As Johannesburg residents prepare to vote in the upcoming Local Government Elections, community activist Xolile Lufefe says residents must go beyond attending public meetings and lodging complaints if they want to hold the city accountable for service delivery and local development.
Lufefe, founder of Phakama Mhlali, an organisation that advocates for community interests, is also in the running for ward councillor in Ward 100, which primarily covers Cosmo City and surrounding parts of the Randburg/North-West corridor.
He says residents can influence decisions made by the City of Johannesburg through established participation processes, but must be prepared to follow up on commitments and demand answers when their needs go unmet.
He said residents had established channels through which they could shape municipal priorities, but meaningful participation depended on their willingness to follow up on commitments and hold the City of Johannesburg accountable when promises went unfulfilled.
His comments come as questions over political instability, municipal accountability and persistent service delivery concerns remain central to the debate about the city’s governance ahead of the elections.
“Residents do have the power to influence City of Johannesburg decisions, provided they actively participate in established processes and mechanisms such as Community-Based Planning (CBP) and the Integrated Development Plan (IDP).
“However, participation should not end with attending meetings or submitting proposals. Residents must follow up on their priorities, monitor government commitments and demand accountability,” he said.
The IDP sets out the municipality’s development priorities, while community-based planning provides an opportunity for residents to raise local needs. However, Lufefe said communities needed to ensure their concerns translated into action.
“Community participation creates the opportunity to influence decisions, but consistent follow-up, collective action and accountability are what help turn community priorities into tangible results,” he said.
Where the municipality failed to respond or deliver on agreed priorities, Lufefe said residents could use peaceful demonstrations, petitions, media engagement and other lawful forms of civic action to pressure the relevant authorities.
He said the ability of residents to hold the city accountable was also affected by political instability, particularly when coalition changes disrupted decision-making and left communities uncertain about who was responsible for unresolved problems.
“Political instability can disrupt continuity, delay decisions, and make it difficult for residents to know who is responsible when their concerns remain unresolved.”
However, he argued that coalition politics should not be used to excuse poor service delivery, saying the municipality remained responsible for residents regardless of which political parties governed the city.
“Coalition politics should not become an excuse for poor service delivery. Political parties may change, but the municipality’s responsibility to residents remains.”
Lufefe said residents needed to keep records of commitments made by municipal representatives, request progress reports and continue demanding answers even when political leadership changed.
The challenge, he said, extended beyond political disagreements to the practical difficulties faced by ward councillors and community activists trying to get municipal departments to address complaints.
He said officials frequently cited budget constraints when responding to concerns about water, electricity, roads, sanitation and other basic services, while residents were sometimes told that their needs would have to wait until a future financial year.
“Even when communities raise legitimate concerns about water, electricity, roads, sanitation and other basic services, they are often told that there is no budget available or that the issue must be prioritised in a future financial year.”
Lufefe said poor communication and the absence of clear timeframes for resolving complaints further complicated efforts to hold officials accountable.
“Another challenge is the lack of clear communication, accountability and timeframes from the relevant departments. Complaints may be submitted repeatedly without meaningful progress, leaving councillors and activists struggling to obtain answers on behalf of residents,” he said.
He called on the city to be more transparent about how municipal funds were allocated, how priorities were determined and why some community needs remained unresolved.
Beyond service delivery, Lufefe said residents needed stronger mechanisms to hold elected representatives and ward committee members accountable for their performance.
He called for a transparent process through which residents could raise concerns about councillors who consistently failed to fulfil their responsibilities. He also proposed an independent review process for ward committee members who were repeatedly absent, inaccessible, or failing to perform their duties.
“Accountability must be to the people first, not political parties. Residents should have the power to demand performance, initiate formal complaints, and trigger a fair review of their elected and appointed representatives,” he said.
He said such mechanisms should apply regardless of which political party governed Johannesburg, ensuring that representatives remained accessible and responsive to the communities they served.
anita.nkonki@nationalmg.co.za