LGE 2026 Manifestos: Roads, transport and infrastructure promises, and the council’s share of them

What we did: we took the manifesto data for the twelve parties as at 22 October 2026 and counted every promise that the comparison page places under “Roads, transport and other infrastructure”, by the verdict on each. Sources are listed at the end.

We also keep Integrity Watch, a public register of documents that were corrected, withdrawn, refunded or punished after someone found made-up material in them.

This folio is about a different kind of check. It asks which of the roads, transport and infrastructure promises in election manifestos sit within a council’s powers.

The 2026 local elections in short #

The vote. South Africans vote in local government elections on 4 November 2026. They choose the councillors who run 257 municipalities: 8 metropolitan (big-city), 44 district and 205 local. The Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC) certified 136,790 candidates for 10,526 council seats. On 15 October 2026 the Constitutional Court directed the IEC to take the steps needed to put 181 ANC candidates on the ballot in six municipalities, so the final count will change. On 16 October 2026 the IEC said 32 other parties in the same position would get the same relief.

How many parties. 732 political parties are registered with the IEC at various levels. The IEC says 546 of them nominated candidates for this election.

What a council does. South Africa has three spheres of government: national, provincial and local. Part B of Schedules 4 and 5 of the Constitution list the matters a municipality may administer: 38 in all. Among them are drinking water and domestic waste-water and sewage systems, electricity and gas reticulation (the local networks), refuse removal, municipal roads and street trading. Jobs, schools, hospitals, welfare, the courts and immigration are not on those lists. A council can still lobby, partner with or press the government that holds the power.

What a manifesto is. A manifesto is a party’s published list of promises, so that voters can read them and decide.

What Ukweli did. Ukweli has analysed twelve party manifestos for this election. It found 2,419 promises and quoted each in the party’s own words, with its page. It checked each promise it could assess against the Constitution’s lists of what a council does. Where a sentence is too short or vague to test, or Ukweli’s checks did not settle it, the card says “Could not be assessed by Ukweli”. Where a sentence promises several things that fall under different powers or spheres of government, the card says “Mixes different powers”. Both labels describe Ukweli’s check, not the party.

Who is in. The twelve parties are shown below. Ukweli analyses any 2026 local government manifesto it can obtain from the party’s own publication. That is a rule about documents, never a judgement about a party. Parties have reported 19 manifesto launches; for the other seven, Ukweli cannot reach a readable document online. Many other parties contest the election, and this folio does not cover them.

Each party’s assessment is one click away.

ACDPRead the assessment →ActionSARead the assessment →AMMRead the assessment →ANCRead the assessment →BOSARead the assessment →DARead the assessment →EFFRead the assessment →FF PlusRead the assessment →GOODRead the assessment →IFPRead the assessment →SACPRead the assessment →UDMRead the assessment →

Each button opens that party’s assessment on ukweli.io in a new tab, so this page stays open. Party logos belong to the parties and are shown for identification only. Ukweli is not affiliated with any party.

What Ukweli does not do. It does not score, grade, rank or endorse any party. It does not say whether a promise will be kept or whether it is affordable. A promise outside a council’s powers is not a false promise.

Figures in this section as at 22 October 2026. They come from the IEC, the Constitution’s schedules and Ukweli’s manifesto pages (sources at the end), and they move when a manifesto is added or the IEC publishes a new figure. Errors: hello@ukweli.io.

Who is responsible for roads, transport and infrastructure? #

South Africa has three spheres of government: national, provincial and local. For roads and transport the question that matters is who owns the road or runs the service, because the answer decides whether the matter sits within a council’s powers. Ukweli’s table of powers lists “municipal roads” on Schedule 5, Part B of the Constitution and “municipal public transport” on Schedule 4, Part B. They are two of the 38 matters on the two municipal lists.

