These were the words of President Cyril Ramaphosa in 2022 at a Conference hosted by the South African Human Rights Commission. To ensure that local government works, the drafters of the Constitution built in crucial mechanisms in South Africa’s multilevel government architecture. One such mechanism is the power of provincial government to intervene in municipal affairs in well-defined circumstances to prevent residents from suffering prolonged service delivery failures.

The power of provincial governments to intervene in municipal affairs 

The drafters of the Constitution anticipated that municipalities would sometimes fail in their duties, requiring oversight by provincial or national government. As a result, they included section 139 of the Constitution, which sets out when and how a provincial government can intervene. These include three discretionary interventions: issuing a directive, assuming responsibility, or dissolving a municipal council. Section 139 also provides for mandatory interventions: ensuring budgets and revenue measures are approved (s 139(4)); imposing a financial recovery plan when a municipality faces a financial crisis (s 139(5)); and requiring national government to step in if provinces fail to implement subsections (4) or (5). The Municipal Financial Management Act 56 of 2003 further outlines how these interventions should be applied. 

Although provincial governments must intervene where a municipality is in crisis, in practice they are often hesitant or even unwilling to do so. This raises questions about why another arm of the state – the judiciary – must sometimes compel provinces to exercise powers that the Constitution already makes mandatory. 

Failures of provinces to intervene when required 

The problem of provinces failing to intervene when mandated has become more pronounced since around 2018. Usually, municipal failures resulted in deteriorating service delivery that impacted businesses and communities so severely they felt compelled to turn to the courts for relief. Therefore, courts have increasingly had to order provincial governments to act. For example: 

• In Coetzee and Others v Premier, Mpumalanga Province and Others (2018), the High Court held that the financial crisis in Emalahleni Municipality triggered a mandatory duty on the province to impose a financial recovery plan.
• In Unemployed Peoples Movement v Premier of the Province of the Eastern Cape and Others (2020), the court ordered provincial intervention after Makana Municipality was shown to have failed persistently to provide basic services.
• In Democratic Alliance v Premier for the Province of Gauteng and Others (2021), the court found that Emfuleni Municipality had collapsed service delivery and finances, but the province failed to intervene until compelled by the court.
• In Democratic Alliance v Premier of the Free State Province and Others (2024), the court found Matjhabeng Local Municipality in breach of its obligations with billions owed to Eskom and the Vaal Central Water Board. The Free State Province had failed to intervene until the court issued a structural interdict requiring a financial recovery plan.
• In Afriforum NPC v Ngwathe Local Municipality and Others (2025), the Free State Province was again ordered to intervene after extensive service delivery failures and inaction. The court required quarterly progress reports under oath. 

Additionally, in 2021 the Pretoria High Court ordered the national government to intervene directly in Lekwa Local Municipality after the province failed to act, highlighting the further safeguard that exists under section 139(7) of the Constitution. 

These examples demonstrate that the failure of provincial governments to fulfil their obligations, and national government to supervise provinces, leave courts no choice but to enforce the constitutional duty of intervention. 

Commentary 

The cases illustrate a troubling trend: provincial governments increasingly fail to act when there are service delivery and governance failures which warrant an intervention. This problem is not limited to one province but has been observed nationally. In turn, the judiciary has had to assume an active role in ensuring interventions take place. Section 139(7) of the Constitution provides an additional safety net, allowing national government to intervene if a province cannot or will not act. In 2021, the Pretoria High Court confirmed this in relation to Lekwa Municipality. However, legislation provides little further guidance on national interventions, apart from specific references such as section 63 of the Water Services Act. Courts have seldom invoked this obligation explicitly, though the potential remains significant. 

When they are executed, provincial interventions are often poorly executed and are not as efficient as they were intended. Some interventions have been marred with challenges of being politicised and haphazard. The Intergovernmental Monitoring, Support and Interventions Bill (Bill) has been introduced to Parliament to cure this gap that currently exists. The Bill contains early detection mechanisms for municipal failures and clarifies roles and responsibilities during interventions. If properly applied, the Bill may assist in depoliticising section 139 interventions and ensure that they are governed by clear and transparent procedures. However, it is unlikely to solve the entire problem.

The proposed law is merely a guide in the invocation of section 139 by provincial governments. The obligation to invoke section 139 will still lie at the hands of provincial governments.  However, the possibility is there to compel provinces to intervene into municipal affairs and the Bill could impose consequences where provinces fail to do so. The Constitution is clear that constitutional obligations must be exercised diligently without delay. Therefore, provincial governments must not shy away from fulfilling their constitutional obligations and invoking section 139 where such action is required. Otherwise, courts will not shirk from their constitutional duty to remind provincial governments to fulfil their constitutional obligations. The Constitution demands nothing less.

Viewed this way, municipal collapse is not only a failure of local government. It reflects a wider failure of provincial governments that do not act, and of national government when it fails to step in. The systemic chain of accountability risks being broken at every level. 

Conclusion 

Judicially ordered interventions are a symptom of provincial inaction. Courts should not have to compel provinces to exercise their constitutional duties, but where they fail, the judiciary and, ultimately, national government must step in. Otherwise, the promise of the Constitution – that every person has the right to basic services and functioning local government – is left unfulfilled. The Dullah Omar Institute has consistently tracked developments on provincial interventions and  previous articles on this topic can be accessed  here. 

By Peacemore Mhodi, Research Advisor and Dr Henk Boshoff, Commissioner at the South African Human Rights Commission.