South Africa has, with painful transparency, exposed and interrogated some of the most profound governance collapses in its democratic history. The inventory of accountability is visible; commissions of inquiry have systematically dismantled the architecture of state capture; the Special Investigating Unit [SIU] has pursued litigation with clinical precision; assets have been frozen, and the docking of pensions has moved from a theoretical threat to a tangible consequence.

The Auditor-General of South Africa [AGSA] has used its expanded mandate to move beyond mere reporting, actively compelling the recovery of losses and enforcing accountability.

Yet, a sobering paradox persists. Despite these external interventions, the municipal sector remains haunted by a recurring pathology: unauthorised, irregular, fruitless, and wasteful [UIFW] expenditure, repetitive audit qualifications, and an anaemic approach to consequence management. This persistence has led to a precipitous decline in public confidence.

As we head towards the commencement of a new fiscal year, we must confront a fundamental inquiry. Are we genuinely engineering an end to this cycle, or have we subconsciously surrendered to the notion that clean administration is a statistical anomaly rather than the baseline standard?

To accept “qualified" governance as inevitable is, in itself, the ultimate ethical failure.

When UIFW expenditure is treated as a routine administrative friction, and when serious findings are met with bureaucratic indifference, we erode the very foundation of public service. The normalisation of failure does more than invite litigation; it institutionalises a culture of impunity.

The resulting trajectory is predictable. The hollowing out of institutions, the depletion of resources intended for the vulnerable, and the terminal fracturing of the social contract between the City and the citizens we are sworn to serve. In this context, ethics is a strategic imperative for institutional survival.

Breaking this cycle requires a shift from passive compliance to active integrity. It demands internal leadership that possesses the intellectual and moral courage to act before external oversight is triggered.

It requires managers who understand that silence is a form of complicity; officials who prioritise the rule of law over the convenience of political expediency; and systems that robustly defend those who choose integrity over compromise. The pertinent question for 2026 is not whether oversight bodies are performing their duties, but whether the employees of the City of Johannesburg are performing theirs.

Let the next financial year be defined by conduct, not rhetoric. Let us move beyond the performative and commit to zero tolerance for UIFW, pledge for meritocratic appointment, and the consistent enforcement of policies without fear, favour, or prejudice.

Written by Dr Ernest Mutenda
01/04/2026

Recommended for you:

Group governance
Institutionalising ethical governance
City tightens grip on illegal billboards
Joburg switches on first electric vehicle charging hub
City warns government departments to pay up or be disconnected
Youth take the floor as Joburg revives mock council to tackle voter apathy
Joburg Market strengthens international agri-logistics partnerships in Europe
Joburg Market leadership sets strategic vision to transform fresh produce trade
Metropolitan Tech Company unveils new digital platform to reflect tech-driven future

To stay informed about the latest developments in the City, connect with us on:
X: @CityofJoburgZA
Facebook: City of Joburg
Instagram: @CityofJoburg
TikTok: @CityofJoburg
Threads: @cityofjoburg
LinkedIn: City of Johannesburg
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CityOfJoburgZA/videos