Follow-up meeting: Engagement with DPWI, SAPS and City of Ekurhuleni: Brackenhurst and Brackendowns Residents Petition; with Minister

Meeting report

The Chairperson reminded the meeting that Ms Tsholofelo Bodlani, a DA Member of Parliament, had submitted a petition asserting that the Brackendowns Police station was not conducive to the public or South African Police Service (SAPS) staff. The Committee was convening for the third time to deliberate on the matter. At the first meeting, Ms Bodlani, the SAPS and Ekurhuleni Municipality made presentations. At the second meeting, follow-up information was received to enable the Committee to compile a report for submission to the House.
 

She expressed concern about the late arrival of the report from the Department. However, it was decided to proceed with the matter.

Apologies were submitted on behalf of the Minister and Deputy Minister of Police.

The Chairperson reminded Members that there had been a request that issues between the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure (DPWI), the Ekurhuleni Municipality and the SAPS must be ironed out.

Mr Sihle Zikalala, Minister of Public Works and Infrastructure, apologised to the Committee for the late submission of the report. He asked the Acting Director-General (DG) of the Department to proceed with the presentation.

Ms Nyeleti Makhubele, Acting DG, informed the Committee that they had agreed to have one presentation on behalf of the three stakeholders. She introduced Mr Morris Mabinja, Deputy DG: Real Estate Management Services, to proceed with the presentation.

DPWI on Brackendowns police station recommendations

Mr Mabinja said his presentation would provide a joint presentation in response to the recommendations made by Portfolio Committee concerning the Brackendowns police station in meetings held on 22 February and 17 May.

The Committee had requested the DPWI, the SAPS and the City of Ekurhuleni to engage and resolve disputes, to develop a solution-driven initiative/programme to address the challenges, and then to present a joint report to the Portfolio Committee.

He said there was an existing valid lease between the DPWI and the City of Ekurhuleni. The lease started from 1 April 2019 and would expire on 31 March 2028 at a monthly rental of R24 537.29 pm, with an annual escalation of 7%. The DPWI had been processing the payments to Ekurhuleni on a monthly basis in line with the above lease contract.

The three departments, the DPWI, SAPS and Ekurhuleni, had met on 22 May. The DPWI and Ekurhuleni had agreed to convene an urgent meeting on 23 May to assist the City in allocating the rental payments.

The immovable asset register of the DPWI confirmed that Portion 1 and 2 of Erf 3231 Brackendowns Police Station, Alberton, had erroneously been transferred to the municipality as part of R293 properties, when townships were devolved to local municipalities. The new developments therefore nullify the recommendations of the feasibility study of September 2022 to acquire the property, and the Land Affairs Board outcome of December 2018.

Recommended solutions were therefore to transfer the property back to the DPWI. The timeline for this process of transferring back the property would include a letter to the metro informing them of the decision that was dispatched on 23 May. Submission of the request to transfer the land back to the DPWI had to be done by September, with Council approval by February 2024. A conveyancing attorney would be appointment by April 2024, and the transfer of the land back to the DPWI should be finalised by June 2025.

The process of development and construction could commence as soon as the Council resolution was issued and permission to occupy and build was granted.

Mr Mabinja said there were numerous properties across the country where a similar process must be followed.  The Department would start with a list provided by the SAPS of all properties to be acquired from the City of Ekurhuleni. The initial request was submitted in 2018. The DPWI and Ekurhuleni had agreed to conclude a memorandum of understanding (MOU) for properties that would be acquired for use by SAPS by the end of June 2023. The list of properties in the MOU must be subjected to a valuation process before an acquisition was initiated, and the time frame would be determined once all the information was provided. The DPWI would review the valuation report through the Land Affairs Board, and a date/time frame would be determined once the valuations from the municipality were received and were in line with the approved budget. The DPWI, in consultation with the SAPS, had concluded that the acquisition process should be finalised in the 2024/25 financial year.

