Eight metros, no clean audits: the record facing the next councils

Every party seeking control of a metro in the 4 November municipal elections is asking to inherit a difficult public record. The Auditor-General’s 2024/25 assessment found that none of South Africa’s eight metropolitan municipalities achieved a clean audit.

The finding was published on 24 June 2026. It is an audit of an earlier financial year, not an announcement made on Election Day or a prediction of the vote. Its relevance now is the work awaiting the next councils, whatever their composition.

For a household planning a day around a water interruption, or a worker travelling through streets with failed lighting, municipal finance is a question of time, money and safety. A credible account of spending is one part of finding out why a service fails and what will repair it.

The same standard across all eight metros

Government’s list of metros covers Johannesburg, Tshwane and Ekurhuleni in Gauteng; Cape Town in the Western Cape; eThekwini in KwaZulu-Natal; Nelson Mandela Bay and Buffalo City in the Eastern Cape; and Mangaung in the Free State. Each belongs in national scrutiny, alongside the smaller municipalities on which rural communities depend.

AGSA records unqualified financial opinions for Cape Town, eThekwini and Johannesburg’s consolidated group. Across the metros, five received qualified opinions. An unqualified opinion on financial statements with other material findings falls short of a clean audit. Johannesburg’s consolidated group must also be distinguished from the city’s separate accounts.

A clean audit combines credible financial statements with no material findings on performance reporting and compliance with key legislation. A qualification identifies material problems in particular parts of the accounts. Those audit categories should be reported accurately; they do not by themselves establish a criminal conviction or describe the condition of every service.

What the metro report adds

AGSA’s metro assessment reports compliance findings at every metro, and performance-reporting findings at all except Cape Town and Ekurhuleni. It also records formal disputes lodged by Cape Town, Ekurhuleni, Johannesburg and Buffalo City through the audit dispute process. Readers should use the final published outcomes alongside the relevant city’s audited statements and response.

The scale makes this a national issue. AGSA’s June statement says metros and their entities served 8.9 million households and managed R335.97 billion of the local-government expenditure budget in 2024/25. Those are service and budget figures for the report’s period, separate from the voters’ roll and Election Day participation.

Follow the repair, the contract and the payment

The useful question after the election is how an administration will turn an adverse finding into completed work. Residents should be able to trace a recurring fault from its reference number to a maintenance plan, an approved budget, a responsible manager and a verified repair.

The same principle applies to contractors. A payment record should be capable of being matched to the agreed work and evidence that it was delivered. Where a council disputes a finding, it should identify the evidence supporting its position and publish the outcome of the dispute.

TPR’s assessment is that a governing programme should make those steps public. Headline allocations need dates and responsible offices. Progress reports need results that people can compare with the service in their street. Scarce municipal skills should be developed and retained, with appointments judged against the work required.

A baseline for the next administration

The general report’s overview describes this as the final audit report ahead of the elections, while making clear that it does not cover the administration’s final year. It records improvements in timely financial reporting and fewer repeat disclaimers, alongside continuing failures in municipal performance.

That mixed record deserves careful treatment. Improvements should be identified and failures followed through. The standard must apply across party lines: whether public money supports dependable services and whether residents can obtain a credible explanation when it does not.

For the Bay’s specific record, read TPR’s water and audit analysis. To keep a traceable local service record, use the eight-metro fault-reporting guide.