Lenasia Interventions and the Newtown Urban Village Evictions: Departmental briefing

Human Settlements, Water and Sanitation

25 July 2013
Chairperson: Ms B Dambuza (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Committee was briefed by the Department of Human Settlements on the Lenasia Housing Problem and the Newtown Urban Village Evictions

Lenasia interventions
The Department said that notable progress had been made by the Special Lenasia Intervention Team instituted by the Minister of Human Settlements to find an amicable, legal, sustainable solution to housing demolitions in Lenasia. The demolition of illegal structures built on government land had occurred following a process that had granted permission for the demolitions to be implemented. Government intervention, in the form of the Special Lenasia Intervention Team, had held consultations with all stakeholders. All parties had agreed to the Lenasia Intervention Framework and had signed off on the framework.  The framework outlined the processes and timeframes all parties would observe to find an amicable solution, keeping in mind ongoing due legal processes which still had to be respected and that the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation, the Hawks, would be investigating the fraudulent sale of land by some people. The Department would recommend that the provincial department approach the courts for the framework to be made an order of the court so that there could be no deviation from the framework. The parties had agreed to monitor the framework to ensure that it was realised and in this regard community organisations had provided information that building activity was taking place at night in the area. The next phase was the household audits and inspections so that a proper analysis could be made regarding demolitions. No more demolitions would take place, no illegal occupation of land and no more construction work would be allowed while the framework was being implemented.

Members said they wanted a copy of the analysis made of the houses when it was completed. Members said it was important that the process continue notwithstanding the change of Minister in the Department. Members wanted to see the detailed Special Lenasia Intervention Team report and what the future plans entailed. Members wanted to hear from the City of Johannesburg regarding electrical connections. Members wanted to know what was happening to the Hawks‘ report. Members were happy that the Special Lenasia Intervention Team was seeking the court’s endorsement but were concerned to hear reports that builders were building at night in the area. What was the situation regarding the regulation of builders building at night and how could loopholes allowing night builders to build at night be closed? Members wanted to know who would be responsible for the cost of rectification of poorly built houses. Members wanted to know how many houses had been built since the intervention. Members said they were concerned about the night builders as the Committee had been told that building was not occurring anymore. Were the good quality houses built by National Home Builders Registration Council builders? Members asked what the time frame for completion of the intervention process was. Members asked if the task team was reporting monthly or quarterly. Members asked what lessons the Department had learnt. Members said the Department should only go to court for something extraordinary. What was the link between the Department, the task team and public representatives? Members said the issue of the amount of money given by the province to the City of Johannesburg needed to be discussed.

Newtown Urban Village Evictions
After a closed debate, the Committee decided not to hear the City of Johannesburg presentation but rather to hear the Department’s presentation.

The Department became involved in the matter in March 2012 via an application from the Newtown Housing Cooperative to rope in the Department in a joint application with the Minister and the provincial MEC for Housing against the Johannesburg Housing Corporation. The judge dismissed the application and the evictions had been finalised, as there had been an earlier application in 2011. The village had been managed by a tenant cooperative. Following management challenges, the village had been auctioned off. The Johannesburg Housing Corporation had purchased the village. In November 2012 a final eviction order was granted. Just prior to the evictions the Department was involved in an engagement process to try and find a solution to prevent the evictions, however there was disagreement on various issues, which prevented a solution from being found. Notwithstanding the failure of the tenant cooperative there were proposals put forward that the tenants be re-established as a cooperative to manage the houses, however the tenants were no longer the legal owners following the liquidation. Further attempts had been made to resolve the issue amicably.

Members asked what the involvement of the Johannesburg Housing Corporation was in the case. Members wanted the challenges faced by cooperatives which led to its collapse highlighted. What were the issues, which led to no amicable solution being found to the matter? In the matter of the cooperative and the National Housing Finance Corporation, what led to the liquidation of the cooperative? Why did the Johannesburg Housing Corporation buy the cooperative land? Did the cooperatives know of the purchase? Members asked if the Premier played any role in this case. Members asked if the Department and the City of Johannesburg had met before the Departments presentation had been sent to the Committee. How many buildings had been illegally occupied in the City of Johannesburg? Members said the Department did not appear to be fully informed on the position of all the relevant stakeholders and this was unacceptable. Members asked how many buildings the Johannesburg Housing Corporation were occupying and were there any other evictions in the offing. Members asked whose funds were used to purchase the buildings for the housing cooperative. What was the Department’s involvement between 2009 and 2012?  Members said the matter was urgent as people had been evicted and living outside.

