Cape Town Deputy Mayor Eddie Andrews responded on 24 September 2026 to Daily Maverick’s series analysing the Municipal Planning Tribunal (MPT), rejecting claims that the tribunal is dysfunctional or captured. Andrews described the MPT as a statutory body that applies law, policy, and evidence to make independent decisions, addressing findings that its rulings aligned with City recommendations in nearly 90% of cases.
Daily Maverick’s analysis of 1,328 MPT decisions found that in 1,192 cases (89.8%), tribunal rulings matched the City’s recommendations closely. Administrative penalty matters aligned in 929 of 966 cases (96.2%), while land-use application decisions converged in 263 of 359 cases (73.3%). The outlet questioned whether this high alignment undermined the tribunal’s independence.
In his official response, Andrews emphasised that the tribunal’s independence is not measured by how often it disagrees with officials, but by its willingness and ability to fully consider each matter and reject recommendations if justified. He said, “The MPT functions independently, and to imply a different interpretation is disingenuous.”
He further explained that approximately 54% of applications before the tribunal in the last financial year concerned administrative penalties, with the remaining 46% related to planning decisions. Andrews argued that citing averages without detailed context about the scale and gravity of contraventions in each case is misleading. “Devoid from context and case specific facts in each instance…, the average stated in your question is not helpful and/or a logical measure to consider or apply,” he said.
Daily Maverick had also raised concerns about public objection processes, noting objections were seldom mentioned explicitly in recorded decisions. Andrews clarified that objections and comments are always considered within the full report behind tribunal rulings, even if not restated in the formal minutes. “Where the MPT decides an application (whether approval or refusal), this is only done after due consideration of the full report including any public objections and/or comments received,” he said, adding that repeating objections in the minutes is unnecessary and does not imply inadequate consideration.
The series also reported that the City removed the national term limit from its planning tribunal by-law, describing the national regulation as an “overreach” on municipal authority. Andrews did not elaborate on this but confirmed the matter is subject to an ongoing appeal process and declined further comment pending the Planning Appeals Authority’s decision.
The debate over the tribunal’s independence is central to public trust in Cape Town’s urban planning governance. The near-perfect pattern of decision alignment with City recommendations fuels concerns about rubber-stamping, yet the City insists the tribunal’s formal and transparent processes fulfil legislative requirements. Independent outlets have verified the core statistics from Daily Maverick’s investigation but highlight that assessing the quality of tribunal independence demands more than examining numerical concordance alone.
As the appeal on tribunal by-law changes progresses, questions remain unresolved about how closely aligned planning institutions should be before functional independence is compromised. Cape Flats News will monitor developments, including any appeals rulings or further City responses, to keep readers informed.