GOOD Speech by Wesley Neumann,
GOOD City of Cape Town Councillor
30 July 2026
*Note to Editor: This speech was given in the City of Cape Town Councillor Meeting
Speaker,
The DA-led City of Cape Town is in danger of creating another self-inflicted Good Hope Centre-type scandal. When will we get it right?
Once again, this Council is being asked to make a decision on the disposal of a significant public asset while serious questions remain unanswered.
As GOOD, we, therefore, challenge Councillor Southgate, who follows me in this debate, to forgo his prepared script and respond directly to the critical questions raised here today.
The residents of Retreat deserve clear answers, not political spinning.
As GOOD, we rise to oppose the proposed disposal of this public land, not because we oppose quality education, but because public assets must be managed lawfully and in the best interests of all our residents.
This proposal raises more questions than it answers.
- The property is proposed to be sold at less than market value (only at 25% of its market value); there is no compelling justification that has been presented as to why a private educational institution should benefit from a discounted public asset.
- The City’s own Property Transactions Policy dictates that municipal property should be disposed of through a fair and competitive process, such as a public tender, auction, or call for proposals.
There is no evidence before this Council that such a transparent process has been followed.
- Serious concerns remain regarding the applicant itself.
There is no publicly verifiable evidence that Pro 226 Africa is registered as a Non-Profit Organisation with the Department of Social Development or as a Non-Profit Company.
No audited financial statements, business plans, proof of funding, governance documents or financial guarantees have been provided.
The letter of intention is undated, has no NPO number and does not identify directors or provide any governance framework.
Speaker, we are effectively being asked to dispose of a valuable public asset without adequate due diligence.
- Speaker, the Sub-Council Manager has confirmed in correspondence with me that no public participation process was undertaken, no public meeting was convened, and this disposal of public land never served before Sub-Council 18 as a formal agenda item.
Instead, it simply appeared before Council, bypassing the very forum entrusted with engaging, affected communities on matters of this nature.
- The claimed social return is equally questionable. This proposal is for a private school, not a public school.
There is no evidence explaining affordability for poor families, bursary provision, or how the project will improve educational outcomes for the broader community.
Only a mere mention of R600 per month for school fees, with no ballooning or capping of the % increase after year 1.
Even more concerning is that there is no evidence that the proposed school is registered, or has even formally applied for registration, with the Western Cape Education Department.
The WCED itself merely states that it can only consider the proposal once an application is submitted.
- The site also forms part of the City’s Green Infrastructure Network and overlays a sand aquifer essential for the recycling of water into the ecosystem, while existing infrastructure constraints, particularly sewer capacity, require careful consideration.
Yet there is no evidence of meaningful public participation with the affected community.
Speaker, the burden of proof rests with the applicant, not with this Council or the public.
As GOOD, we, therefore, call on Council to reject this disposal until a transparent competitive process has been undertaken, proper due diligence has been completed, meaningful public participation has occurred, and the applicant has demonstrated its legal, financial and organisational capacity.
Media Enquiries: media@forgood.org.za