Cadre Employment in South Africa: Origins, Consequences, Scholarly Perspectives on Reform, and the Practical Implementation of the 2025 Legislative Framework:

Final Cadre Employment SouthAfrica Report.pdf

Register Here - Christelle will help you.......

https://irasa.org.za/volunteer-applications/

Writen by MossRates

National COGTA Referral (Ref: 11/1/5) – Continued Failure of Participatory Governance within Mossel Bay Municipality

Dear Mr Paulse

I refer to the referral issued on 14 January 2026 by the Director-General of National COGTA, requesting that the Western Cape Department attend to MossRates' request for Provincial oversight concerning governance within Mossel Bay Municipality.

I also acknowledge Minister Bredell's recent response concerning the Rules Regulating the Conduct of Council Meetings. That correspondence addressed a narrow legal question regarding the Rules of Order. It did not address the broader concerns regarding participatory governance that formed the basis of the Director-General's referral.

The matter requiring Provincial oversight extends well beyond the Rules of Council.

Continued Administrative Gatekeeping

Over an extended period, virtually every attempt by MossRates to engage the Municipality on engineering, financial management, infrastructure planning, governance and public accountability has been diverted away from substantive technical engagement and into procedural and legal processes.

Rather than addressing the underlying issues, the Municipality has repeatedly:

•    questioned MossRates' legal standing
•    demanded internal organisational and membership documentation
•    focused on MossRates' representativity after its legal existence and authorised representation had been established
•    refused a Rule 37 deputation
•    redirected technical correspondence through external attorneys
•    insisted that requests for information be pursued through formal legal processes
•    failed to provide complete responses to information requests via PAIA requests
•    instructed municipal staff not to engage with MossRates
•    instructed MossRates to refrain from corresponding with Provincial and National oversight bodies.

Technical matters requiring straightforward engineering, financial or administrative explanation have consequently become procedural disputes, while the underlying governance concerns remain unresolved.
Two recent discoveries materially escalate these concerns.

1. Apparent Post-Approval Alteration of the 2026/27 Budget

Council approved the 2026/27 annual budget on 28 May 2026 following the statutory public-participation process.
Revised budget schedules were subsequently processed on 25 June and published on 29 June 2026, immediately before the commencement of the new financial year.

The subsequently published schedules materially altered the financial position presented to the public and approved by Council, including:

•    total service-charge revenue increasing by approximately R101 million
•    electricity service-charge revenue increasing by approximately R126 million
•    total municipal revenue increasing by approximately R48 million
•    operating expenditure increasing by approximately R22 million
•    capital expenditure decreasing by approximately R93 million.

These are not immaterial corrections. They materially change the Municipality's revenue assumptions, expenditure programme, electricity-trading position and capital budget.

MossRates has requested an explanation of:

•    who authorised the changes
•    the Council resolution under which they were made
•    whether an amended budget was formally adopted
•    what calculations support the revised figures
•    why the revised schedules differ from those subjected to public participation
•    why the public was not afforded an opportunity to consider the materially altered budget.

Until these matters are explained, the changes create a reasonable concern of apparent post-approval budget manipulation after the conclusion of public participation and Council adoption.
If material figures can be altered after public participation and approval without transparent explanation, the statutory budget-participation process becomes meaningless.

2. Failure to Establish a Valid Electricity Cost-of-Supply Model

https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=122146386561046261&set=a.122105565237046261

NERSA has now supplied MossRates with the Mossel Bay Cost-of-Supply report and what it described as the Municipality's Cost-of-Supply Tool.
A comparison of these documents with the version published by Mossel Bay Municipality has revealed serious concerns.