The table limits the roads item: “municipal roads only — national and provincial roads are not a municipal competence.” It attaches one check to it: “National and provincial roads are not the council’s. A district council holds roads that form part of the district’s road system.” The checks named in the table are section 84(1)(f) of the Municipal Structures Act and section 11(1)(c)(xvii) of the National Land Transport Act. A district council is the municipality above several local municipalities (a category C municipality). So the same promise to fix a pothole can sit within a council’s powers on one road and not on the next.

Public transport is set out differently. The table attaches no further check to municipal public transport. It lists passenger rail (Metrorail and the like) as a separate item, with “National (the Passenger Rail Agency)” as the main power. For a council it says: “A council plans rail service levels in agreement with the rail agency. The Minister may assign a rail function to a council.” Read against the Act: section 11(1)(c)(xix) makes a municipality responsible for service level planning for passenger rail “in agreement with the Passenger Rail Agency or other rail service providers”. Section 11(2) lets the Minister assign to a municipality “any function contemplated in subsection (1)(a)”, which is the list of the national sphere’s functions, and the word rail does not appear in that list. Telecommunications, which covers internet access, is a third item with a national main power.

The data does not say who owns any particular road, or who runs the buses and taxi ranks in any particular place. This folio does not say either.

What the roads, transport and infrastructure promises are #

We counted every promise in the twelve manifestos that the comparison page files under “Roads, transport and other infrastructure”, one of its ten themes. We found 192, and every one of the twelve manifestos has at least one. Some sentences hold more than one promise, and we count each separately. Each promise sits under one theme only. A text search for “road” or “pothole” finds 26 other promises under other themes, mostly under “Running the council” (15). A search for public transport, taxi, bus or rail finds 14, mostly under “Safety and crime” (6) and “Jobs, local economy and small business” (5). They are not counted here.

Almost half carry no verdict. That is a limit of Ukweli’s check. Of the 192, 100 carry a verdict. The other 92 (47.9%) do not: 31 mix different powers and 61 could not be assessed. Across all 2,419 promises on every topic the share is 22.9%. We say this first because it limits everything below. Every share in this folio is a share of the 100 that Ukweli could place, and the 92 are not in it.

The theme is wider than roads. Of the 192, 61 contain the word road, pothole or bridge. Taxis are mentioned in 22 and Wi-Fi, internet, broadband or fibre in 11. Eight of the 11 promises led by another sphere are about internet access. They are filed here as infrastructure. A theme count says where a promise is filed, not what a manifesto contains.

Party by party #

Some parties have many promises filed under roads, transport and infrastructure and some have few. The counts below say how many promises are filed under this theme for each party, and nothing about how good they are or how much of a manifesto is about the subject. All twelve parties have at least one promise filed here. Ten have at least one within a council’s own powers. FF Plus (4 promises filed here) and GOOD (5) have none filed here within a council’s own powers; their promises are in the other groups, as the table shows.

Inside a council’s own powers #

Of the 100 assessed promises, 48 (48.0%) are on a matter the Constitution gives a council, so the council does not need another sphere’s permission to act on them. Across all 1,865 assessed promises from the 12 manifestos combined, on every topic, 392 (21.0%) are within a council’s own powers. That says nothing about money or capacity. A promise can cite more than one matter. Across the 48, the matters cited most often are municipal public transport (26), municipal roads (20), stormwater management systems in built-up areas (6), traffic and parking (5), public places (4) and municipal planning (3).

All 20 that cite municipal roads carry one check. Ukweli’s table attaches it to the roads item, not to the wording of a sentence: national and provincial roads are not the council’s, and a district council holds roads that form part of the district’s road system. So a pothole promise sits within the council’s powers only on roads that are the council’s. Of the 20, 17 mention a road, pothole or bridge. The other 3 are about taxi ranks and name no road. We counted how many of the 17 say whose roads they mean. The answer is 8, in words such as “municipal roads”, “the roads we own” or “distinct from provincial transport roads”. For example: “We must fix the roads we own, repairing potholes and maintaining roads, bridges, drainage and stormwater infrastructure.” (ANC, page 22). The other 9 mention roads, potholes or bridges and do not say whose, for example “ActionSA will maintain the roads communities already have while progressively addressing infrastructure backlogs.” (ActionSA, page 18). This counts how a sentence is worded. It is not a judgement of the party. The check is in the table for all 20, even where a sentence names no owner.

