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.