The City of Joburg was set to establish the office of an independent ombudsman to strengthen good governance through increased accessibility, transparency and the city council’s accountability to residents.
During his State of the City Address in April, Executive Mayor Parks Tau said the office of an independent ombudsman served to ensure that complaints reported by residents were followed through and, where necessary, internal disciplinary action was taken against officials who failed to deliver quality services.
“Applications for the appointment of the city’s first ombudsman will close at the end of this month [April] and we are confident that we will be able to fill this important position shortly thereafter,” he said during his address.
However, more than a week after the office of the ombudsman was due to begin addressing complaints from the public on September 1, the city council had provided little information about the status of the appointment. Now, residents want answers.
Responding to questions posed by Caxton Community Newspapers, the city council conceded that the office of the ombudsman was not yet operational.
“The ad hoc committee has now finalised its report on the recruitment process and appointment of the ombudsman of the city, and has submitted its report and recommendations to the Mayoral Committee for consideration,” said city council spokesperson Nthatisi Modingoane.
The city council did not indicate when the office of the ombudsman would be active.
The draft bylaws were tabled in council on 29 November, 2012 and opened for public participation until 29 March, 2013.
Following the gazetting of the bylaws on 28 March and the position of the ombudsman being advertised on 31 March, the city council announced that the office of the ombudsman was expected to be operational from 1 September.
The ombudsman would deal with complaints of maladministration against the city, excluding matters going to court.
According to the advert for the position, the ombudsman’s duties would include investigating claims of maladministration; abuse or unjustifiable use of power by public servants; and behaviour by public servants that contravenes the public’s right to efficient and courteous service, dignity and honesty.