Discussion

Ms M Hicklin (DA) asked if the DPWI still owed money to Ekurhuleni. Based on the figures provided in a Council meeting and the subsequent reconciliation meeting between DPWI and Ekurhuleni, was there an agreed outcome on the outstanding amounts? She also pointed out that the presentation confirmed her view that there was an urgent need for an accurate immovable assets register. She was concerned that other police stations were sitting with a similar problem that could be resolved if there was an accurate immovable asset register.

She was concerned that the Property Management Trading Entity (PMTE) was not currently a trading entity, as it was not operational. If it were operational, they would have picked up the problems before it had reached such a drastic stage. She asked if the existing site was sufficient for the needs of the Brackendowns police station, and if it would meet the requirements of the client department. She noted that work on the building could start earlier, and asked why the final transfer would take place only in 2025.

Ms A Siwisa (EFF) asked when the Department had realised that the property should belong to them, and not to the municipality. It was unacceptable that they owned property -- it was transferred to another entity and then they paid rent on the same property. She raised her concern that no concrete solutions for the state of the police station or the way the people were treated had been provided. It was concerning how long it took the DPWI to provide acceptable accommodation for the SAPS -- from the head office to the police stations.

Mr W Thring (ACDP) appreciated that the different entities had met and found a way forward. It was a pity, however, that it took this long to get to this point to find the error, and it once again showed the need for a credible and accurate asset register. In light of the fact that the property should have belonged to the DPWI, what was happening to the rent paid to Ekurhuleni, and would there be any reimbursement?

He also raised the lack of proper accommodation for the SAPS, and asked why DPWI was not considering temporary structures, like the pre-fab structures used at other police stations since the 1990s. The current situation was an indictment on the public and the working conditions of SAPS members.

Ms S Van Schalkwyk (ANC) asked if this property was part of the 2017 list of properties that were supposed to have been transferred to the DPWI, or was the omission of the property from the list was the reason why the transfer would take so long. What would the financial impact on the DPWI be?

She asked if the statement during the presentation, that there was processing of payment, was an indication that a lesser or no amount was owed to Ekurhuleni. Had all of the properties which were listed in 2017 been identified and transferred to the DPWI asset register, or were some of them still registered to the City of Ekurhuleni? She raised her concern about the timeframes and the envisaged date of transfer, as this would impact the maintenance and building schedule for better offices. Additionally, she shared the previous speaker’s concern about the size of the erf, and whether it would be sufficient for the needs of the Brackendowns police station.

Ms Hicklin asked if DPWI could track and enlighten the Committee on how the erroneous transfer had taken place. She also asked if the technology of Agrement SA would be considered and used.

Ms Van Schalkwyk asked when the Hanekom Commission, which was mentioned in the presentation, had been established, what its objective was, when it reported, what the recommendations were, and which of the recommendations had been implemented.

The Chairperson read a question from Mr I Seitlholo (DA), as he struggled to speak due to flu. He had asked who in the PMTE was responsible for these properties, and who specifically should have knowledge about them.

The Chairperson thanked the Department, the SAPS and the City of Ekurhuleni for meeting and resolving the obvious issues. However, it was concerning for this to have occurred, and it made a person wonder how a department did its work. Numerous buildings belonged to the DPWI that were currently illegally occupied -- how many of those buildings had been erroneously transferred? She also supported the other Committee Members in their concern about the extended timelines for the transfer of the property. It should be possible to shorten these timelines, as it was a government-to-government transfer.

Response
Ms Makhubele (DPWI DG) informed the Committee that they were still in the process of reconciling the accounts before a final answer could be provided regarding the money paid or owed to Ekurhuleni. Additional to the payments, an error in the escalation rate also had to be corrected and reconciled. She indicated that the June 2025 date for the conclusion was rather generous, but they were cautious in their estimations, as a number of steps were beyond the control of their officials.

She said the size of the property shown in the presentation was the size of the building, and she would forward the size of the land to the Committee. She confirmed that the letter, as mentioned in the presentation, had been sent to the City of Ekurthuleni. This property was listed as a leased property, and after this process, the property would be listed as a property to be acquired or transferred. The error around this property had occurred quite some time ago, and had been picked up by the asset register team.