The Chairperson said that they were not going to accept the presentation of the Department. She said the issue of cooperatives would not be compromised and that the Department had to come up with a solution. 
 

Meeting report

Lenasia Interventions: Department of Human Settlements (DHS) briefing

Mr Kwezi Ngwenya, DHS Legal Advisor, said that notable progress had been made by the Special Lenasia Intervention Team (SPLIT) instituted by the Minister of Human Settlements in November 2012 to find an amicable, legal, sustainable solution to housing demolitions in Lenasia. He noted that the demolition of illegal structures built on government land had occurred following a process, which included court processes, which had granted permission for the demolitions to be implemented. Government intervention, in the form of SPLIT, had held consultations with all stakeholders including legal and illegal residents, Lenasia community organisations and the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC). The meetings and consultations had been coordinated and chaired by the Department.

All parties had agreed to the Lenasia Intervention Framework (LIF) and had signed off on the framework. The SAHRC said it had been satisfied with the consultation process; the number of engagements and the quality and inclusivity thereof. The framework outlined the processes and timeframes all parties would observe to find an amicable solution, bearing in mind ongoing due legal processes which still had to be respected and that the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (DPCI), the Hawks, would be investigating the fraudulent sale of land by some people.

Looking forward, he said the framework stage was completed and the implementation stage would be informed by the framework report. There would be household audits and inspections so that a proper analysis could be made regarding demolitions. Based on this analysis, different households would have different outcomes. The audits would include input from national, provincial, the City of Johannesburg (CoJ) and local government as well as the National Home Builders Registration Council (NHBRC). There would be monthly reports on the implementation of the framework. The Department would recommend that the provincial department approach the courts for the framework to be made an order of the court so that there could be no deviation from the framework. No more demolitions would take place, no illegal occupation of land and no more construction work would be allowed while the framework was being implemented. The parties had agreed to monitor the framework to ensure that it was realised and in this regard community organisations had provided information that building activity was taking place at night in the area. An amicable solution has thus been found and the next phase was the completion of the audit report on each stand and the CoJ‘s plans regarding unoccupied stands.

National Home Builders Registration Council

Mr Mona Molepo, NHBRC Quality Assurance Inspector, said that the NHBRC had done a preliminary visual inspection and found that most of the houses were of good quality; some had shoddy workmanship that needed corrections and some needed to be demolished. It wanted to ensure that builders did not build in the area. Building had stopped but there were some reports that building at night was continuing.

It had started inspection audits which included an in depth check of the integrity of the houses and whether they were fit to be used for habitation. It was compiling a detailed report that would include recommendations. The inspections would start on Monday 29 July 2013 and continue till Friday. It would assist builders and encourage them to join the NHBRC so that they could comply with regulations and enjoy benefits that houses would be covered by the NHBRC five-year structural warranty. The report would be ready by the end of August.

Discussion

The Chairperson requested that the presentation be availed to Members, as it would be difficult to comment on things that were not on the table. The same applied to the Legal Advisor’s presentation; he had elaborated crucial information on framework that had been agreed to. This was not known to Members, but they would nevertheless engage on the matter. Members could only be convinced if they witnessed something.

Ms P Duncan (DA) said she wanted a copy of the analysis made of the houses when it was completed.

Mr S Mokgalapa (DA) said it was important that the process continue notwithstanding the change of Minister in the Department. He wanted to see the detailed report of the SPLIT and what the future plans entailed. He also wanted to see the findings of the audit report on the houses and wanted to hear from the CoJ regarding electrical connections. He wanted to know what was happening to the report of the Hawks. He was happy that SPLIT was seeking the court’s endorsement, but was worried to hear reports that builders were building at night in the area. What was the situation regarding the regulation of builders building at night and how could loopholes allowing night builders to build at night be closed? He wanted to know who would be responsible for the cost of rectification of poorly built houses.