The 26 that cite municipal public transport carry no further check in the table. They include promises about buses, taxi ranks, taxi permits and transport planning, such as “Every Mayibuye Municipality will have a Municipal Owned Bus Company.” (AMM, page 29). One names the limit itself: “Where municipalities have responsibility for public transport, they must provide services that are reliable, safe, accessible and properly integrated with the wider transport system.” (ActionSA, page 57). Taxis are mentioned in 8 of the 48. Two of the 26 also cite municipal roads, so they carry the roads check as well.

The other matters are smaller in number. They include traffic and parking, such as “Ensure that there will be no unnecessary and unlawful impoundment of taxis by municipal law enforcement officers” (EFF, page 66), and municipal airports (1 promise).

The 48 are not all the same kind of promise. Ukweli records what kind of act each sentence commits to:

• Deliverable (31): the sentence commits to making something exist or providing something, and a reader could later check whether it happened. For example: “Every Mayibuye Municipality will have a Municipal Owned Bus Company.” (AMM, page 29).
• Aspiration (5): the sentence states a result the party wants but names no act that would produce it. For example: “Where municipalities have responsibility for public transport, they must provide services that are reliable, safe, accessible and properly integrated with the wider transport system.” (ActionSA, page 57).
• Process (6): the sentence commits to how the work is organised, paid for or overseen, rather than to the result itself. For example: “Repairs will be prioritised based on safety risk, road usage, weather conditions and available resources.” (IFP, page 12).
• Type not settled (6): no kind is shown. Ukweli’s data records the kind as not checked, and we did not look further.

An aspiration is not a worse promise than a deliverable. The kind says only whether the sentence names an act that could be checked.

Led by another sphere, council has a role #

Of the 100 assessed promises, 11 (11.0%) are here, against 189 of 1,865 (10.1%) across all topics. Seven parties have at least one. None of the 11 is about a road, a pothole, a bridge or a taxi. They are about two things that Ukweli’s table places with a national power: passenger rail (3) and internet access (8).

Passenger rail (3). All three ask for rail to be moved, or devolved (handed down from national government to a lower sphere), to councils or metros. PRASA, in the first quotation, is the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa.

• “Consider moving Metrorail from PRASA where municipal capacity exists to build a locally managed, safe and integrated rail service that fits seamlessly into other public networks through a one-ticket commuting service;” (ACDP, page 8).
• “Advocating for the devolution of passenger rail management to capable metro authorities, to restore the safety and reliability of commuter rail.” (BOSA, page 20).
• “Continuing to fight for the devolution of passenger rail.” (DA, page 46).

The table’s fact for these is whether a rail function has been assigned to that council. Its check is an assignment under the National Land Transport Act, s 11(2) and (3), made through the Constitution, s 156(4), and the Municipal Systems Act, ss 9 and 10. The word devolution is used in four sentences in this theme. Two are here. One is a party’s own conduct (the DA sentence in the “A party’s own conduct” section below) and one has no verdict (GOOD, page 3).

Internet access (8). Eight promises offer Wi-Fi zones, internet access points or broadband. AMM has three, UDM three, ANC one and IFP one.

• “Mayibuye will build public Wi-Fi by setting up free internet zones in public parks, libraries, and transit hubs.” (AMM, page 48).
• “Practical internet access points at libraries, community halls and other suitable municipal facilities, especially in disadvantaged areas.” (UDM, page 4).

The table names the Minister of Communications and the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA) as the national power. It says a municipality “may offer connectivity at facilities it controls”, and that networks run for commercial purposes at municipal scope need a class licence from ICASA. Section 5(5)(a) of the Act lists “electronic communications networks of district municipality or local municipal scope operated for commercial purposes” among those needing a class licence. The words about connectivity at facilities the council controls are the table’s own; they were not found in the sections of the Act read. The check in the table says the licence rules are “NOT yet checked” against the regulations themselves. The group is “Led by another sphere, council has a role”. So it does not say a council can do nothing. It says the main power is not the council’s.

