City council’s procedural paralysis: Councilors debating only minutes

Sem Billy David

Residents of Windhoek expect City Council meetings to address the urgent problems affecting their daily lives: housing, land, informal settlements, street trading, service delivery, infrastructure, sanitation and municipal accountability.

However, there is growing public concern that council meetings are spending disproportionate amounts of time on procedural matters, including the confirmation and approval of minutes, while petitions and motions dealing directly with residents’ problems remain unresolved or do not appear on the council agenda.

A council exists to debate matters of public importance, pass resolutions and direct the administration to implement those decisions.

When meetings repeatedly focus on procedure while substantive matters remain unattended, the public is justified in asking whether the council is fulfilling its constitutional and statutory responsibilities.

Petitions must not disappear in administration

Petitions are an important democratic channel through which residents raise complaints, make demands and request intervention from their local authority.

The City of Windhoek’s published council material refers to Rule 11 of the Council Standing Rules. According to that material, a petition may be submitted by a council member to the chief executive officer, properly motivated, placed on the agenda of the next Management Committee meeting, considered by the Management Committee and eventually reported to the council.

That process should lead to a clear outcome. The petition may be referred to a department for investigation, returned with a recommendation, or debated and decided upon by council. It should not simply disappear after reaching the offices of the chief executive officer, the mayor or the administration.

Residents are therefore entitled to ask:

• Was the petition formally received?

• Was it placed on the relevant agenda?

• Was it referred to the Management Committee?

• Was an investigation conducted?

• What recommendation was made?

• Was the matter reported back to council?

• What resolution was eventually adopted?

If these questions cannot be answered, public confidence in the council’s petition process will continue to decline. A public petition delivered during a peaceful demonstration should receive the same seriousness as a petition submitted through formal council channels.

The method of delivery should not determine whether residents’ concerns are heard. Where a matter is urgent, the mayor or the council leadership should consider whether a special or urgent meeting is necessary.

Where it is not urgent, it should at least be included in the ordinary council process and reported transparently.

Motions not reaching a decision

A motion is a proposal placed before council for debate and decision. It may call for an investigation, a policy change, a report, a referral, an amendment of an existing decision or direct action by the municipal administration.

A motion may be referred to the Management Committee when it requires financial analysis, technical assessment or further investigation. Such a referral should not become the final destination of the matter.

The Management Committee is expected to deliberate, obtain the necessary information and report back to council.

The purpose of referral is to improve the quality of a future council decision—not to bury the matter indefinitely. The city’s official record confirms that Councillor Maitjituavi Kavetu tabled two motions at the ordinary council meeting of 27 June 2025.

One concerned land-ownership concerns raised by Shack Dwellers Federation groups, while the other sought a review and amendment of residential-erven lease agreements in several settlements, including Okuryangava, Okahandja Park, Babylon, Havana, Otjomuise, Mix Settlement and Goreangab. Both motions were referred to the Management Committee.

The public deserves to know what happened after that referral. Were investigations completed? Were recommendations prepared? Were the motions returned to council? Were resolutions adopted? If not, why not?

Similarly, concerns have been raised about an alleged motion by councillor Austin Kwenani calling for a comprehensive audit of the municipality’s internal systems and operational processes.

Although the specific motion could not be independently verified from the city’s publicly available records, the matter illustrates the importance of publishing a complete register showing every motion submitted, its date, responsible committee, current status and final outcome.

The Local Authorities Act, 1992, gives local authority councils substantial responsibilities. These include the provision and maintenance of streets, water, sewerage and drainage; refuse removal; housing schemes; electricity and public facilities; markets; public transport; emergency services; libraries; community facilities; property administration and other municipal functions.

The council is not merely a body that approves minutes. It is the political authority responsible for making decisions on behalf of residents and overseeing the administration of the municipality.

Section 30 of the Local Authorities Act provides the legal foundation for many of these municipal functions. Section 14 provides for council meetings, quorum, voting and the adoption of standing rules.

The chief executive officer is responsible for administering the affairs of the local authority and implementing council decisions, subject to the control and direction of council.

This division of responsibility is important. The council must debate and decide. The administration must investigate, advise, implement and report. Neither side should be permitted to use procedure or committee structures to avoid accountability.

Standing rules are a tool, not the mission

Standing rules are necessary. They protect order, fairness and consistency in council proceedings. They regulate notices, agendas, quorum, debate, motions, petitions, voting, minutes, conduct and committee reports.

But standing rules should help the council do its work. They should not become a shield against doing the work.

If council meetings spend hours debating how minutes should be confirmed while pressing matters remain outside the agenda, the institution risks confusing procedure with performance.

Confirming accurate minutes is important, but it cannot be the main achievement of a council meeting month after month. The real test is whether residents’ concerns are converted into decisions, budgets, projects, policies and measurable improvements.

The Management Committee must be accountable

The Management Committee plays an important role in preparing matters for council. It may examine petitions, motions, reports and proposals before making recommendations to the full council.

However, committee referral must be followed by a report and a decision within a reasonable period. The Management Committee should not be seen as a waiting room where politically difficult matters are sent and forgotten.

Residents may reasonably question why some matters, including official trips and other administrative approvals, appear to move quickly, while motions concerning housing, land, informal settlements and municipal systems remain unresolved.

These questions do not automatically prove misconduct or deliberate obstruction. They do, however, demonstrate the need for transparent records, deadlines and public reporting.

Opposition should not be blocked

A healthy council must allow opposition parties and minority councillors to raise issues affecting residents. Opposition representatives are not present merely to create conflict.

They are part of the oversight system and often bring matters to council that would otherwise remain outside public attention.

The success of a municipality should not depend on suppressing, delaying or politically neutralising proposals associated with opposition parties.

Once a motion is properly submitted and falls within the council’s legal mandate, it should be assessed on its merits—not on the identity of the councillor who introduced it.

Blocking the succession of opposition proposals through repeated referrals, delayed reports or incomplete agendas weakens democratic accountability.

It also creates the impression that the governing bloc is more interested in controlling the political narrative than in solving residents’ problems.

The relevant question should be simple: Is the proposal lawful, financially viable, technically possible and in the public interest?

If the answer is yes, the council should act. If the answer is no, the council should explain why in a recorded decision.

A council cannot grow a city by avoiding difficult decisions

Windhoek cannot develop through endless procedural delays. The city’s housing backlog, informal-settlement challenges, land administration, infrastructure needs, street-trading concerns and service-delivery failures require decisions.

When urgent matters remain unanswered, residents suffer. When petitions are not reported, the public loses trust. When motions are referred but never returned, the council’s decision-making system loses credibility.

When meetings are dominated by procedural disputes, the institution appears unable—or unwilling—to focus on its mandate. The concern is not that standing rules are unnecessary.

The concern is that they may be used without sufficient balance, allowing procedures to consume the time that should be devoted to residents’ needs.

As December approaches and the council moves closer to the election of new office bearers, the public has a right to ask what has been achieved during the current term.

How many petitions were debated? How many motions became resolutions? How many resolutions were implemented? Which community problems were solved?

A functioning council should not fear scrutiny. It should welcome evidence, debate proposals openly and allow the public to measure its performance.

The City of Windhoek needs a council that does more than sit, confirm minutes and debate rules. It needs a council that listens, decides, acts and reports back to the people it serves.

This came as a result of the City Council meeting held on 1 October 2026, during which the entire public session spent hours debating the MC minutes. Members tried to confirm the incomplete minutes, while others pushed to discuss certain items from them.