Mr K Sithole (IFP) wanted to know how many houses had been built since the intervention.

 Ms J Sosibo (ANC) said she was concerned about the night builders as the Committee had been told that building was not occurring anymore. Did NHBRC builders build the good quality houses?

Ms Duncan asked what the time frame for completion of the intervention process was.

Ms Sosibo asked if the task team was reporting monthly or quarterly.

The Chairperson asked what lessons the Department had learnt. She said the Department should only go to court for something extraordinary. What was the link between the Department, the task team and public representatives?

The Department could not afford to come only in emergency situations. This government would never get anywhere if used the approach of intervening only when there was chaos. What programme was there to ensure that Government did not get into these sorts of scenarios. Now that this had happened in Johannesburg, it would happen elsewhere.

Wasting government resources on court process was not a sustainable way to run a government. Court route should only be involved in extraordinary circumstances. Why should the courts decide Government programmes, she asked rhetorically. The officials were there to uplift government.

She said that she raised the issue about Lenasia because that piece of land had been available for a while without being developed. Government knew there was a challenge of the gap-market; occupants of that land were not poor at all; but of course those poor people who were there exploited an opportunity of moving into that land with those who could afford to construct their own houses. The President had agreed that there was a challenge with the gap-market. Why did officials fail to realise the need to address the issue of the gap-market? Officials should play an advisory role to politicians. She said she personally did not need to be advised incorrectly. This was not to criticise, but officials should do the job they were paid to do. As things stood, it appeared that delivery was stuck, and the country could not afford such a situation.

She asked what the link was between the task team and public representatives. Public representatives had a role to play, particularly regarding those who invaded land at nighttime. What programme was there on how to engage public representatives, as remaining in offices was not sufficient? The Lenasia matter was a lesson to the national Department, and the success of the framework created for the task team on how to deal with the matter would be for the whole country. The framework would be a reference point to all such future occurrences. But also the Department was equipped with the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land (PIE) Act (No. 19 of 1998) on how to act on abruptly erected structures.

The Department appeared disinclined to implement the Act; why this happened? She warned that there would be no changes to the PIE Act until officials implemented it to the letter. Thereafter the Department could bring up challenges; but could not raise challenges even before it had implemented the Act.

The Chairperson said the official was vague on the matter, and could only say people built over night. This was not sufficient, as it was agreed that officials had to come up with a system or mechanism, not whistleblowers. There had to be a systematic mechanism involving all government structures. It was even elucidated that there had to be people hired to do patrolling duties; it was proposed that funding from national be availed. Government should take responsibility of that area; a concrete response to the Lenasia matter was needed that even Parliament could be proud of.

Regarding night builders, Mr Ngwenya replied that at the previous Monday’s meeting the issue of night builders had been raised by members of the task team. The task team had resolved to demolish these buildings without compromise. Monitoring has been intensified.

This was also a lesson the Department had learnt, that it needed to work closely with the community. The Community itself was calling on the night builders to refrain.

The task team was meeting monthly.

Regarding the CoJ’s future plans, he said the CoJ was part of the task team that was developing the comprehensive report, which would include time frames on future building plans.

Another lesson the Department had learnt was that once all structures were involved there was more likelihood of finding a common solution and a common vision even to the extent that it helped community development in general.

It was public record that the Hawks had already arrested some people and there were other court cases that were pending. It had asked the CoJ and the province to provide details of the cases, which would be part of the comprehensive report. Going forward it wanted a thorough audit of the land indicating what belonged to the city and what belonged to the province.

Mr Mboweni Shabangu, DHS Director: Investigations, said seven people had been arrested for fraud, one person had been sentenced to prison for his role in the illegal sale of property. Government officials had been arrested with one currently appearing in court and one awaiting judgement in September. The Hawks expected to make further arrests.

Mr Molepo said that the houses were of NHBRC standard however the NHBRC wanted to do forensic testing of the foundations of the houses to see if they complied with the design. Another purpose of the audit was to find whether there were alternative solutions for houses earmarked for demolition through remedial work. The question of who would carry the costs had not yet been discussed as one was still at the stage of establishing the amount that was required, and this would inform the decision of who would carry the costs.

The Chairperson said that the issue of the amount of money given by the province to the CoJ needed to be discussed.