The available record establishes that:

•    structural electricity tariff changes and fixed charges were implemented on 1 July 2023
•    the disclosed CVW Cost-of-Supply report was completed only in October 2023
•    the report was presented to the Infrastructure Services Committee for acceptance only in February 2024
•    the municipal committee report confirms that the study commenced in 2022 and was based on 2020/21 information
•    the native Excel workbook supplied by NERSA was last modified in June 2024
•    the workbook does not reproduce the results published in the CVW report
•    it contains obsolete information and data relating to other municipalities
•    it contains unresolved external references, proxy assumptions, manually calculated information and broken formulas
•    it produces customer, consumption, revenue and Cost-of-Supply outputs that do not reconcile with the published CVW report or Mossel Bay Municipality's published financial information
•    it incorrectly imports annual energy-cost allocations into cells represented as unit costs, producing mathematically impossible per-kWh results
•    it double-counts electricity sales in calculating the average selling price.

MossRates has carefully distinguished between a workbook supplied by NERSA and any model that may actually have been used or approved by NERSA.

We have formally requested that NERSA identify and provide:

•    the exact original model used to generate the October 2023 report;
•    the model relied upon when the tariffs implemented on 1 July 2023 were assessed;
•    the original submission dates, filenames and version history;
•    NERSA's technical assessment and reconciliation; and
•    the working papers supporting the tariff determinations for 2023/24 through 2026/27.

At present, neither the Municipality nor NERSA has disclosed a complete, coherent and auditable Cost-of-Supply model that reconciles with the published report and supports the structural tariff changes implemented in July 2023.

This is particularly serious because ratepayers have experienced increases approaching or exceeding 100% in certain municipal rates, tariffs and fixed charges over approximately three years.

Ratepayers are entitled to proof that these charges were calculated from complete, accurate and reconciled information and are genuinely cost-reflective.

Broader Unresolved Governance Matters

The broader matters requiring Provincial oversight include:

•    long-term water security, sustainable yield and bulk-resource planning
•    A 100% increase to most ratepayers rates and fixed charges in just 3 years
•    Non-municipal linked NPOs—diluting employment costs/asset base and allowing for no oversight
•    material inconsistencies in purified, distributed and billed water volumes and customer numbers
•    electricity losses and unrecovered electricity costs
•    financial reconciliation discrepancies across municipal budgets, annual reports and financial statements
•    the continuing deterioration in the affordability of municipal services
•    capital-investment priorities and the use of Capital Replacement Reserve funding
•    land-disposal transactions, development-contribution shortfalls and infrastructure-funding arrangements
•    public participation in strategic planning, including the Draft Spatial Development Framework
•    compliance with statutory obligations relating to transparency, accountability and administrative justice.
Each matter is supported by official documentation and forms part of a structured series of technical evidence registers being prepared by MossRates for independent review.

Failure of Meaningful Participatory Governance

This is not merely a localised disagreement between MossRates and the Municipality.
It raises the broader question of whether the statutory framework for participatory local government is functioning in practice.

Meaningful participation cannot exist where:

•    material information is withheld or remains unreconciled
•    technical submissions are redirected into legal disputes
•    the standing of those raising concerns receives more attention than the evidence
•    municipal officials are discouraged from engaging
•    public deputations are refused
•    material budget figures are altered after public participation
•    ratepayers cannot obtain the calculations supporting the charges imposed upon them.

Under these circumstances, participation may exist procedurally, but it does not function meaningfully as contemplated by Chapter 4 of the Municipal Systems Act.
Request for Provincial Intervention

MossRates respectfully requests that the Department:

1.    Review the matters raised in this correspondence cumulatively rather than as isolated complaints.
2.    Investigate the authority and process under which the 2026/27 budget schedules were materially altered after Council approval and public participation.
3.    Require the Municipality to identify and disclose the complete Cost-of-Supply studies, native models and working papers supporting its electricity tariffs from 2023/24 through 2026/27.
4.    Facilitate a structured technical engagement between the Municipality, MossRates and the relevant Provincial officials.
5.    Require the Municipality to establish a practical framework for ongoing engagement with organised civic and ratepayer bodies.
6.    Confirm what intervention the Department intends taking pursuant to the National COGTA referral dated 14 January 2026.

