A disputed decision to remove 13 councillors’ votes from a Tshwane council tally has become the decisive battleground in a court fight over the future of the city manager’s office.
Johann Mettler, the suspended Tshwane’s city manager, says the process that removed him from office depended on a single intervention: the Speaker’s decision to deduct votes after councillors had taken part in the meeting.
The DA brought the legal challenge, arguing that the suspension flowed from a council resolution whose outcome changed only after the disputed deduction. Mettler’s replying affidavit argues that Tshwane has failed to identify any rule giving the Speaker power to revisit a completed vote and remove the votes cast.
“The resolution passed only because the Speaker deducted or excluded 13 votes.” he argues. The legality of the deduction was “outcome-determinative”.
The dispute has turned the council meeting into a legal contest over the limits of political power in South Africa’s capital city.
Mettler’s lawyers say the city has not produced the raw voting record, a written ruling disqualifying councillors before the vote or any council decision authorising the exclusion of the votes. Instead, the explanation emerged after the vote – based on councillors’ leave applications and the Speaker’s assessment that they should not have participated.
Mettler says a presiding officer cannot change the result of a democratic process by reassessing councillors’ eligibility after seeing the outcome. “If a councillor is present and entitled to vote, the vote must be counted,” his affidavit states.
Executive mayor Nasiphi Moya says her role was limited to implementing powers provided by the Municipal Structures Act and the Disciplinary Regulations for Senior Managers.
Moya says she issued Mettler with a notice calling for written representations, made a public statement and issued the suspension letter after the council process. “I do not seek to justify the rulings of the Speaker of Council nor do I seek to justify the correctness of the vote count,” Moya adds in her affidavit.
That separation has created the central fault line in the case.
The mayor accepts responsibility for the suspension decision. The Speaker must account for the disputed mathematics that produced the council resolution.
The court papers reveal a second fight over whether Mettler’s suspension met the legal threshold.
Moya relies on disciplinary regulations that require municipalities to act when allegations of misconduct against senior managers arise. Mettler argues that the seriousness of allegations is not enough.
His affidavit says Regulation 6 does not permit suspension simply because allegations are serious. It requires facts showing why suspension is necessary.
He argues Tshwane’s papers do not explain why less intrusive measures would not have protected the investigation.
The city manager also challenges the argument that his position alone justified his removal.
“The fact that I occupy an important position cannot convert serious allegations into automatic suspension,” his affidavit argues.
At stake is whether a council vote can be altered after councillors have voted and whether a senior municipal official can be removed before the factual basis for suspension is tested.
- The disputed removal of 13 councillors’ votes in Tshwane council has become central to a legal battle over the suspended city manager Johann Mettler’s removal.
- Mettler argues the Speaker unlawfully deducted votes after the vote, changing the council resolution’s outcome and claims no rules allow such retrospective vote alteration.
- The DA challenges the suspension, saying it relied on the altered council vote, while the mayor distanced herself from the vote count, citing legal limits on her role.
- Mettler contests the suspension's legality, arguing serious allegations alone don’t justify suspension without factual proof or considering less intrusive measures.
- The case raises critical questions about council voting authority and the procedural fairness of suspending senior officials before allegations are fully tested.
A disputed decision to remove 13 councillors’ votes from a
Johann Mettler, the suspended
“
Mettler’s lawyers say the city has not produced the raw voting record, a written ruling disqualifying councillors before the vote or any council decision authorising the exclusion of the votes. Instead, the explanation emerged after the vote – based on councillors’ leave applications and the Speaker’s assessment that they should not have participated.
Mettler says a presiding officer cannot change the result of a democratic process by reassessing councillors’ eligibility after seeing the outcome. “If a councillor is present and entitled to vote, the vote must be counted,” his affidavit states.
Executive mayor Nasiphi Moya says her role was limited to implementing powers provided by the Municipal Structures Act and the Disciplinary Regulations for Senior Managers.
Moya says she issued Mettler with a notice calling for written representations, made a public statement and issued the suspension letter after the council process. “I do not seek to justify the rulings of the Speaker of Council nor do I seek to justify the correctness of the vote count,” Moya adds in her affidavit.
Moya relies on disciplinary regulations that require municipalities to act when allegations of misconduct against senior managers arise. Mettler argues that the seriousness of allegations is not enough.
His affidavit says Regulation 6 does not permit suspension simply because allegations are serious. It requires facts showing why suspension is necessary.
He argues
“
At stake is whether a council vote can be altered after councillors have voted and whether a senior municipal official can be removed before the factual basis for suspension is tested.
