Power struggle erupts in BCC over move to dissolve key Committee 

A controversial motion to dissolve and reconstitute the City of Bulawayo’s powerful General Purposes Committee, the same body that recently rejected an extension of Town Clerk Christopher Dube’s contract, has ignited allegations of a strategic power play within council chambers to install a more pliable leadership.

The General Purposes Committee is one of Bulawayo’s most influential committees, overseeing key administrative functions, including human resources, governance and oversight of the Town Clerk’s office.

Sources said its recent refusal to extend Dube’s contract reportedly angered sections of City Hall.

The motion to dissolve the existing General Purposes Committee was submitted by Ward 6 Councillor Nkosinathi Hove Mpofu dated October 24, 2025, seeking to replace its members with a new line-up of councillors.

The proposal also recommends a sweeping reshuffle of chairpersons across multiple committees, including the Finance and Development, Environmental Management, and Health, Housing and Education committees, including himself as Vice Chairperson of the Future Water Supplies and Water Action Committee.

The proposed changes would see new chairpersons appointed to six key committees:

Finance and Development Committee: Cllr Dumisani Nkomo, Environmental Management Committee: Cllr Donaldson Mabuto, Town Lands and Planning Committee: Cllr Ashton Mhlanga, Future Water Supplies Committee: Cllr Thandiwe Moyo, Health Housing, Education Committee: Cllr Sikhululekile Moyo and Audit Committee: Cllr Aleck Ndlovu.

Cllr Mpofu’s motion was supported by these councillors, Sikhululekile Moyo (WARD 17), Nokuthula  Sibanda (PR CLLR), Josiah Mutangi  (Ward 1), Tavengwa Zidya Ward 24, Metelliah Matunha (PR CLLR) Felix Madzana (WARD 18), Muziwakibo Masuku  (WARD 12), Mmeli Moyo (WARD 22), Lezina Mohamad (PR CLLR), Donaldson Mabutho  (Ward 8), Adrian Rendani Moyo (WARD 9), Aston Mhlanga (WARD 15), Mxolisi Mahlangu (WARD 3), Susan Sithole (WARD 11), Tinevimbo Maposa (WARD 21) and Lovewell Mwinde (Ward 13).

However, some councillors and council insiders view the move as part of a calculated effort to neutralise dissenting voices following the committee’s earlier refusal to endorse the Town Clerk’s contract renewal.

A confidential report from the Chamber Secretary’s Department, dated 27 October 2025, highlights a major procedural flaw in Mpofu’s motion, also noting that a council resolution passed on 7 August 2024, extended committee terms to five years with performance reviews after two years.

The department cautioned there is a significant legislative gap in the Urban Councils Act that complicates the process of reviewing and reconstituting standing committees.

According to the chamber secretary’s legal analysis presented to council, Section 103 of the Urban Councils Act was amended, removing the provision that previously allowed councils to review and reappoint standing committees “in August in any year in which the general election of Councillors is not held.”

“I am of the view that this is a very serious omission by the Legislature,”  stated the Chamber Secretary in the report.

“I do not think that it was the intention of the Legislature not to have a review of the work of standing committees in every year once appointed.”

The Chamber Secretary  reveals that Section 96(8) of the Act, which mandates annual review of standing committees’ work, remains in force but now refers to a repealed section of the Act, creating an impractical situation for municipal governance.

The report adds: “The appointment of Chairpersons is done by the committee concerned and not Council. If all committees agreed that there is a need to change the Chairperson, then they should follow Section 96(6) and (7) of the Urban Councils Act. That section clearly spells out how a chairperson can be removed.”

According to Section 96(6) of the Act, “Every Standing Committee shall, at its first meeting after the appointment of the members thereto, elect one of its members to be Chairman and one of its members to be Vice-Chairman thereof, and may at any time, if the person elected as Chairman or Vice-Chairman ceases to be a member of the committee, elect a member to replace him.”

In essence, the Chamber Secretary’s legal interpretation suggests that Council itself does not have the power to dissolve or replace committee chairpersons at will, and that any such reshuffle must originate from within the committees themselves.

In his submission, Cllr Mpofu couched the motion in the language of leadership development and governance reform.

“The rotation of leadership roles amongst Councillors serves as a salutary mechanism for fostering a cadre of versatile and adept leaders, imbued with the acumen and experiential wisdom garnered through active participation in committee work,” he said.

Mpofu argued that regularly rotating councillors between leadership positions “cultivates an ethos of collective capacity-building and personal development, thereby enhancing the overall efficacy and resilience of our governance structure.”

Despite Mpofu’s justifications, the Chamber Secretary’s comments point to a deeper conflict between Council’s political ambitions and the legal boundaries set by the Urban Councils Act, highlighting the council can make recommendations as long as it does not breach the Act.

The controversy is further complicated by events from August 7, 2024, when the council resolved that committee memberships and chairpersons would serve five-year terms, with performance reviews every two years. That decision stemmed from a motion by Councillor Ashton Mhlanga, which was supported by more than 20 councillors.

At that meeting, several councillors such as Moyo, Mabuto, Sibindi, Mabeza, Ndlovu, including Mpofu himself, debated whether long tenures improved efficiency or entrenched power.

The Mayor, Senator David Coltart, at that meeting highlighted that the Urban Councils Act did not mention anything on the term of Council Committee Chairpersons.

“It should also be noted that a circular or directive was not law. Council could make a recommendation as long as it was not in breach within the Urban Councils Act Chapter 29:15. Coltart suggested that Committee Chairpersons be evaluated after every two years,” said the confidential council minutes.

Thereafter the council resolved: “(i) That the term of office for Council Committee membership and Committee Chairpersons be reviewed to a period of five years. (ii) That Committee Chairperson’s performance be reviewed after every two years.”

These confidential minutes, which were ordered to be kept off public record “and not open for inspection by any person other than a councillor or a council official”  now form the backdrop against which Mpofu’s latest motion is being interpreted, not as a governance reform effort, but as a politically charged counter-move.