The inability to establish even a voluntary framework for structured civic engagement reinforces our concern that meaningful participatory governance within Mossel Bay Municipality is no longer functioning as contemplated by the Municipal Systems Act and now requires urgent Provincial oversight.

MossRates remains committed to constructive and evidence-based engagement. Our objective is not confrontation. It is to ensure that transparency, accountability and meaningful public participation are given practical effect for the benefit of all residents and ratepayers of Mossel Bay.

Attachments

1.    Letter to Mr Brauteseth.pdf – National COGTA referral and basis for Provincial involvement
2.    Legal Threat x 4 – redirection of technical engagement into legal processes
3.    Representativity, Legal Standing.pdf – administrative gatekeeping and refusal to engage
4.    Mossel Bay COS Errors Report Final.pdf – Cost-of-Supply technical evidence register
5.    Power Consumption Losses.xlsx – supporting electricity-loss and solar-impact analysis
6.    Mossel Bay Rates Cheap Evaluation 2022.pdf – affordability context and Provincial rates comparison

The relevant approved and subsequently published 2026/27 budget schedules can also be provided for direct reconciliation.
Yours faithfully

Peter Brauteseth
MossRates
NPC (2025/800784/08)
info@mossrates.co.za
mossrates.co.za

Research Document:

1) RSA Best Managed Municipalities in the World - Before 1994.pdf

We, the Baby Boomers (1946–1964) and Generation X (1965–1980), represent the last generations who know how to manage South Africa as it was when it was rated among the best-run countries in the world. Here is the proof:

1.1) Complete Updated Service Record.pdf 

1.2) Original - Central Government – Development Planning - 1982 - 1989.pdf

1.3) Original - Edenvale Municipality – Accountant – 1989 - 1991.pdf

1.4) Original - Local Government affairs Board – Accountant – 1991 – 1992.pdf



Research Document:

2) RSA After 1996 Worst Managed Municipalities in the World.pdf



Research Document:

3) The 34 Year Battle for Community Control over Government.pdf



Research Document:

4) RSA Hope for the Future.pdf

This report examines legal frameworks across ten countries that allow communities to practice "self-help" when local governments fail to deliver essential utility services — water, wastewater, and electricity. Cooperative and community-owned models are the dominant mechanism. Countries like Denmark, Germany, Switzerland, Finland, and the Netherlands have deep-rooted, century-old frameworks enabling citizen-run utilities. The USA and Norway support rural cooperatives under federal and state law. New Zealand is transitioning to stricter regulation. Sweden offers only limited options, and Singapore has no self-help framework, relying entirely on centralized state control.

Country	Self-Help in Place
Denmark	Yes
Sweden	Limited
Switzerland	Yes
Singapore	No
Finland	Yes
Norway	Yes
New Zealand	Yes
Germany	Yes
United States	Yes
Netherlands	Yes

Detailed Report:
Top Ten Countries: Community Self Help Municipal Utility Failure Laws and Systems.pdf

Section 139 is a constitutional safety net. When a municipality fails to deliver services, pass a budget, or manage finances, the provincial government must step in — issuing directives, taking over functions, or dissolving the council and appointing an administrator — until the municipality can govern itself again.

Detailed Report:
Section 139 of the South African Constitution Explained.pdf

Section 139 allows higher government to intervene in failing municipalities. Research shows most interventions fail long-term due to political interference, corruption, and poor implementation. Oudtshoorn is a rare success. Courts increasingly force reluctant governments to act. Root causes — not just symptoms — must be addressed for lasting recovery.

Detailed Report:
Section 139 Intervention Outcomes Report.pdf

Constitutional Opinion: The Path to Reforming Section 1(d) and Establishing Direct Independent Representation in South Africa

IRASA Constitutional Opinion.pdf

This report analyses South Africa's systemic dismantling of state institutions (1994–2026) through the biblical lens of Romans 13, as expounded by Pastor Gary Hamrick. It documents 34 incidents of corruption, state capture, and religious freedom threats, arguing the government has inverted its God-ordained mandate, and calls the Church to prophetic resistance and active public engagement.

