The Mayor of Maluti-A-Phofung, Malekula Melato, has approached the Free State High Court. On Wednesday, she filed an urgent interdict against the Speaker, Mandlenkosi Dlamini, and the municipality.
Melato wants to halt the motion of no confidence against her, scheduled for Thursday. It was proposed by the opposition party, SARKO, and supported by the EFF. She argues that Dlamini took the decision on 18 March to schedule a special council meeting for the motion to be tabled. Melato says that decision was unlawful, unconstitutional and invalid.
Melato’s wants to know what the motion is based on
Her lawyer, Machini Motloung, stated in court papers that if the respondents intend to oppose the application, they should deliver a notice of opposition within 10 days, failing which the matter will be heard in their absence.
Melato’s affidavit states that she has a right to be provided with information about what the motion against her is based on, as well as her right to be able to respond to the allegations that form part of the motion.
“I stand to suffer harm and prejudice due to the misrepresentation and fraud committed by the second respondent [Maluti-A-Phofung]. On 4 March 2026, I became aware from social media that there was a notice of no confidence against me. On 5 March 2026, I formally received communication from the office of the Speaker, wherein he was advising me that a motion of no confidence has been submitted to his office,” said Melato.
‘The motion is ill-conceived, based on wrong law’
Melato said that she responded to Dlamini on 6 March, demanding clarity and evidence showing that service delivery had declined, which would trigger Section 106 intervention.
This refers to a provincial government’s power to investigate a municipality when there are reasonable grounds to believe it is failing in its duties or is plagued by serious malpractice.
Melato claims that this is the basis for the motion of no confidence.
“It is clear that the motion is ill-conceived, but more embarrassing is the fact that it is based on wrong law,” said Melato.
She said that Dlamini had failed to address the request for information and clarity, and that the Speaker only spoke about general issues of procedure, which she claims was in any event wrong.
‘The other parties bolted and turned against the agreement’
Melato said that on Monday that she met with the caucus, where members of the council had been lobbied not to support the motion.
“I immediately told my lawyers not to proceed with the application, however, on 24 March 2026, late in the afternoon, I received information that the other parties had bolted and turned against the agreement.
This forced me to proceed with the urgent application. As part of the grounds for this interdict is that this is not a notice as contemplated by law. I am advised that our courts have held that a notice is necessary to afford the affected member(s) an opportunity to be aware and to consider the motion before it is tabled for discussion. Additionally, it is to provide council members similarly with an opportunity to engage meaningfully in the ensuing debate before a resolution is taken,” she said.
She claims that the real reasons behind the motion are that she wanted the Municipal Manager, Mzwakhe Mofokeng, to account for his actions in governing the municipality.
Visit SW YouTube Channel for our video content