Mr Mokgalapa pointed out that the issue of the cost when it came to rectification, regarding the NHBRC, had not been clarified. Who would carry the cost?

The official replied that the issue of who would carry the cost for rectification had not been discussed. What needed to happen now was to quantify and come up with the amount that was required. The report would inform some of the decisions in future to indicate the risk that the Department sat with. The report would hopefully be completed by the end of August.

The Chairperson interjected and said that rectification was the responsibility of the builder; this needed not to be discussed. This cost could not become Government’s burden. It was the builder who should bear the responsibility. She urged officials not to get involved in that situation, and said the discussion should be centred on that; Government should never get involved in the issue of the cost.

The billing of the province by the City should be discussed, as it amounted to an untenable situation of government taking government through legal proceedings. The matter should be tackled and the City should bring back that money. The failure was on the part of the City, and yet it continued to charge and bill the province. Officials should discuss that and prepare a report, so that when they came back to Parliament again Members were enlightened as to what happened on the matter.

Newtown Urban Village Evictions: DHS briefing

After a closed debate, the Committee decided not to hear the CoJ presentation but rather to hear the Department’s presentation.

Mr Shabangu said that the Department got involved in March 2012 via an application from the Newtown Housing Cooperative (NHC) to rope in the Department in a joint application with the Minister and the provincial MEC for Housing against the Johannesburg Housing Corporation (JHC). The judge had dismissed the application on the grounds that the national and provincial government bodies could not join in the application. The evictions had been finalised, as there had been an earlier application in 2011.

The JHC had purchased the village and took ownership following the liquidation of the village in July 2009. The village had been managed by a tenant cooperative. Following management challenges, the village had been auctioned off and in November 2012 a final eviction order was granted. Just prior to the evictions the Department was involved in an engagement process with the CoJ, Social Housing Regulatory Authority (SHRA) and the National Housing Finance Corporation (NHFC) to try and find a solution to prevent the evictions. However there was disagreement on various issues, which prevented a solution from being found. There was agreement though that cooperative still had a role to play. Notwithstanding the failure of the tenant cooperative there were proposals put forward that the tenants be re-established as a cooperative to manage the houses however the tenants were no longer the legal owners following the liquidation. The NHFC was involved in attempts to prevent the sale. Court records indicated that there was improper conduct on the side of the tenants. The tenants were not poor and therefore the court did not order JHC or government to provide alternate accommodation to them. Further attempts had been made to resolve the issue amicably. Further engagements were necessary to improve the cooperative management system.

Discussion

The Chairperson quipped that officials tended to think they were intellectuals while they were not. When officials came before Parliament they should come as “one government”. Members were not interested in disjointed presentations; officials needed to supplement and link with each other’s work. If there were additions, they needed to be added on to a flowing presentation, but one must avoid starting absolutely new things.

Mr Mokgalapa asked what the involvement of the JHC was in the case. He wanted the challenges faced by cooperatives, which led to its collapse highlighted. What were the issues, which lead to no amicable solution being found to the matter? In the matter of the cooperative and the NHFC, what led to the liquidation of the cooperative? Why did the JHC buy the cooperative land? Did the cooperatives know of the purchase?

Ms Sosibo asked if any role was played by the Premier in this case.

Mr Sithole asked if the Department and the CoJ had met before the Departments presentation had been sent to the Committee. He said most of the challenges had occurred in 2009 but the Department had only become involved in 2012. How many buildings have been illegally occupied in the CoJ?

Ms Duncan said the Department did not appear to be fully informed on the position of all the relevant stakeholders and this was unacceptable.

Ms Sosibo asked how many buildings the JHC were occupying and were there any other evictions in the offing.

The Chairperson asked whose funds were used to purchase the buildings for the housing cooperative. What was the Department’s involvement between 2009 and 2012?

The Chairperson asked what COPE Housing Association was, and what had become of the programme. Whose funds were used to purchase the building for the housing cooperatives? Secondly, the Johannesburg Housing Company should have come to the Committee and clarified its role in all of this. How did it manage to buy the building? Where was the national Department all this time since 2009? Had officials not realised something loomed; what was the national Department’s responsibility with regards of course to such issues as the mandate, vision and the mission?

