Johannesburg to gaslight this Council with nonsense. Let’s deal with this item properly. This report is not just weak; it is legally and procedurally defective. Firstly, legal compliance. We are told this report is compliant, yet it confirms there was no legislative vetting before being brought to the Council. That alone should stop this item.
In terms of the Systems Act and the MFMA, Council cannot approve an agreement that has not been properly legally finalised. Secondly. The report says, “Financial Implications: None.” But the agreement clearly commits the city to:
- Funding bursaries, and
- Deploying and paying staff to deliver modules.
That is a direct financial obligation on the City. So, what are we approving here?
The report or the actual agreement? Because they do not say the same thing. And that brings me to the third issue, contradictions. We are told:
- No financial implications,
- No risks,
Yet this is a five-year agreement, with:
- Dispute resolution clauses,
- Operational commitments, and
- Resource allocation from the City.
Speaker, that is not a minor oversight; that is a material contradiction. And then co-badging is presented as justification. But co-badging simply confirms that STADIO owns the qualification, not the City. So again, what exactly is the City committing to, and under what authority? Speaker, this Council cannot approve an item where:
- The legal process is incomplete,
- The financial impact is misrepresented, and
- The report contradicts the agreement itself.
That is not governance. That is risk. For these reasons, the GOOD Party does not support this item.
Thank you.
GOOD Manifesto on Social Justice: GOOD emphasizes the importance of social justice for all South Africans.
Free Press Release Submissions from MyPR.co.za
South Africa’s Digital Economy Ambitions Face Key Test