Key Takeaways
- The City of Johannesburg is withholding records on two major financial‑misconduct matters: a secret R4.07‑billion referral to its Disciplinary Board and a publicly disclosed R45.16‑billion figure of unauthorised, irregular, fruitless and wasteful (UIFW) expenditure.
- A Promotion of Access to Information Act (Paia) request filed on 3 August 2026 for the R4.07‑billion documents was delayed by an “administrative oversight” and then extended to 6 November 2026 – two days after the municipal election.
- The City justified the extension by invoking section 26(1)(c) of Paia and calculating the extra period in “court days,” a method Daily Maverick argues has no legal basis and fails to inform the requester of its right to challenge the extension.
- While the overall R45.16‑billion UIFW total was released in an open council response on 26 August 2026, the identities of the 68 officials recommended for disciplinary action, the specifics of the allegations, and the outcomes remain concealed in Annexure A; Annexure B lists 86 criminal cases but no Hawks or Special Investigating Unit referrals.
- Daily Maverick has issued a deemed‑refusal notice under section 27 of Paia, demanding the records by 5 p.m. 9 October 2026 and warning of legal action to compel disclosure if the City fails to comply.
Overview of the financial misconduct cases
Daily Maverick is pursuing information on two distinct but related financial‑accountability issues that together involve nearly R50 billion of public money. The first concerns 13 serious allegations of financial misconduct amounting to R4.07 billion, which were referred to the City’s independent Disciplinary Board during a closed council meeting on 22 July 2026. The second involves R45.16 billion recorded as unauthorised, irregular, fruitless and wasteful (UIFW) expenditure accumulated over five years and addressed through Auditor‑General and council processes. Although the overall UIFW figure has been made public, the details of who is responsible and what disciplinary steps followed remain hidden. Understanding both matters is essential for assessing Johannesburg’s governance, consequence‑management mechanisms, and the use of public funds.
The secret R4.07‑billion referral
The R4.07 billion case originated from the City’s 52nd Extra‑Ordinary Council meeting on 22 July 2026, where the item was discussed “in committee,” i.e., behind closed doors. The meeting resolved to forward 13 alleged financial‑misconduct matters to the independent Disciplinary Board for investigation and possible sanction. Daily Maverick submitted a Paia application on 3 August 2026 seeking the complete, unredacted records of that closed‑door deliberation, including the agenda, executive report, memorandum, council resolution, minutes, forensic audit reports, internal investigation summaries, legal opinions, referral letters to the Disciplinary Board, and any related SAPS or Hawks referrals. The request also asked for the City’s active register of financial‑misconduct cases pending before the Disciplinary Board for the 2024/25 and 2025/26 financial years, with statistics on suspensions, disciplinals, dismissals, and financial‑recovery actions. The application stressed that disclosure was in the public interest to enable independent investigative journalism on public expenditure, governance, and accountability.
The delayed Paia application and administrative oversight
Thembisa Zwane, the City’s Deputy Director of Public Information, confirmed in writing that the Paia request was received on 3 August 2026 but was not forwarded for processing until 12 August 2026 because of an “administrative oversight.” Zwane’s notice apologised for the delay and stated that the City’s Paia section was liaising with relevant departments believed to hold the requested records. The City then invoked section 26(1)(c) of the Promotion of Access to Information Act to extend the response period, asserting that consultation among divisions was necessary and could not be completed within the original timeframe. The extension notice claimed a further 30 “court days,” pushing the deadline to 6 November 2026. This timing placed the City’s decision two days after the 4 November municipal election, raising concerns that the information would be withheld until after voters had cast their ballots.
The use of “court days” extension and legal challenges
Daily Maverick formally challenged the City’s reliance on “court days” as a basis for calculating the Paia extension, arguing that section 26 permits only a single extension of up to 30 days and contains no provision for measuring that period in court days. The requester also noted that the extension notice failed to advise it of the right to challenge the extension, the procedure for doing so, or the period within which a challenge must be made—requirements stipulated under section 26(3)(c) of Paia. Daily Maverick asked the City Manager, Floyd Brink, and Zwane to provide the legal basis for the calculation, the exact date the extension decision was taken, and when the notice was first issued. As of the deadline for response (28 September 2026), neither Brink nor Zwane had replied, leaving the extension’s validity in question.
The separate R45.16 billion UIFW expenditure disclosure
While the R4.07 billion records remain concealed, the City disclosed the larger R45.16 billion UIFW figure in an open council response on 26 August 2026. This amount, covering five years of unauthorised, irregular, fruitless and wasteful spending, was presented alongside Auditor‑General Tsakani Maluleke’s findings and did not require secrecy. The response indicated that R24.46 billion had been addressed in a single financial year and that the Group Forensic and Investigation Services (GFIS) had examined a historical UIFW portion amounting to R4.23 billion (pre‑2018). From that investigation, 68 officials were recommended for disciplinary action. Additionally, the City reported that 86 criminal cases involving fraud, corruption, maladministration, and asset theft had been registered with the police, with details contained in an Annexure B dashboard. Notably, no referrals had been made to the Hawks, the Special Investigating Unit, or the Special Tribunal.
What remains hidden in Annexure A and Annexure B
Although the overall UIFW total and the existence of criminal cases are public, the specifics behind the numbers are still withheld. Annexure A, referenced in the council response, allegedly contains the identities of the 68 officials recommended for disciplinary action, the precise nature of the misconduct that triggered those recommendations, and the subsequent disciplinary outcomes—or lack thereof. Annexure B, while listing the 86 criminal cases, does not reveal whether any were forwarded to specialised anti‑corruption units, leaving the public unable to gauge the seriousness of the alleged offences or the effectiveness of the City’s law‑enforcement referrals. The City’s Paia office claims it needs extra time to liaise with departments to confirm which records exist, yet by 26 August 2026 it had already produced detailed summaries for council, suggesting the information is collated and accessible.
Daily Maverick’s escalation and deemed‑refusal notice
Frustrated by the City’s lack of response and the legally dubious extension, Daily Maverick issued a formal notice asserting that the Paia request had reached the point of “deemed refusal” under section 27 of the Act. The notice contested the extension’s legality, highlighted the omission of challenge‑rights information, and demanded the City produce the requested records by 5 p.m. on 9 October 2026. It warned that, should the City fail to comply, Daily Maverick would pursue all remedies available under Paia to compel disclosure, including approaching the courts for an order of access. This escalation underscores the requester’s commitment to transparency and its readiness to hold the municipality accountable for any unlawful withholding of information.
Implications for transparency and the upcoming election
The timing of the City’s proposed disclosure date—two days after the 4 November municipal election—has sparked suspicion that the administration may be attempting to avoid public scrutiny during a critical political moment. If the records remain concealed until after the vote, voters will be denied insight into how public funds have been managed, who may be held responsible for financial misconduct, and what corrective measures have been taken. Conversely, an early release would empower citizens, civil society, and the press to evaluate the City’s governance performance and inform their electoral decisions. The dispute thus touches on broader principles of open government, the right to information, and the role of investigative journalism in safeguarding democratic accountability. The outcome of Daily Maverick’s legal challenge will likely set a precedent for how Johannesburg handles Paia requests, especially those involving sensitive financial‑accountability matters that intersect with electoral timelines.