2006 Local Government Elections
Held on 1 March 2006. Results by municipal area, summed from the IEC's voting-district results. No boundary geometry is held for this election's areas, so its results are shown as tables.
Municipal PR ballot: results
Every voter's proportional representation ballot for their municipal council.
| Party or contestant (as listed) | Votes | Share |
|---|---|---|
| AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS | 6 469 420 | 65,7% |
| DEMOCRATIC ALLIANCE/DEMOKRATIESE ALLIANSIE | 1 608 154 | 16,3% |
| INKATHA FREEDOM PARTY | 744 486 | 7,6% |
| INDEPENDENT DEMOCRATS | 217 761 | 2,2% |
| UNITED DEMOCRATIC MOVEMENT | 129 047 | 1,3% |
| AFRICAN CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATIC PARTY | 128 990 | 1,3% |
| PAN AFRICANIST CONGRESS OF AZANIA | 109 816 | 1,1% |
| VRYHEIDSFRONT PLUS | 94 140 | 1,0% |
| UNITED CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATIC PARTY | 62 459 | 0,6% |
| MINORITY FRONT | 42 530 | 0,4% |
| NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION | 35 899 | 0,4% |
| UNITED INDEPENDENT FRONT | 31 018 | 0,3% |
| Others (81 together) | 178 379 | 1,8% |
Show all 93 parties and contestants
Key figures
- Valid votes
- 9 852 099
- Turnout
- 48,0%
- Votes cast
- 10 085 400
- Spoilt votes
- 233 301
- Registered voters
- 21 019 897
- Ballots
- 237
Compare with another local Government election
No map for this election
Boundary geometry for the areas of 2006 is not held. Areas change between elections, so these results are never drawn on today's boundaries; they are listed by area below.
Mpumalanga: by municipal area
Municipal areas as the official results list them for this election
AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESSDEMOCRATIC ALLIANCE/DEMOKRATIESE ALLIANSIEINKATHA FREEDOM PARTYINDEPENDENT DEMOCRATSUNITED DEMOCRATIC MOVEMENTAFRICAN CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATIC PARTYPAN AFRICANIST CONGRESS OF AZANIAVRYHEIDSFRONT PLUS
| Municipal area | Valid votes | Turnout | AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS | Most votes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Albert Luthuli [Elukwatini/Carolina] | 42 274 | 53,8% | 89,7% | AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS 89,7% |
| Bushbuckridge [Bushbuckridge] | 83 229 | 44,7% | 85,2% | AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS 85,2% |
| Delmas [Delmas] | 10 451 | 42,8% | 72,4% | AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS 72,4% |
| Dipaleseng [Balfour] | 9 668 | 52,9% | 76,0% | AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS 76,0% |
| Dr JS Moroka [Mdutjana] | 46 219 | 44,1% | 87,4% | AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS 87,4% |
| Emalahleni [Witbank] | 61 106 | 42,0% | 73,5% | AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS 73,5% |
| Govan Mbeki [Highveld Ridge] | 48 685 | 41,3% | 68,7% | AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS 68,7% |
| Highlands [Belfast] | 10 785 | 48,6% | 83,0% | AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS 83,0% |
| Lekwa [Standerton] | 21 948 | 48,6% | 77,4% | AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS 77,4% |
| Mbombela [Nelspruit] | 103 340 | 47,3% | 85,2% | AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS 85,2% |
| Mkhondo [Piet Retief] | 29 563 | 52,7% | 77,6% | AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS 77,6% |
| Msukaligwa [Ermelo] | 27 095 | 48,9% | 81,2% | AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS 81,2% |
| Nkomazi [Nkomazi] | 65 536 | 52,4% | 92,4% | AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS 92,4% |
| Pixley Ka Seme [Volksrust] | 17 245 | 52,6% | 77,7% | AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS 77,7% |
| Steve Tshwete [Middelburg] | 36 738 | 44,1% | 62,8% | AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS 62,8% |
| Thaba Chweu [Sabie] | 18 053 | 44,0% | 76,6% | AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS 76,6% |
| Thembisile [KwaMhlanga] | 48 592 | 42,9% | 84,7% | AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS 84,7% |
| Umjindi [Barberton] | 11 526 | 44,1% | 82,3% | AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS 82,3% |
Coverage and comparability
What this election's record holds, the delimitation its areas sit on, and which elections it may be compared with
By ballot
- Municipal PR ballot
- Ward ballot
Boundaries and comparisons
Areas of the 2006 municipal delimitation; no boundary geometry is held, so areas are listed by name and code and never drawn on another delimitation's map.
Nationally and by province this election compares with every other local Government election. By municipality: no other election is on the same delimitation, so municipal results are listed per election and never side by side. Wards are compared only within one delimitation.
About this record
Coverage, limitations, source issues and how the figures were checked
What the record holds
- Loaded: the proportional representation (PR) ballot of every municipality, as sums of the IEC's voting-district rows for each municipality (the number of voting districts summed is stored with each figure).
- Municipal areas are those of this election, as the IEC file lists them. No boundary geometry is held for them: results are shown as tables, never drawn on today's boundaries.
- Ward ballots: 3895 wards of the 2006 delimitation, each the sum of its voting districts in the IEC's results file. Ward candidates are not named in the file; every independent candidate in a ward is in one line, "INDEPENDENT", as published.
What it does not hold
- Not loaded in this milestone: ward ballots (each ward of this delimitation would need its own place record), the district council (DC 40%) ballots (the file does not name the district a municipality belongs to), and district-management-area ballots. Their voting-district rows are in the official file (SHA-256 recorded). Update, 9 October 2026: the ward ballots have since been loaded from the same file (notes below); the district council and district-management-area ballots are still not loaded.
- These are the 2006 wards. Ward codes were reissued at each delimitation, so a 2006 ward is not the 2021 ward with the same number and is not drawn on today's map.
Source issues
- 6 line(s) have a garbled registered-voters field next to a party name with an unquoted comma; the voting district's figure is taken from its other lines.
How it was read and checked
- Election date: Polling day as proclaimed in the Government Gazette. The IEC results files do not state the date and the proclamation is not yet among this election's captured documents.
Sources
The official files behind these results
| Document | Role | Retrieved | SHA-256 |
|---|---|---|---|
| IEC 2006 Local Government Elections — full results down to voting-district level (zipped CSV) | Results data | 8 October 2026 | 42785a46247f1bad… |
Turnout 48,0%