ActionSA has declared it will not support the City of Johannesburg’s 2025/26 budget if it retains the contentious R200 monthly electricity surcharge imposed on prepaid customers. The party accuses the African National Congress (ANC)-led coalition of reneging on a prior agreement to eliminate the fee before the new fiscal year commences on July 1.
The surcharge, introduced in July 2024, was intended to fund infrastructure maintenance for City Power. However, it has faced widespread criticism for disproportionately affecting low-income households, as it applies regardless of electricity consumption. ActionSA contends that the flat-rate fee is unjust and regressive, placing undue financial strain on vulnerable residents.
In a statement, ActionSA’s Johannesburg Chief Whip, Lebo Modukanene, emphasized that the party’s support for the budget is contingent upon the removal of the surcharge. “We saw in the adjustment budget that it was not scrapped, and they said it would be scrapped in the budget, but we are still going to find the surcharge. This means more strain or burden will still be placed on residents to fund this budget,” Modukanene stated.
The City of Johannesburg had previously proposed increasing the surcharge to R270, but this plan was retracted following public outcry and clarification that the higher figure was a typographical error in the draft budget. Finance MMC Margaret Arnolds confirmed that the surcharge would remain at R200, excluding VAT.
ActionSA has proposed an alternative, means-based model that includes a tiered surcharge based on verified income and usage, recovery of revenue from illegal connections and defaulting high-use customers, and expanded compliance in property and business licensing. The party asserts that this model could recover between R2.7 billion and R4.4 billion, exceeding the revenue from the existing surcharge without penalizing prepaid customers.
As the budget vote approaches, the ANC-led coalition faces mounting pressure to address the concerns raised by ActionSA and other stakeholders. The outcome of this dispute will have significant implications for the city’s fiscal planning and the provision of essential services to its residents.
