Civil rights organisation Free SA has raised serious concerns about the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs’ proposed Amendment Regulations aimed at aligning long-term development planning across South Africa’s three spheres of government.
While the regulations are presented as a mechanism to improve coordination and service delivery, Free SA cautions that, in practice, they risk centralising decision-making power and undermining the constitutional autonomy of municipalities.
At the heart of the proposal is the introduction of a strengthened District Development Model framework and the implementation of so-called “One Plans”, intergovernmental strategies intended to guide long-term development priorities across national, provincial, and local government.
Free SA warns that the proposed framework may blur the line between coordination and control. Although municipalities formally retain their planning authority, the requirement to align with national and provincial priorities could, in effect, limit their independence.
“The danger lies not in coordination itself, but in how it is implemented,” said Gideon Joubert, spokesperson for Free SA. “What is presented as cooperative governance risks becoming a system where decisions are imposed from above, with municipalities reduced to administrative extensions of central government.”
The organisation highlights that the “One Plan” framework requires all spheres of government to contribute to and align with shared long-term development priorities, which will ultimately inform municipal Integrated Development Plans (IDPs).
Free SA is particularly concerned that the regulations may create indirect pressure on municipalities to comply with national priorities, especially where funding, approvals, or political influence are involved. The expanded role of national ministers, the Presidency, and provincial structures in overseeing and guiding development planning further raises concerns about a “top-heavy” governance model.
“Local government exists to serve local communities,” Joubert added. “When decision-making authority shifts upward, the voices of residents risk being diluted or ignored entirely.”
The proposed framework relies heavily on intergovernmental forums, where key development decisions will be negotiated among national departments, provinces, and other state actors. Free SA warns that municipalities, particularly smaller or under-resourced ones, may struggle to assert their priorities in these forums, while communities themselves are not directly represented.
“This model risks becoming technocratic and exclusionary, where decisions are made by officials far removed from the lived realities of ordinary South Africans,” said Joubert.
Another key concern is the emphasis on large-scale “catalytic projects,” which are intended to drive economic growth and investment. While such projects may offer macroeconomic benefits, Free SA cautions that they could come at the expense of basic service delivery.
“Development must be people-centred,” Joubert emphasised. “Water, sanitation, housing, and local infrastructure cannot be sidelined in favour of headline-grabbing mega-projects.”
Free SA is calling for meaningful amendments to the regulations to ensure:
- The protection of municipal autonomy in both law and practice
- Clear limits on national and provincial influence over local decision-making
- Greater transparency and accountability in intergovernmental processes
- Genuine public participation in development planning
- A balanced approach that prioritises both large-scale investment and community-level needs
The organisation is also urging South Africans to make use of the public comment process, noting that submissions are legally recognised and play a vital role in shaping final policy outcomes.
“Democracy does not end at the ballot box,” Joubert concluded. “These regulations will shape how communities develop for decades to come. South Africans must speak up to ensure their voices are not sidelined in favour of centralised control.”