Helen Zille, federal chairperson of the DA and the party’s mayoral candidate for Johannesburg, has launched an urgent legal challenge in the Johannesburg high court to halt the implementation of a controversial labour agreement that could cost the City of Johannesburg more than R10bn.
In papers filed on March 24, Zille with the DA seek an interdict to suspend what they describe as an unlawful “politically facilitated agreement” (PFA) concluded between the city and the South African Municipal Workers’ Union.
The urgent application asks the court to suspend both the agreement and the city council’s March 20 decision to approve an adjustment budget incorporating its implementation.
According to the notice of motion, Zille is also seeking an order interdicting the municipality and other respondents “from implementing the PFA, including, without limitation, by releasing or paying any funds pursuant to the PFA”.
Zille, who deposed to the founding affidavit, frames the matter as one of “gravest public importance”, warning that the agreement could have devastating financial consequences for the city.
“This application concerns a matter of gravest public importance. At the core lies the conclusion, by a single municipal official, acting without lawful authority, of a PFA that commits the City of Johannesburg to salary obligations of approximately R10.3bn, an obligation that the city cannot afford,” she states in the papers.
At the centre of the dispute is the city’s group executive director for corporate shared services, Mbulelo Ruda, who is cited as having concluded the agreement on behalf of the municipality.
Zille alleges that the agreement was entered into without proper authority and bypassed the required council approval processes.
“If implemented, [it] will push an already financially distressed municipality to the brink of fiscal collapse, with catastrophic and irreversible consequences for its millions of residents,” the affidavit states.
She further contends that the agreement was only brought before council after it had already been concluded, effectively presenting councillors with a fait accompli.
Once this irreversible financial trajectory is set in motion through the first tranche payment, it cannot be arrested. Each subsequent tranche — R5bn to R6bn by July 2026, and the balance by July 2027 — will follow as a matter of contractual obligation under the PFA, which contains no affordability conditionality whatsoever
— Affidavit
“The adjustment budget introduced the PFA without adequate disclosure of which existing programmes, services or commitments were being reduced to accommodate it. The council was also not provided with a credible feasibility assessment outlining the full cost, timeframe and funding sources,” Zille states.
She argues that the structure of the agreement creates long-term financial obligations that cannot be reversed once implementation begins.
“Once this irreversible financial trajectory is set in motion through the first tranche payment, it cannot be arrested. Each subsequent tranche — R5bn to R6bn by July 2026, and the balance by July 2027 — will follow as a matter of contractual obligation under the PFA, which contains no affordability conditionality whatsoever,” the papers read.
In the urgent application, Zille is also asking the court to suspend the original decision taken “on or about November 14 2025” to conclude the agreement, pending a full review.
Part B of the application seeks a final order reviewing and setting aside the decision to conclude the PFA, the agreement itself and the council’s subsequent approval of the adjustment budget, insofar as it enables implementation of the deal.
Zille raises broader concerns about the impact on service delivery, arguing that the financial burden of the agreement would undermine the city’s ability to maintain critical infrastructure.
“These measures will inevitably hollow out the city’s operational capacity at precisely the time when its infrastructure and service delivery challenges demand expanded, not contracted, capacity,” she states.
She adds that the damage caused by reduced investment in infrastructure would be lasting and difficult to reverse.
“The harm to service delivery is irreparable because infrastructure that is not maintained degrades progressively and irreversibly. Pipes that burst due to deferred maintenance, electrical infrastructure that fails due to underinvestment, and waste collection services that collapse due to staffing shortages cannot be restored simply by a later court order setting aside the impugned decisions,” the affidavit reads.
The application cites multiple respondents, including the city, its council, the executive mayor, the city manager, the relevant municipal official, Samwu, as well as the minister of finance, the National Treasury, and the Gauteng provincial treasury.
Zille is also calling on the municipality to produce the full record of decisions related to the agreement, including “all plans, correspondence, reports, memoranda, documents, electronic records, evidence and other information” that informed the decision-making process.
The matter is expected to be heard on March 26, when the court will consider whether to grant interim relief pending the outcome of the full review proceedings.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.