Mr Mabinja (DPWI) clarified that the meetings of 22 and 23 May were two different meetings. The first was a meeting of the three entities -- the DPWI, the SAPS and Ekurhuleni. The second meeting was a follow-up meeting of the region. He reiterated that the Department would be able to occupy the premises in terms of a permission to occupy (PTO) and start with maintenance and building as soon as the Council resolution was passed.

Maj Gen Anna Sithole, Ekurhuleni District Commission, SAPS, informed the Committee that a list of all properties leased from municipalities had been submitted to the Department, as these properties were not maintained and had therefore deteriorated. The Brackendowns police station was on this list, and there were a number of police stations in the same situation as Brackendowns.

Mr Khotso Motaung, Executive Manager: Disaster and Emergency Management Services, City of Ekurhuleni, confirmed that it had been clarified that the DPWI had been paying rent into an incorrect account. The City would assist in seeing how they could best speed up the process to ensure the Department could occupy the property and start renovations as soon as possible. The final date of transfer was set on a generous timeline to ensure all the committee processes in Council could be complied with. He indicated that the resolution to Council would be in terms of a donation of land to the DPW,I and the recommendation would be that the DPWI would be responsible for any costs in terms of the land transfer.

Follow-up questions

Ms Van Schalkwyk asked for a response to her questions about the Hanekom Report.

Ms Siwisa said the City of Ekurhuleni had made accusations that the DPWI owed them the rental towards this property. It had now come to light that the money had been paid into the wrong account. Before these allegations were made, had there been any communication with the DPWI about the outstanding amounts? She also asked for clarity on the statement that transferring property to municipalities was an ongoing process. If the DPWI had a shortage of properties to host sister departments, why were properties being transferred to municipalities?

Ms Hicklin asked for a response on Agrement SA. She also said that it was a requirement, in terms of the Government Immovable Asset Management Act (GIAMA), that there must be regular communication between the DPWI and its user departments. Ekurhuleni had indicated that the bank account had changed from Nedbank to ABSA, so how was it possible that the DPWI was unaware of this change? She referred to a statement in the presentation about the valuation of land, and asked for clarity if there was more land than just the police station property that was affected by this process.
 

Responses
Ms Makhubele confirmed that the discussions with Ekurhuleni had been about all the police stations in the City that were on leased land, and all of these properties would form part of this process. She indicated that the SAPS must approve the use of the Agrement SA material as suitable to use, and it would then be considered.

Mr Danie Pretorius, Immovable Asset Unit, DPWI, indicated that the Hanekom delegations from 1997/98 had determined that the then Department of Land Affairs had donated the R293 townships of 1962 to municipalities to upgrade the township registers to provide title deeds to the people who lived in the houses in these townships. That meant the whole township had been transferred -- lock, stock and barrel -- to the municipality. However, as part of the delegations, it required that all state functions must be transferred back to the state free of charge.

As per her question, Ms Van Schalkwyk requested that the details of the Hanekom delegations be submitted in writing. She expressed her concern about other properties that might have erroneously not been transferred back to the DPWI. She requested that the Department look into this matter and report back to the Committee with a proper analysis.

Ms Makhubele confirmed that such a report would be provided to the Committee.

Minister Zikalala indicated that it was essential for the DPWI to have constant engagements with client departments to ensure information around changes was communicated and implemented timeously. He said the issue of the asset register needed attention. Although it was a moving target, it needed to be implemented and kept up to date. He agreed with the Chairperson and Ms Hicklin on using Agrement SA, and as it was an entity within the Department, its efforts must be consolidated. He also agreed that the project management team (PMT) must become operational and be practical and meaningful.

The Chairperson requested that questions asked during the meeting for written replies must please reach the Committee within seven days. She asked that all attempts be made for the timeline that had been presented be shortened, and that the matter be resolved as soon as possible. She expressed her appreciation that the City of Ekurhuleni had made some acknowledgement that payments had been received from the DPWI.

She reiterated that the main focus must be that proper police stations should be available to the members of the public. She added that with all the information, a report would be drafted and submitted to the House for consideration.

Adoption of minutes

The minutes of the meeting held on 24 May were adopted, with the amendment that Mr Seitholo had been absent but had submitted an apology.

The meeting was adjourned.