Romans 13, as expounded by Pastor Gary Hamrick:

God and Government Romans 13 (Part1)
What Time Is It Romans 13 (Part 2)


Detailed Report:
Government Church Conflict SA Report.pdf

Based on: Click On the Image Below to Open the Document

Agenda 2030's equality mandates, enforced through South African law, pressured the NG Kerk to accept same-sex unions after a 2019 High Court ruling. Over one million members faced spiritual agony amid denominational schism. Methodist and Anglican churches followed under similar pressure — fulfilling Romans 1's warning of a culture excluding God.

Detailed History on the Topic:
When a Culture Excludes God.pdf
Click on the image below to watch Pastor Gary Hamrick's sermon.
When a Culture Excludes God | Romans 1:24-32 | Gary Hamrick

Kwanonqaba Before 1994 - The Mossel Bay Local Airport

Kwanonqaba After DA Rule From 1996 to 2026 - Period 30 Years

The Question - Who paid for the Infrastructure of Kwanonqaba and Surrounding Settlements

The Xenophobic Riots in Mossel Bay: A Global Crisis and the Agenda 2030 Disconnect

Recent xenophobic violence in Mossel Bay, South Africa, which resulted in multiple fatalities and the displacement of hundreds, highlights a severe escalation in anti-immigrant sentiment . However, these riots are not merely a localized issue; they are symptomatic of a broader, worldwide problem linked to mass migration and socioeconomic instability.

A critical factor driving this global tension is the top-down implementation of the United Nations' Agenda 2030, specifically Target 10.7, which calls for the facilitation of "orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration" . While the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) aim to promote global equity, their execution often bypasses grassroots involvement. In South Africa, this approach directly contradicts the constitutional mandate for public participation . The South African Constitution and related frameworks, such as the Municipal Systems Act, demand that citizens have a voice in policies affecting their communities .

When global agendas like Agenda 2030 are implemented without meaningful public consultation, marginalized communities—already burdened by poverty and unemployment—feel alienated and threatened by the influx of migrants. The violence in Mossel Bay underscores the dangerous consequences of enforcing global migration policies without securing the constitutionally required democratic consensus and addressing local socioeconomic realities.

Read More on this Link: https://mgev.co.za/index.php?topic=1.0

References

[1] Murder and violence in Mossel Bay as anti-foreigner-inspired attacks spread
https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2026-06-03-murder-and-violence-in-mossel-bay-as-anti-foreigner-inspired-attacks-spread/

MossRates

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE MOSSEL BAY POWER HIKE

The municipality officially approved the 8.5% electricity hike and fixed capacity charges. They did this despite explicit warnings that the underlying data is deeply flawed.We do not want you to just take our word for it. We want you to independently audit the evidence yourself. We have made the raw data completely transparent.

Download the documents below and run them through any AI assistant (like ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini). Ask it to calculate the real-time financial impact on your household based on NERSA guidelines.

1. READ THE FULL REPORTSee the complete interactive breakdown of how the tariff decisions affect your pocket: Click to Read the Detail

2. DOWNLOAD THE RAW MUNICIPAL COS STUDYExamine the official, outdated 2020/21 baseline data used by the municipality's consultants:
Click To Read The Detail: COS Electrical.pdf

3. DOWNLOAD THE INDEPENDENT ERRORS REPORTReview the verified structural anomalies, formula failures, and hidden distribution losses:
Click To Read the Detail: MosselBay COS Errors Report Final.pdf

Here are the three critical technical components of our challenge:

A. The Core Data & Regulatory Violations

Our technical review of the documentation reveals clear structural failures that violate National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA) benchmarks:

• Outdated Baseline Data (COS.1): The approved tariff structure relies on a Cost of Supply (COS) study built entirely on 2020/21 financial year data. This data is five to six years old and completely fails to account for the massive post-2022 private solar migration (SSEG), which has fundamentally altered consumer load profiles in Mossel Bay.

