Windhoek motions stuck in limbo
Four motions tabled before the Windhoek City Council remain with the Management Committee, raising concerns among councillors that important issues could lose relevance as the year draws to a close.
Councillor Ndeshihafela Larandja raised the concern during a council meeting, saying the slow handling of motions had become a major issue, particularly as the council approaches the end of the year. According to Laranja, the council had passed four motions during the year, but they had been referred back to the Management Committee for consideration and a report back to council. “This is with regard to the slow handling of motions,” Naranja said, adding that the motions were “about to lose relevance”.
Among the motions highlighted was one submitted by councillor Demetreo Beukes concerning the status of Groot-Aub. Another, submitted by Management Committee chairperson councillor Austin Kwenani, requested that council avail land to central government for the development of sport facilities. Kwenani also submitted a third motion calling for an audit of policies and regulations.
“As a council member, I am therefore asking the delay for the Management Committee to report to council. This is a major concern,” Laranja said. The matter prompted a discussion about council procedures, with councillors noting that the motions had already been referred to the Management Committee and were therefore not matters currently before council for decision. The chairperson indicated that the issue was a concern but said it had already been taken up because the motions had been referred to the Management Committee.
“It’s only that the concern must be taken seriously because there is no way that motions of this year can be tackled next year,” Naranja said. She further stated that motions had been raised from January onwards, but expressed concern that only one month remained in the council calendar. Laranja further questioned whether it was becoming a practice for motions tabled in one year to only be discussed the following year.
“I don’t think that we should allow that,” she said. The discussion was eventually brought to an end after councillors were reminded to follow the procedures governing the council meeting. A separate dispute emerged over whether portions of Management Committee minutes could be approved while excluding specific items. Legal advice presented to council referred to Rule 7.2 of the Standing Rules of Order, which states that the minutes of every committee meeting are confirmed at the next ensuing committee meeting unless the minutes, or a portion of them, are submitted to council for consideration and acceptance.
Rule 7.3 was also cited, providing that where minutes or a portion of minutes are submitted to council, they are confirmed by a quorum of committee members at the council meeting. Legal advice indicated, however, that the minutes should be approved in their entirety and that partial approval could not be done. The legal interpretation sparked further discussion among councillors, particularly around whether council could exclude specific portions of minutes where concerns had been raised about information that was not available when decisions were taken.
The discussion referred to Regulation 27 concerning recruitment and selection, including circumstances where the local authority council, Management Committee or chief executive officer has reason to believe there were irregularities in the recruitment and selection process, or that a recommendation made by a panel was not in the best interests of the local authority council.
Legal advice indicated that an item could be withdrawn if it was before council, but that in this instance only the minutes were before council. The discussion highlighted the importance of following the council’s rules when confirming Management Committee minutes and dealing with decisions arising from those meetings.