How the council runs itself #

The 32 promises here (32.0%) are about the council’s own machinery: how it plans, budgets, contracts, maintains and reports. Across all topics the share is 39.7%. Of the 32, 20 are about maintenance: AMM has seven, ActionSA four, ANC and FF Plus two each, and BOSA, DA, EFF, IFP and UDM one each.

• “Mayibuye will establish a complete municipal asset register and regularly assess the condition and useful life of critical infrastructure.” (AMM, page 28).
• “At least 8% of the value of every municipality’s assets invested annually in infrastructure maintenance and renewal.” (ANC, page 24).
• One speaks to the road question directly: “The constitutional distinction between municipal and provincial roads will be respected, but bureaucratic boundaries will never become an excuse for potholes and dangerous roads.” (AMM, page 61).

In Ukweli’s table these rest on sections of the Constitution about efficient use of resources, accountable and open administration, budgets, contracting and a council’s right to act on matters reasonably necessary for its functions. They sit apart from the 48 within a council’s own powers because they are about how the council works, not what it provides.

Outside a council’s powers #

Seven promises (7.0%) are outside a council’s powers, as Ukweli placed them. Across all topics the share is 17.5%. The subjects the data gives are:

• Local economic development, jobs and enterprise (4). The table’s reason is that no item on the municipal lists covers local economic development, employment or enterprise support as such.
  • “Mayibuye Municipalities will work towards the subsidization of the taxi industry.” (AMM, page 29).
  • “Mayibuye Municipalities will lower travelling costs by creating discount programmes for long-distance commuters from low-income peripheral zones to economic hubs.” (AMM, page 29).
  • “service the taxi industry” (ANC, page 23, a fragment).
  • “Ensure that municipal infrastructure supports industrialisation, investment, economic growth, and the expansion of local enterprises.” (EFF, page 69).
• Mineral resources and social and labour plans (1). “Demanding infrastructure-development agreements where mining expansion creates additional municipal infrastructure requirements;” (AMM, page 68). The table’s reason is that neither municipal schedule lists mining.
• Welfare, social development and gender-based violence support (1). “Provide safe and reliable transport for the elderly SASSA beneficiaries on days when they collect their pensions and social grants.” (EFF, page 66). The table’s reason is that welfare services are a Schedule 4 Part A function, shared by national and provincial government.
• No subject recorded (1). “Secure the urgent regravelling of the R524 from Louis Trichardt/Makhado through Thohoyandou to the Punda Maria Gate of the Kruger National Park.” (EFF, page 65). The data marks the subject as not in the table. The data does not say who owns the R524, and this folio does not say either.

The taxi promises fall in different groups depending on the act. Of the 22 that mention taxis, 8 are within (for example ranks, permits and impoundment), 2 are outside (a subsidy for the taxi industry, and the fragment “service the taxi industry”) and 12 have no verdict. Two sentences on page 66 of one manifesto both offer transport to pensioners. One is within a council’s powers: “Provide safe and reliable subsidized transport support for pensioners, people living with disabilities and unemployed persons.” The other is outside, and it is the SASSA promise above. The data places the second under welfare. A promise outside a council’s powers is not a false one. It names a matter the municipal lists do not give a council.

A party’s own conduct #

Two promises (2.0%) are here, both from the DA. They are about what the party itself will do, not a function of the council: to comply with a standard, and to advocate for the devolution of passenger rail management. Across all topics the share is 11.6%.

• “DA-run local governments will comply with this standard because a burst pipe or a failing power station that could have been prevented with routine maintenance costs residents far more in the long run than the maintenance itself.” (DA, page 12).
• “The DA will continue to advocate for the devolution of passenger rail management to capable metros to restore safety and reliability.” (DA, page 46).

The promises with no verdict #

Of the 192 promises, 92 (47.9%) carry no verdict. Across all 2,419 promises the share is 22.9%, so roads, transport and infrastructure is higher. The reasons:

In plain words, the third row means this. For 38 promises, Ukweli could not place the sentence, and its notes for why did not pass Ukweli’s own tests. So the card shows no verdict. It is not a finding about the promise. The second row means Ukweli’s checks gave different answers. The fourth row covers checks that were malformed (10) or could not classify the sentence (8).

We searched the 92 for the words road, pothole, bridge, taxi, bus, rail, transit, transport, traffic and commut. Of the 92, 61 contain one of them and 31 do not. Of those 31, 20 use the word infrastructure, for example “fixing infrastructure” (DA, page 4). The other 11 name services such as water, electricity, lighting, parks or Wi-Fi.

Of the 31 that mix powers, 22 contain a road or transport word. Of those 22, 19 also name another service, such as water or electricity. For example: “Mayibuye Municipalities will service priority land with roads, water, sanitation, electricity, stormwater, lighting and waste services” (AMM, page 37). One verdict would be wrong for part of such a sentence. We do not guess. The card says so.

Many road or transport promises are among the 92. Of the 38 that Ukweli could not place, 28 contain one of the words. For example: “Maintenance of municipal roads, stormwater systems, and street lighting.” (UDM, page 4). Some of the sentences that name national, provincial and municipal roads together have no verdict.

• “Every national, provincial, regional and municipal road passing through a Mayibuye municipality will be mapped and its condition monitored.” (AMM, page 60).
• “Where provincial or national authorities fail to maintain their roads, Mayibuye municipalities will urgently seek maintenance agreements, agency arrangements and joint programmes” (AMM, page 61, cut short here).

A rail promise is among them too: “Free off-peak public transport: Through modal integration and the devolution of rail and scheduled bus services to the City” (GOOD, page 3, cut short here). We do not fill these gaps by guessing.

Our view #

This is the folio’s own view. It is kept apart from the counts above.

The first thing to say about this theme is how much Ukweli could not place: nearly half. That is a limit of this check, not a fault in the promises. Many are short lines, or list roads with water and electricity in one sentence, and one verdict cannot fit a list. Where Ukweli could place a promise, the largest group is within a council’s own powers (48 of the 100), followed by how the council runs itself (32). The sharper question for a voter is whose road it is, because 9 of the 17 promises within a council’s powers that mention a road, pothole or bridge do not say whose road they mean. Public transport is the second question. Ukweli’s table puts municipal public transport on a council’s list, and puts passenger rail and internet access with a national power. A voter can ask which of these sit within a council’s powers, and which need another sphere to agree.

Questions to put to any candidate #

1. Which roads in our ward are ours to fix, and which belong to another sphere of government? What is the plan for each?
2. How long will a reported pothole take to fix, how do I report it, and where will you publish the results?
3. Who runs the buses, taxi ranks and trains in our area? If it is not the council, what will you do about it, and who has to agree?
4. How much of the budget will go to maintaining what we already have, and what will you publish each year so residents can see it?
5. If the plan is free Wi-Fi or broadband: at which municipal buildings, who pays, and what approvals does it need?

Promises counted in two folios #

No roads, transport or infrastructure promise is also counted under another theme. So none is in the Safety folio (Folio 10), the water folio (Folio 11), the electricity folio (Folio 12) or the waste folio (Folio 13). We searched the 192 for these words: immigra-, migrant, migration, border, illegal foreign, foreign national, deport, undocumented, illegal alien and xenophob-. None of the 192 contains one. The same words find 14 promises among all 2,419, and none of those 14 is filed under this theme. Folio 09 counts 16 immigration promises by its own search, which this folio does not repeat. Of the 100 assessed promises, 98 are among the 1,649 promises about council business that Folio 08 counts across every topic. The other two are a party’s own conduct, which Folio 08 does not count. Each folio stands alone.