• Inflated Loss Factors (COS.2): The COS model bakes in a structural distribution loss factor of 12.72%, directly violating NERSA's strict maximum efficiency loss benchmark cap of 12%. Furthermore, official municipal IDP metrics admit actual operational energy losses have deteriorated to 16.87%—costing ratepayers roughly R100 million annually in unrecovered Eskom bulk purchases.

• Mathematical Negligence (COS.3 - COS.5): The model contains visible Excel formatting failures, including un-reconciled #DIV/0! cell calculation errors, an absolute zero-revenue forecast for approximately 25 million kWh of distributed energy, and the total omission of "Item O" (Total Allowable Revenue), making independent regulatory verification mathematically impossible.

• Double dipping The Mossel Bay municipality's cost-of-supply study omitted the national Equitable Share grant, which is designed to fund free basic services for indigent households. By excluding this grant, the tariff structure forces paying consumers to fund the full cost of indigent services while the municipality retains the grant revenue for other operational purposes, effectively creating a financial "double-dip"
 
B. The Direct Financial Impact on Your Pocket

The approved 8.5% escalation locks in severe fixed charges before a single kilowatt-hour of energy is consumed. Single-phase network capacity fees increase to R8.9820 per Amp monthly:

•    20A Connection: R179.64 baseline fee per month
•    40A Connection: R359.28 baseline fee per month
•    60A Connection: R538.92 baseline fee per month
•    80A Connection: R718.56 baseline fee per month

Additionally, the energy usage charge moves to R3.3551/kWh (inclusive of VAT), paired with a restrictive new administrative rule making prepaid tokens expire exactly 3 months from the date of purchase.

C. Read the full report:

•https://mossrates-srskzkwx.manus.space

Under Section 15 of the South African Electricity Regulation Act, a licensee is only legally entitled to recover costs matching an efficient operation. Loading systemic technical inefficiencies and outdated load profiles onto compliant consumers violates this principle.

We are currently formalizing our technical submission directly to NERSA to dispute these approvals.

Thank you for your continued support as we fight for transparent, data-driven municipal governance.

Regards

Board of Directors
MossRates
NPC (2025/800784/08)
info@mossrates.co.za
mossrates.co.za

Ratepayers deserve data-driven transparency, not artificial costs to cover system inefficiencies.
Check the math. Verify the truth. Share this post.

Jason Afrikaner en kleinboere se uitsetting

Artikel van: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/18XDRDHtqZ/

Agtergrond

Ons het op 17 November 2025 die eerste keer gerapporteer oor die munisipaliteit se intimidasie van die kleinboere te Herbertsdale. Dit het oa behels boetes wat hulle opgelê is omdat hulle boerdery-aktiwiteite te "naby" aan inwoners beoefen is, en bouregulasies wat blykbaar oortree word. Jason moes ook al herhaaldelik in die munisipale hof te Mosselbaai verskyn, alhoewel die saak nie besleg word nie. Die vraag ontstaan of dieselfde ywer van wetstoepassers in Kwanonqaba met bouregulasies toegepas word.

Volgens Jason het die munisipale amptenare, waaronder die impakstudie amptenaar, Herbertsdale besoek en drie areas op erf 24 Herbetsdale uitgewys waar hulle met hul boerdery kon aangaan. Die een plek was 'n ou gebou op perseel 218, (sien ons fotos vd gebou) op die betrokke erf. Die kleinboere (Unity Boerdery) het daarna hulle diere uit die netjiese, self geboude hokke, ontruim en hul diere na die ou gebou geskuif. Reeds in 2024 het die kleinboere aansoek gedoen om die gebou te kan oorneem en te herstel, maar geen terugvoer is, van die munisipaliteit, ontvang nie. Terwyl die gebou nou al herstel kon gewees het, op die kleinboere se koste, verkies die munisipaliteit dat die gebou gesloop word en van alle waarde ontneem word.

