Cape Town Mayor Geordin Hill-Lewis is set to appear in the Bishop Lavis Magistrates’ Court this week, following a legal application by a local resident accusing him of harassment and abuse of political authority. The case, which centres on a neighbourhood dispute in Bothasig, has sparked renewed scrutiny over how municipal power is exercised and whether it is being wielded fairly.
The resident bringing the case resides near Hill-Lewis’s mother-in-law and claims that personal tensions have escalated into a campaign of targeted enforcement. According to the complainant, the mayor leveraged his influence over city law enforcement officials to settle what appears to be a personal grudge.
“No elected official should be permitted to use public resources for private agendas, nor should the enforcement of by-laws depend on political proximity,”
said Suzette Little, a representative of the GOOD Party, who has been vocal about concerns over the city’s approach to by-law enforcement.
The resident alleges that law enforcement authorities visited his property four times, each occasion lacking any credible evidence of illegal activity. These visits, he maintains, were not part of a routine inspection but rather part of a pattern of intimidation, orchestrated with the help of the mayor’s office.
Compounding the allegations is a reported email sent by the mayor himself, in which he accuses the resident of operating an unauthorised car repair business from his home. Despite the seriousness of the allegation, none of the subsequent law enforcement visits provided any corroborating evidence to substantiate the claim.
“The selective and politically convenient enforcement of bylaws is not only unjust but also undermines the rule of law,”
said Little, reflecting on the broader implications of the case.
GOOD Party officials have raised this issue previously. As early as April, the party publicly questioned whether Hill-Lewis had used state resources to pursue personal vendettas. They have since demanded transparency in how city enforcement resources are deployed and called for firm assurances that no public funds would be spent on the mayor’s legal defence.
Little’s criticism did not stop at this single incident. In July, she pointed to two additional examples—one in Vredehoek and another in Athlone—where residents filed complaints about businesses operating unlawfully in residentially zoned areas. Despite verified zoning breaches in both cases, she claimed the city had failed to act.
“We have repeatedly expressed concern over the city’s inconsistent and, at times, politically motivated enforcement of municipal bylaws,”
Little stated.
As the mayor prepares to defend himself in court, the incident has prompted a wider conversation about accountability and the risks of personal influence creeping into public office. The public will be watching closely, not only for the outcome of this individual case but for the message it sends about the integrity of governance in Cape Town.
The looming court proceedings may be viewed as a litmus test for how seriously allegations of misconduct are treated, especially when they involve individuals at the highest level of city leadership. Whether this case signals a systemic issue or an isolated dispute remains to be seen, but it has undeniably triggered broader calls for reform and oversight in how by-laws are enforced throughout the city.
