Bulawayo’s Deputy Mayor, Councillor Edwin Ndlovu, has defended the legitimacy of the 5 November 2025 full council meeting which approved the extension of Town Clerk Christopher Dube’s contract, directly contradicting Mayor David Coltart, who has publicly dismissed the same meeting as “illegal, chaotic and threatening.”
In a detailed written statement, Ndlovu insisted that the meeting was properly constituted and that all resolutions passed, including a possible five-year extension of the Town Clerk’s contract, remain legally binding. The three-page statement outlines the sequence of events, council procedures, and the Deputy Mayor’s interpretation of the law regarding fixed-term contracts and retirement age.
According to Ndlovu, the meeting did not violate any standing orders, nor was it abandoned as claimed. He said councillors had already expressed their position on the Town Clerk’s contract before the chairperson (Mayor Coltart) left the meeting. He argued that the chair’s role is to guide proceedings, not to override the will of councillors.
Ndlovu further stated that after Coltart walked out, councillors resolved to continue the meeting under the leadership of Councillor M. Mahlangu, who chaired the remainder of the session. He said 28 councillors remained present and endorsed the final resolution extending the Town Clerk’s contract by one year to November 2026, with an additional four years from December 2026 to November 2030.
He also dismissed claims of intimidation or disorder, challenging anyone alleging harassment to report the matter to the police.
The Deputy Mayor’s clarification follows Mayor Coltart’s earlier public statement describing the meeting as unlawful and marred by hostility. Coltart argued that once he adjourned the session, any continuation was invalid.
Ndlovu, however, maintains that no formal adjournment was necessary and insists the process adhered to council rules. He urged Bulawayo residents to “ignore personality clashes and side-shows” and focus on service delivery, which he said remains council’s primary mandate.
The conflicting accounts highlight deepening divisions within the city’s leadership over the Town Clerk’s future — a dispute now playing out publicly as both sides defend their version of events.
