Tshwane Executive Mayor Nasiphi Moya has rubbished allegations by the DA that she recently had a R46,000 unpaid municipal bill outstanding from 2023, labelling the claims as “false, misleading, and politically motivated”.
Moya’s chief of staff, Andre Coetzee, said the DA’s claim that the executive mayor was in arrears is entirely false and contradicted by the city’s own financial records.
“The DA’s conduct represents bad-faith politics at its worst. It is a deliberate attempt to distort facts and mislead the public for cheap political gain,” he said.
This follows allegations by DA Tshwane spokesperson on finance Jacqui Uys that Moya admitted to owing the city outstanding rates and taxes from 2023.
According to Uys, Moya made the admission after the DA used council processes to question her about an outstanding property rates account for a property in her name.
She said the DA obtained information in September indicating a property registered to Moya had outstanding property rates since 2023, with an amount over R45,000 owed to the municipality.
“In her answer to the DA’s question, Moya admitted that she only opened up the rates and taxes account for this property in August 2025 and paid the backdated charges to 2023 as soon as it appeared on the account in October 2025,” Uys said.
Coetzee, however, maintained that Moya has no outstanding municipal debt, and the claim of R46,000 in arrears is baseless.
“This is a fabrication based on the distortion of unlawfully obtained information. The municipal account in question was opened in the executive mayor’s name in August 2025, and heading into October the account reflected a credit balance, not arrears,” he said.
According to Coetzee, an administrative reconciliation was completed on October 3, 2025, which transferred around R46,000 in historic charges linked to the property’s previous owner.
He said: “According to the city’s chief financial officer (CFO), these appear under ‘miscellaneous charges’ on the October statement and represent retrospective property rates from the date of sale or registration, which is a standard billing process applied to all property transfers.”
A bank statement supplied by Moya confirms she settled the full amount on October 6, 2025, three days post-reconciliation and prior to the due date, with proof of payment handed to the CFO.
Coetzee said: “The CFO has confirmed that the delay between the property transfer and the opening of the municipal account was due to the transferring attorneys’ administrative processes, which are entirely outside the buyer’s control. The billing adjustments were part of a normal reconciliation process, not an arrears amount as falsely suggested by the DA.”
He emphasised that Moya made the payment before the DA’s question was submitted on October 8, 2025.
“Any claim that the DA’s intervention prompted payment is plainly false and designed to create the impression that the executive mayor needed to be prompted to act. The chronology does not support this view and instead exposes the DA’s desperation to cast aspersions on the executive mayor,” he said.
