The level of transparency and accountability in Vhembe’s municipalities is alarmingly low, with only the Vhembe District Municipality (VDM) having filed an annual report with the Information Regulator (IR), as required by law. None of the four local municipalities have filed reports, and three do not even have a registered Information Officer (IO).
Two Acts — the Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000 (PAIA) and the Protection of Personal Information Act 4 of 2013 (POPIA) — make it compulsory for public bodies such as municipalities to appoint and register an IO with the IR. For municipalities, this role defaults to the municipal manager.
Section 32 of PAIA requires the IO of every public body to submit an annual report to the IR. Such a report outlines the number of access requests received, how many were granted or refused, and details of internal appeals.
Although PAIA does not explicitly set out sanctions for non-compliance, POPIA regulations make it clear that IOs can face fines or even imprisonment for serious transgressions. POPIA primarily governs how institutions handle personal information, while PAIA is intended to promote the public’s constitutional right to access information.
A dismal compliance rate
The IR’s website publishes compliance statistics and lists which municipalities are compliant. In Vhembe, only the VDM and Collins Chabane Local Municipality have registered their IOs, and only the VDM has submitted an annual report. According to the available data, Makhado, Thulamela and Musina municipalities have not complied.
These municipalities are not outliers. In Limpopo, only about 7% of the province’s 29 local and district municipalities are compliant. Only the VDM and Ephraim Mogale Municipality have submitted annual reports.
Nationally, the picture is similar. IR data indicate that only 17 of South Africa’s 257 municipalities are fully compliant.
However, figures cited during a media briefing on 13 November 2025 differ slightly. The IR’s chairperson, Advocate Pansy Tlakula, said that many institutions still fail to make PAIA manuals publicly accessible — a criminal offence that undermines the public’s right to information. She noted that 69 of the 257 municipalities had submitted annual reports, a 27% submission rate.
Tlakula said proposals were being developed to reform PAIA for the digital era and strengthen the IR’s enforcement powers, including the ability to impose sanctions and administrative fines on non-compliant bodies.
PAIA manuals must be on websites
Section 14 of PAIA requires all government bodies, including municipalities, to publish their PAIA manuals on their websites. Some municipalities, however, fall short of this requirement.
Collins Chabane Municipality is compliant and provides a clear link to its PAIA section from the home page, with downloadable manuals and forms.
Thulamela Municipality comes close to compliance, with a PAIA manual available for download. However, the document is a scanned file combined with a “Fleet Management Policy”, and the required forms are not available.
The VDM does not provide a direct link from its home page, but a search leads to a page where the PAIA manual and guides can be downloaded. It also provides a Tshivenda version of the PAIA guide.
Musina Municipality has a dedicated page outlining its PAIA and POPIA processes, stating that it is committed to “upholding the constitutional rights of all individuals to privacy and access to information. We operate in full compliance with two key pieces of South African legislation.” However, no link to its PAIA manual is provided, and searches yield no results.
Makhado Municipality performs worst. No PAIA manual or related documentation appears in searches on its website, and the municipality has a documented history of non-compliance.
A history of limited transparency
In 2022, Makhado Municipality suffered a setback in a court case centred on access to information under PAIA. The municipality was ordered to release information relating to two controversial property transactions.
In October 2019, Zoutnet, publisher of the Limpopo Mirror and Zoutpansberger, filed a PAIA application requesting documents relating to the sale of a public park via open tender. The property, situated adjacent to the N1, was not awarded to the highest bidders. One portion was sold to the lowest bidder.
Zoutnet approached the Louis Trichardt Magistrate’s Court to compel the municipality to release the information. This was the first such case of its kind in South Africa, following legislative changes allowing lower courts to adjudicate PAIA matters.
In September 2020, Magistrate Vanessa Grundlingh dismissed the municipality’s arguments and ordered it to release the information within 15 days.
The municipality applied for leave to appeal the following day. Nearly two years later, the appeal collapsed in the Thohoyandou High Court on a procedural point. Judge Frans Kgomo criticised the application as disorganised and non-compliant with court rules. The appeal was struck from the roll, and the municipality was again ordered to comply.
The municipality continued to resist compliance, prompting Zoutnet to initiate contempt of court proceedings against the municipal manager. Shortly before the matter was to be heard in the High Court, the municipality finally released the information.
A case of déjà vu?
Makhado Municipality appears not to have adopted a more transparent approach.
Government departments, including municipalities, typically employ spokespersons and communications teams, often at considerable cost. Yet these officials can become gatekeepers, limiting access to information.
Towards the end of 2025, Limpopo Mirror requested information from Makhado Municipality spokesperson Mpho Rathando regarding the sale of 179 vacant municipal stands north of Stubbs Street in Louis Trichardt. The stands had been sold at public auction on 4 September 2025. No response was provided.
After repeated attempts, the newspaper requested the municipality’s PAIA manual and the contact details of the Information Officer. These were not supplied, forcing the journalist to obtain forms from the National Treasury website.
On 11 November last year, the completed forms were submitted but rejected on the grounds that they were incorrect. The newspaper was provided with a “Form 2: Request for Access to Record”, which was completed and resubmitted on 19 November. Officials again refused to accept the forms, citing uncertainty about the application fee.
On 17 March this year, the application was submitted once more, with insistence that it be formally accepted. Attempts to pay the application fee were again unsuccessful, as officials could not confirm the amount payable.
On 24 April, after the 30-day response period had lapsed, the municipality’s legal manager, MS Tshidzumba, responded, stating that “the information requested may include personal details pertaining to third parties” and could pose legal risks. He suggested that the newspaper first obtain consent from the buyers of the 179 stands.
This response is legally questionable. The municipality has been asked to indicate formally whether it is refusing access, in which case detailed reasons must be provided.
The matter may now be referred to the Information Regulator for an appeal process.