The legal battle over Tshwane City Manager Johann Mettler’s suspension has shifted from the council chamber to court, with his lawyers challenging the legality of the decision that removed the municipality’s accounting officer from office.
Mettler, through Solidarity, has placed the suspension resolution under judicial scrutiny, arguing that the city failed to meet the legal requirements before taking the drastic step to suspend him.
The challenge comes after the Tshwane council resolved on July 9 to place Mettler on precautionary suspension pending an investigation into allegations of misconduct. The city formally notified Mettler on July 10 that council had acted under Regulation 6(4) of the Local Government: Disciplinary Regulations for Senior Managers, 2010.
But his lawyers have launched an attack on the process, arguing that council might have decided the outcome before properly considering his representations.
The court papers reveal that Solidarity is questioning whether the council genuinely applied its mind to Mettler’s submissions before suspending him.
“We are instructed that, insofar as Council resolved on 9 July 2026 to place Mr Mettler on precautionary suspension, such resolution is unlawful unless Council first genuinely considered his representations, identified the specific Regulation 6(1) jurisdictional facts relied upon, considered whether less intrusive measures would suffice, and resolved to suspend only thereafter,” the lawyers said.
They argued that council “may not decide first and hear later” and accused it of potentially treating the Regulation 6 process as a formality rather than a genuine assessment.
The legal challenge also opens a new front over the council vote.
Solidarity recorded that there were reports of a “disputed and irregular voting process” before the suspension resolution was adopted. The lawyers said they were not relying on media reports as proof but warned that any irregularity in the voting process could become an independent ground for review.
They have demanded preservation of the complete voting record, including the minutes, attendance register, quorum records, voting results, objections, Speaker’s rulings and the final declared result.
The dispute is whether Tshwane had enough evidence to justify removing Mettler while an investigation continues.
Council’s case is that Mettler’s continued presence could compromise the probe.
The suspension letter states that council believed his presence could “jeopardise the integrity of the independent investigation”, create risks of interference with officials who may provide information, affect municipal records and undermine stability in the municipality.
The council said the allegations were serious because of Mettler’s position as accounting officer and head of administration.
It concluded that his continued presence could “jeopardise the integrity of the independent investigation, including the preservation, accessibility and integrity of municipal records and information”, create risks of interference with witnesses and be detrimental to the municipality’s administration.
But Mettler’s lawyers argue that Regulation 6 does not allow suspension simply because allegations exist or because an official occupies a senior position.
“Regulation 6 does not permit that result. It requires facts,” they argued.
They said the city had failed to identify specific witnesses Mettler could influence, evidence he could conceal or destroy, or concrete threats to municipal stability.
The disagreement is happening alongside accusations about Tshwane’s administration, including claims from the Economic Freedom Fighters that Mettler hid information and documents from the Mayoral Committee, such as those related to the SIU’s Rooiwal investigation.
Council also considered allegations relating to audit concerns, labour liabilities, suspended employees and previous findings involving Mettler.
- Tshwane City Manager Johann Mettler’s suspension is being legally challenged by his lawyers, who argue the council did not meet legal requirements before suspending him.
- Mettler’s suspension followed a July 9 council resolution pending an investigation into alleged misconduct, invoking Regulation 6(4) of the Local Government Disciplinary Regulations.
- Solidarity contends the council failed to genuinely consider Mettler’s submissions before suspending him and accuses the council of possibly deciding the outcome prematurely.
- The challenge raises concerns about a reportedly irregular voting process for the suspension, demanding preservation of all voting records and related documentation.
- The council justifies suspension to protect investigation integrity and municipal stability, while Mettler’s lawyers argue that Regulation 6 requires concrete facts, not merely allegations or positional authority.
