Cape Town’s mayor, Geordin Hill-Lewis, has escalated his opposition to South Africa’s District Development Model (DDM), branding it an unconstitutional overreach that undermines municipal autonomy. The city has formally declared an intergovernmental dispute over the regulations, which took effect in May under the Intergovernmental Relations Framework (IGFR) Act.

While the regulations may be unconstitutional, the City hopes to find a more amicable way to influence the national government's designs than to have them completely scrapped.

In a letter to the Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (Cogta), Velenkosini Hlabisa, Hill-Lewis decried the DDM as an unnecessary layer of centralised planning, likening it to a doctrinal exercise in bureaucratic duplication. The regulations require municipalities to draft a “One Plan” in coordination with provincial and national governments. Final approval rests with the Cogta Minister and Cabinet, effectively granting them a veto over municipal strategies.

The strategy aims to centralise control over all development and infrastructure projects in 50 "districts", with national government coordinating with municipalities and provincial governments to align all levels of government with national plans, a central planning doctrine inspired by the Soviet Union and the Chinese Communist Party.

Hill-Lewis contends this infringes on local government’s constitutional prerogative to regulate municipal planning under Section 155 of the Constitution. The city argues that the One Plan duplicates the existing Integrated Development Plan (IDP), a legally mandated framework that municipalities already use to coordinate economic, social, and environmental priorities.

“The IDP is a five-year strategic plan that involves consultation across all levels of government, as well as with residents and stakeholders,” said Hill-Lewis. “The One Plan is redundant, wasteful, and risks conflicting with lawfully adopted municipal plans. Worse still, it imposes a centralised veto, fundamentally undermining local governance.”

The mayor described the DDM as a red-tape burden that diverts municipal resources from service delivery. Efforts to engage the national government during the drafting of the regulations proved futile, leaving the city with no choice but to invoke the IGFR Act’s dispute resolution mechanism.

Hill-Lewis expressed hope for an amicable resolution, calling for either the withdrawal or amendment of the regulations to avoid further litigation. Under the IGFR Act, a dispute resolution meeting must now be convened between Cape Town and the national government, with a facilitator designated to mediate the impasse.

Critics of the DDM have characterised it as an attempt to centralise control over local governance, running counter to South Africa’s constitutional commitment to decentralised authority. As Cape Town takes a stand against this new framework, the dispute highlights the growing tension between municipalities and the national government over the balance of power in managing the country’s development priorities.

‍