SONA 2026: A Planner’s Applause for Repair, and a Call for a Bolder Spatial Vision

President Cyril Ramaphosa’s 2026 State of the Nation Address (SONA) is, for town planners, one of the most explicit acknowledgements in years that South Africa’s crisis is spatial, infrastructural, and municipal before it is ideological.

It is a speech about fixing systems, rebuilding institutions, and restoring basic services. In that sense, it speaks directly to the everyday lived reality of South Africans: water that does not flow, trains that do not run, and municipalities that cannot perform.

The President does not hide behind abstractions. He states plainly that “poor planning and inadequate maintenance of water systems by many municipalities are the main cause of the problems we are going through now.”

For planners, this is a rare and welcome moment of honesty. It confirms what years of infrastructure audits, IDP reviews, and municipal distress signals have shown: the collapse of services is not accidental; it is the result of long-term planning failure, weak asset management, and governance decay.

He goes further and frames the water crisis as a symptom of a deeper institutional problem: “Water outages are a symptom of a local government system that is not working.” This is a critical insight. It shifts the debate from emergency water trucking and short-term fixes to the structural reform of local government, which is where spatial planning, infrastructure planning, and service delivery meet.

The announcement of a National Water Crisis Committee, chaired by the President, signals a decisive turn towards central coordination and intervention. Combined with the commitment to intervene in failing municipalities and hold municipal managers accountable, this reflects a more interventionist developmental state approach, something many planners have long argued as necessary in a context of widespread municipal incapacity.

Equally significant is the plan to overhaul the local government system through a revised White Paper. The President concedes that “the current system is too complex and fragmented” and proposes “a differentiated approach to municipal powers and responsibilities.” From a planning perspective, this is potentially transformative. South Africa’s one-size-fits-all municipal model has forced small, weak municipalities to carry responsibilities they simply cannot manage, while metros with real capacity are often constrained by the same rigid framework.

On infrastructure, the speech is unambiguous in scale and intent. Government has committed more than R1 trillion in public investment over three years to build and maintain infrastructure, calling it the largest allocation of its kind in the country’s history. This matters enormously for spatial planning. Infrastructure investment does not just support growth; it shapes settlement patterns, economic corridors, and urban form.

The speech also shows a growing awareness of South Africa’s dysfunctional urban form. The President acknowledges that in our cities and towns, most people live far away from workplaces and services, and responds by arguing that we are remaking our cities by expanding affordable housing and revitalising commuter rail.

More importantly, there is a clear policy shift in housing: from building houses for people to supporting them to build, buy, or rent their own housing. For planners, this signals a move away from peripheral, state-driven housing projects towards more flexible, potentially better-located solutions.

The reference to District Six grounds this in the moral geography of South Africa’s cities. Its destruction is described as a painful reminder of the responsibility to redress the injustice of the past and to build vibrant and cohesive communities. This is not just about restitution; it is about land, location, and spatial justice at the heart of the city.

Yet, for all its strengths, SONA 2026 remains stronger on repairing the state than on reshaping space. Climate risk is acknowledged through references to recent floods, but the response is framed largely in terms of disaster funding and recovery.

From a planning perspective, this may not be enough. South Africa needs to adopt risk-informed development as a clear national position and organising vision for how and where we build.

This means mainstreaming climate and disaster risk into spatial development frameworks, land-use schemes, infrastructure investment decisions, and housing delivery, so that public money no longer reinforces exposure to floods, droughts, heat stress, and coastal and riverine hazards.

Framed this way, climate change is not only an environmental issue but a core question of spatial justice, fiscal sustainability, and long-term economic resilience. Until risk-informed development is articulated and enforced as a country-wide planning vision, South Africa will continue to pay for disasters that could have been prevented through better spatial choices.

Similarly, while infrastructure investment is massive, the speech is light on an explicit national spatial vision. We hear what will be built and fixed, but not clearly where growth should be concentrated or how spatial inequality will be systematically dismantled. Without this, there is a risk that South Africa will build better infrastructure yet continue to reproduce the same fragmented and unequal geography.

Crucially, South Africa already has a nationally agreed spatial instrument in the National Spatial Development Framework (NSDF), developed by the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, which is well suited to guide spatial integration in a targeted and coordinated manner. The NSDF provides a strategic basis for directing public investment, aligning infrastructure pipelines, and prioritising areas for growth, consolidation, and protection.

However, its implementation has lagged behind its intent. If government is serious about spatial transformation, the NSDF should be used more decisively as a practical tool to target infrastructure spending, guide human settlements investment, and align national, provincial, and municipal planning. This requires urgent, visible implementation by relevant departments.

In conclusion, SONA 2026 is a serious, grounded, and honest address from a planning perspective. It correctly identifies that service delivery failure, infrastructure decay, and municipal dysfunction are at the core of the national crisis. It makes bold commitments on water, local government reform, infrastructure, transport, and housing that, if implemented, could significantly improve the functioning of South African cities and towns.

But beyond fixing what is broken, South Africa still needs a clear and bold spatial project to truly transform its geography of opportunity.

*The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of the newspaper.*

DAILY NEWS