The Good Party and the ANC have threatened urgent High Court action unless Speaker of the Cape Town City Council Felicity Purchase agrees to open next week’s no-confidence debate to the public, accusing her of hiding behind a closed virtual sitting.
The two opposition parties, the largest in the Cape Town council, instructed their lawyers to write to Purchase and City Manager Lungelo Mbandazayo, demanding that the Thursday meeting be held in the council chambers and not online. They argue that hosting such a politically sensitive motion exclusively on Microsoft Teams is unconstitutional and unlawful.
“Virtual meetings were introduced to address problems during [Covid-induced] lockdown. They are not to be used at the whim of the Speaker. When it comes to motions of no confidence, open debate is of critical importance,” wrote attorney Jacques Louw of Lionel Murray Schwormstedt & Louw.
The lawyers gave Purchase until 11am on Monday to provide a written undertaking that the motion would be debated in person and open to the public, failing which they will approach the court on an urgent basis. They warned that concealing proceedings from public view “breeds suspicion and distrust,” particularly when political stakes are high.
Genesis of motion
The dispute stems from a motion submitted on August 6 by Good Party councillors Jonathan Cupido and Suzette Little, who charged that Purchase had failed to preside over council proceedings fairly. But on August 13, councillors received an email from corporate services executive Louisa van Molendorff confirming that the meeting would be conducted solely via Microsoft Teams, with no provision for public attendance.
Purchase has hit back strongly, rejecting the accusations as “wholly untrue and factually incorrect.”
“It has always been practice and for the purposes of cost-containment that we conduct some council meetings virtually,” she told Sunday World.
She insisted that claims of secrecy misrepresented how the council operates. “All our council meetings – whether virtual or in-person – are livestreamed via YouTube and are made available to the public. Only items which appear on the Confidential Agenda are closed to the public,” she said.
Purchase also argued that she had acted squarely within the City’s Rules of Order. “The Speaker must determine the date, time and venue of meetings of the Council – and as such, the time, date and venue or platform of the upcoming meeting were already determined prior to my Office receiving the motion in question,” she explained.
Tensions escalate
The standoff highlights intensifying tensions within Cape Town council, where opposition parties are uniting to challenge the Speaker. For them, the principle at stake is not only transparency but also the symbolism of holding a no-confidence debate in full public view.
If Purchase refuses to back down, the matter is likely to escalate into a legal showdown in the High Court, a battle that could set precedence on whether municipalities may resort to virtual-only sittings for politically sensitive debates in the post-lockdown era.
For now, all eyes are on Monday, the deadline set by the opposition lawyers. Purchase, who insists she has nothing to hide, may soon find herself defending her decision not only in chambers but also in the courtroom.