(sien die visie en missie van Unity Boerdery op ons foto-galery)

Ontruiming

Intussen het die Unity Boerdery nou opgemerk dat die munisipaliteit 'n kennisgewing op die gebou aangebring het, wat die eienaars aansê om die gebou te ontruim en te sloop. Dit nadat dieselfde munisipaliteit die mense die geleentheid gegee het om die gebou, met hul toestemming, te betrek. Die kleinboere het baie tyd en geld uitgehaal om hul boerdery, op eie koste, te skuif. (sien foto vd kennisgewing van ontruiming)

Gevolgtrekking

Mosselbaai munisipaliteit ondersteun beslis nie die kleinboere van Herbertsdale nie. Deur die kleinboere die een dag toestemming te gee om te skuif en dan later teen hulle op te tree is onkonsekwentheid gegrond op onkunde en/of misleiding.

Steek daar meer agter die ontmoediging van boerdery-aktiwiteite te Herbertsdale? Volgens Jason, as woordvoerder van Unity Boerdery, se mondelikse getuienis, het die munisipaliteit tydens 'n vergadering ontken dat Gondwana belangstel, in die area. Is dit waar?

Kry die munisipaliteit enige genoegdoening daaruit om die moed van trotse kleinboere te breek wat, op eie stoom, probeer om selfstandig te raak? Mense wat aanprysing verdien word in die grond in geboor deur 'n ongenadiglike munisipale magstruktuur.

Waar is die ondersteuning van ons interprenieurs, in ons gemeenskap, wat werk skep? Al die netjiese varkhokke is deur die kleinboere uit eie beperkte vermoëns betaal. Geen munisipale of staatshulp is ontvang nie. Verkies die munisipaliteit dat daar eerder toelae aan inwoners betaal word en armoede verligting, uit munisipale fondse, gefinansier word?

Wat 'n absolute skande vir 'n gesiene munisipaliteit wat sy inwoners so sleg behandel. Dit is 'n absolute magsvergryp teenoor arm inwoners wat nie die finansiële vermoëns het om teen die reuse munisipale monster op te staan nie.



Herbertsdale's Fate

Artikel from: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1160041756217322/permalink/1310184291203067/?

Attached is a snippet of Unity Farming's vision and mission. This is another example of the men's dedication and planning for the future. These people are from our First Peoples, and throughout history, they have been oppressed and exploited. You would think that now, living in a new dispensation, such injustices would be a thing of the past. Their rights and claims must be accommodated, and their initiative encouraged.

(Photo – members of Unity Farming together with Herman Du Plessis of the Mossel Bay Landowners Association.)
From the accompanying photos, it is also clear that the building is still suitable for their farming activities. This is further proven by the fact that the municipality initially demanded R200,000 for so‑called "arrears rent." This in itself shows that the municipality still placed economic value on the structure.

According to Jason, unemployment is a major problem in Herbertsdale. Because they are far removed from Mossel Bay's schools, which brings high transport costs, it often happens that children leave school early, especially when reaching higher grades. Practicing their own farming, therefore, means these people can create jobs and ease the financial burden on the state. Youth idleness often leads to crime, and Herbertsdale is thus facing a serious socio‑economic problem that must be addressed. Assistance should be provided rather than fines imposed.

The primary school, where all the small farmers once attended, has the motto "Arbeid Adel." How ironic that a municipality now seeks to destroy these people's deeply rooted education in the value of labour through rules and regulations

Jason Afrikaner Today 2026-05-23

En vir Jare het ons saam met commercial Boere van koring tot stoet plase van Lucerne tot druiwe plase beste wyn  kom uit ons destruk uit Miljoene rande is opgehef maar Munispale gee dai kos pakkies dus hoekom ons as inwoners soo voel 30 inwoners 1 maal tyd soo geen besware teen n enige persoon nie net die Feite is duidlike soos dag lig MBM moet verander want dit werk nie vir almal nie!

Dokumenteer dit asb want tyd vir Verandering is hier Nou

Kontak Detials - Jason Afrikaner: +27 63 787 6683