The mandate of DHS was to ensure that the nation was housed; the question was how the Department would ensure that everyone in the country got a proper house. How were the citizens protected from scrupulous opportunists who would want to grab every cent at their hands? The properties in question were at the City centre. The City just evicted people just so it could do business; what was the City of Johannesburg’s role within the human settlements portfolio. What agenda was the City pushing?

The Chairperson said that the NHFC should have been at the meeting, and it was not clear how the SHRA was mentioned in the presentation. SHRA was an entity only for social housing. She said that it appeared the City did not care if people died so long its objectives – which appeared opposite to Government’s programme – were achieved. Officials did as they pleased, simply because they had money to defend their actions in court.

She asked if, following the wrangle, stakeholders had been able to sit and discuss issues, especially that she had personally called and instructed the DG to facilitate such meeting. She said that she had been monitoring the situation, and understood that officials had failed to honour the instruction. What did the national Department do about that, with regards to its own entities - SHRA and the NHFC? The Department was accountable for whatever mishaps happened within the portfolio; it could not be that as a decision maker, the Department would want to walk away from the risks and responsibility.

Mr Zacharia Matsela, National Chairperson: South African Housing Co-operative Association (SAHCA), said that intervention by the Department was crucial as far back as 2005. The management challenges of the cooperative were issues that had been raised by the cooperative then already and it had approached the Department to establish a body to assist these types of entities to manage a housing cooperative.

Regarding the loan that the NHFC was alluded to have had with the cooperative. There was also a proposal by the cooperatives to the NHFC on the payments made by the cooperative. The only response was to go to court and call for the liquidation of the buildings.  The Department should have taken action then already to protect the properties even before the legal processes had been started. There had been lots of interaction and correspondence between the NHFC and the SAHCA but with no success. The Department was aware of the issues but was reluctant to do something. An intervention similar to the North West Housing Cooperative’s issues should have happened in the Newtown case.

The land that had belonged to the cooperative and been earmarked for social activity purposes had been fraudulently sold in collusion with the CEO of the JHC. As a cooperative movement there was a need for a task team to investigate as there were claims and counter claims from the various parties. Unfortunately the evictions had had an impact on the security of evictees living outside the premises and on the schooling of the children of evictees. He acknowledged that the non-payment of rentals was true. However, the Department was making decisions without consulting stakeholders. It was unfortunate that the JHC and the NHC were not present. He said that funding should be found to pay out the current owners and resuscitate the cooperative.

The Chairperson said that she was not going to accept the presentation of the Department. The Department had had ample time to look at the judgement and the Committee needed to study the judgement. She said that the issue of cooperatives would not be compromised and that the Department had to come up with a solution.

The Chairperson irately pointed out that officials needed not be in contact with lawyers while in Parliament, as the institution was not a court of law. Members would not accept this because they did not have an opportunity to read the presentation. Pages and slides could not be availed to Members while the meeting was ongoing. This was highly inappropriate and out of order. Members had not seen this judgement as it only had just arrived. If the officials were under the impression that questions would be asked based on it, they were mistaken. This meant nothing to Members until such time they had a thorough consideration of the paper. It would not be proper for officials to be moving around the room pointing out information to officials. The Committee was not happy with this report; officials had failed Government.

She reiterated her statement that the Government could not be operated from a court of law. The issue of housing cooperatives would not be compromised; officials had to come up with solutions.

She insisted on her question as to whose money was used to buy the building in City centre, particularly if officials could clarify the role played by COPE Housing Association. Did it assist the cooperatives in any way? She requested officials not to try and be intellectual, but stick to relevant and simple answers.

Mr William Jiyane, DHS Chief Director: Stakeholder and Intergovernmental Relations, acknowledged the Chairperson’s point and said that the presentation did lack input from the JHC and the NHC.

The Chairperson said she wanted a copy of the record of the meeting in which she had requested that interventions be done by the Department.

Mr Mokgalapa said the matter was urgent as people had been evicted and were living outside. The Cooperatives Amendment Bill [B17B-2012] had also recently been passed (May 2013) and he requested that all stakeholders be present at the next meeting on the matter.

The Chairperson said she did not want to see things being settled in court. They had to be resolved outside of court.

The meeting was adjourned.

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: