Ga-Rankuwa/Mabopane Petition; Breede Valley Municipality Petition

Meeting report

Mr A Tseki (ANC) stood in as acting Chairperson in the absence of Ms R Semenya (ANC).

Ms N Khumalo (DA) asked that Committee Members attend meetings as stipulated, as their absenteeism delayed the Committee’s progress. This was after Committee Members had had to be called to attend the meeting to at least form a quorum.

Apologies noted were from the Minister and Deputy Minister of Human Settlements and Committee Members.

The Acting Chairperson called upon the Department of Human Settlements (DHS) to make its presentation on progress regarding the Garankuwa/Mabopane (MAWIGA) petitions.

MAWIGA community petition

Ms Ngaka Dumalisile, Acting Director-General, DHS, introduced the Department’s delegation, who would assist with the presentation and answer questions during deliberations. Present were Mr Vusi Tshose, Senior Manager: Stakeholder Relations; Mr Milile Kraba, Parliamentary Liaison Officer; Ms Pamela Dili, Acting Chief Director; and other colleagues.

Ms Dili was assigned to present.

The report was a compilation of inputs made by the following stakeholders:

• National Department of Human Settlements (NDHS)
• North West Department of Human Settlements (NWDHS)
• Gauteng Department of Human Settlements (GDHS)
• North West Housing Corporation (NWHC)
• City of Tshwane (COT)
• The four petitioners

The progress report covered one component in the matter regarding the MAWIGA Community which the Minister was currently resolving -- the four MAWIGA petitioners on whose properties the Public Protector’s investigation had confirmed acts of maladministration and illegal sales and transfers by officials of the City of Tshwane (COT) municipality and the North West Housing Corporation(NWHC). 

In 2018, the Public Protector published a report (Report 14 of 2018) on an investigation into allegations of maladministration by the NWHC and the COT regarding improprieties in the sales and transfers of properties situated within the boundaries of the City of Tshwane by the Corporation.

It had been discovered that three of the four petitioners’ properties, located in Mabopane and Ga-Rankuwa, were illegally sold and transferred by officials in the COT and the NWHC. The fourth petitioner already owned property, located in Ga-Rankuwa, but had not been issued a title deed. This was the matter over which Parliament’s Human Settlements Portfolio Committee had been engaging the DHS to resolve.

The findings of the Public Protector regarding the investigation were as follows:

• The COT, in failing to conclude a township establishment, through the provision of an approved general plan, was guilty of maladministration in respect of all four complainants.
• The NHWC, in failing to transfer the properties in the names of the beneficiaries, was guilty of maladministration.
• There was improper conduct on the part of COT regarding the fraudulent sale of three of the beneficiaries’ properties and failure to compensate the beneficiaries.

The following four petitioners were the victims of the alleged maladministration:

• Mr Ernest Kgasoe (2281 Unit 8, Ga-Rankuwa).
• Mr Michael Mere (2827 Zone 2, Ga-Rankuwa).
• Ms Bongo Sepeng (992 Zone 7, Ga-Rankuwa).
• Ms Marie Ledingoane (309 Block X, Mabopane).

The above-mentioned properties belonged to the Bophuthatswana homeland, under the Bophuthatswana Housing Corporation, and were later inherited by the NWHC under the new dispensation. Some were owned by the Medical University of South Africa (Medunsa) and the Department of Public Works (DPW).

In July and September 2023, letters were submitted to the Office of the Minister and the Director General (DG) respectively, on behalf of the petitioners, indicating that while they appreciated the efforts of NDHS and the Portfolio Committee in raising the following matters for the Minister’s attention, they were not satisfied with the size of the top structures offered to them (50m²). Their case was unique and, amongst other things, budget provision should have been made to enable them to develop their own house plans that suited the sites offered, and consideration must have been given to the fact that the houses that they owned and were sold were not state subsidised (bigger than 50m²). The issuing of Mr Mere’s title deed was long overdue and had been delayed by the COT and NWHC, and the structures on his stand were nearing dilapidation. 

This case had been delayed for 18 years, and their losses should have been considered and compensated. In this regard, the Minister was advised to consider the appointment of an actuary to determine their losses and the monetary compensation due to each one of them. Lastly, they wished to secure a meeting with the Minister.

Ms Dili proceeded to give feedback on the progress regarding each of the four petitioners.

Ms Sepeng

Ms Sepeng accepted land portions offered by the NWHC -- Erf 9059 and Erf 9060 in Ga-Rankuwa Unit 4, measuring at a total of 1 730 m². The contractor appointed by the COT for the Mabopane X1 projects would construct the top structure (50m²). The meeting on 9 October between the COT and the NWHC regarding the unresolved consolidation of rates and taxes resulted in the withdrawal of the summons that had been served to the NWHC by the COT. The NWHC had agreed to consider facilitation of the required power of attorney. The petitioner had rejected the offer for a 50m² house. She requested that funds be made available for her to have her own house plan drawn up, and for the Minister to consider approval for the construction of a house bigger than 50m².

The COT was to finalise the house plan by 30 November 2023, and an engineer would be appointed by December. Construction had been planned to commence in January 2024, and be completed in April.

Ms Ledingoane

Ms Ledingoane accepted land portions offered by the NWHC --12049 and 12050 Block X Mabopane (570sqm) -- and a contractor had been appointed to construct her top structure (50sqm). She had accepted this proposition, and asked that her funds for property development be immediately released, and her house be constructed.

Mr Kgasoe

Mr Kgasoe accepted the land portion offered by the NWHC -- vacant land at Erf 757 Mogwase Unit 2, Rustenburg, measuring at a total of 1 441m². He subsequently requested the NWDHS to view other properties (show houses with alternative building technologies) in projects in Rustenburg. The Members of the Executive Council (MECs) had signed the amended specifications regarding the 50m² house. The petitioner had been contacted to make the required information available for construction to commence. This petitioner, however, was rejecting the offer for a 50m² house, and had requested the Minister to consider approval of a top structure bigger than 50m² in size.

Mr Mere

Mr Mere had been allocated ownership of property 2827 Zone 2, Ga-Rankuwa. The township was situated on the farms Oudekraal Sjambok 726, owned by the COT, and farms on Portions 3 Medunsa 237 JR, owned by RSA, and Portion 4 of Medunsa 237 (privately owned). There were issues with the township establishment processes due to fraudulent activity. Timeframes had been set:

• 31 October 2023 – COT to lift caveats for this portion of land.
• 31 October 2023 – COT to finalise appointment of a conveyancer.
• 31 January 2024 – COT to obtain power of attorney from Medunsa and DPW (to be facilitated by the NDHS).
• February 2024 – COT to complete planning processes.
• March 2024 – finalisation of township establishment and opening of township register, dependent on Deeds Office and required legal processes.
• April 2024 - issuing of title deed (considering the dependencies of the legal process and power of attorney).

Further developments

The NWHC had made R10 000 ex-gratia payments to all the petitioners. However, this dissatisfied the petitioners, as they suggested that the R10 000 amount was insufficient and did not take into consideration their individual losses.

The petitioners had requested expert legal opinion on the losses they had incurred, the revision of the ex-gratia payment amounts based on the losses incurred, and a determination of the COT’s responsibility towards further compensating them.

The petitioners had requested the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee to provide guidance on the most appropriate process to approach Lawyers for Human Rights (LHR). They had approached the LHR and had reported to the NDHS on the lack of cooperation and support by the LHR.

The petitioners had written a letter to the Minister, requesting, inter alia, the Minister’s influence for the appointment of an actuary to determine their losses and the monetary value they deserved.

On 18 May, the chief executive officer (CEO) of the NWHC wrote a letter to the municipal manager of the COT, requesting the COT to furnish the NWHC with the names of the city officials who had effected the illegal sales and transfers of the petitioners’ properties. The NWHC had opened a case in Tshwane where the illegal transactions took place, and a case number was available. The COT had confirmed an internal investigation through the Special Investigating Unit (SIU). However, the perpetrators had not been prosecuted as they were no longer in the employ of the city. As advised by the COT, NDHS had written a letter to the City Manager requesting a status/close-out report.

The NDHS facilitated contact between the petitioners and social workers in the Department of Social Development (DSD) in Ga-Rankuwa and Mabopane. The petitioners were contacted individually for assessment prior to referral. The petitioners had reported to the NDHS that the social workers had advised that counselling must take place once all their matters had been concluded. Ms Sepeng confirmed that the construction of her house must take place at the same time as the counselling support.

To conclude, the petitioners had rejected the 50m² top structures offered to them. They had requested that architects of their choice be appointed to develop their house plans. However, it was government’s opinion that the petitioners should use the architects appointed by the COT and NWDHS because their appointments had followed proper procurement processes.

Through the already existing MAWIGA Ministerial intervention, led by the Office of the DG, the NDHS would facilitate engagements with Medunsa and the DPW to unlock the challenges related to issuing title deeds.

The Committee was given the recommendations. (See presentation).

Ms Dili emphasised the capability and compliance of the involved stakeholders, and concluded her presentation.

Discussion

The Chairperson expressed concern over the longevity of this issue, and asked that the Committee secretary note a request for the Rustenburg meeting report in the current meeting’s minutes.

Mr C Malematja (ANC) asked about the measures in place in an attempt to reach consensus between the Department and petitioners regarding the 50m² property allocation. What was the progress in the case involving the fraudulent municipal officials? What was the progress on the meeting between the Minister and the petitioners?

Ms Khumalo asked to what extent the Department was willing to appease the petitioners’ dissatisfaction with the 50m² allocation. Was the Department certain of its investigations that had resulted in its decision to pay out R10 000 to petitioners? What was delaying the prosecution of the fraudulent officials?

She asked whether the delay in township proclamation was due to the township being in the process of being proclaimed, or other procedural issues. How long would it take Mr Mere to receive his title deed?

Adv M Masutha (ANC) said that it had not been the Department that had deprived the people of property ownership, but rather corrupt municipal officials. Why was the responsibility for compensating the aggrieved now placed on the government?

He said the LHR's involvement was valid only as an advisory party -- it had not been assigned for formal mediation processes. He asked how long it would take the petitioners to acquire ownership of property formally.

Ms M Makesini (EFF) said that the concerned municipality should take responsibility on behalf of the resigned guilty officials, since they had acted with the powers vested by the municipality. What was the progress on the land acquisition processes, as a progress report would be expected by February 2024? Had any land been identified to be given to Mr Kgaose?

Ms N Sihlwayi (ANC) asked that government policies be adhered to, especially for the petitioners to respect the Department’s allocation, since the Department was acting in consideration of policy provisions. Fraudulent municipal officials were supposed to be held responsible, brought to account, and paid from their own pockets.

Responses

Ms Dumalisile said that the Department had done its best, and the reason why there was a discrepancy between prior meetings’ reports and the current one was because the petitioners had previously agreed to the allocations, but had had a change of heart after physically viewing the properties.

Ms Dili explained that Mr Kgaose had accepted the Mogwase property, but after consideration, he had changed his mind due to reasons such as the house being too small, considering that the area was up-market. He had asked for alternatives.

The township had been proclaimed in 2009, but existing land ownership issues, such as the land being owned both privately and by government, were what had delayed progress. The municipal manager of the COT was required to submit a comprehensive report to the Department detailing the consequence management processes and their progress against the fraudulent officials.

The Chairperson asked that the recommendations in the presentation be amended, especially the recommendation regarding special subsidy dispensations. He asked that the disbursement of title deeds be fast-tracked, and as the administration would be changed by April 2024, he suggested February 2024.

Ms Khumalo asked about the timeframes put in place to monitor the COT’s progress on consequence management processes for the guilty officials. She asked that the timeframe be made three months.

The Chairperson approved of this suggestion, and asked that it be drafted as a recommendation by the Portfolio Committee.

Adv Masutha and Mr Malematja each made further amendments and suggestions to the recommendations.

Adv Masutha suggested that legal procedures be followed comprehensively, and that the LHR be omitted from the Committee’s recommendations. The title deed matter had to be resolved by February 2024, alongside a consequence management report by the COT.

Mr Malematja asked that government's procedures and policies be followed, to avoid more problems of this nature from arising.

Ms Dumalile noted the recommendations made by Committee Members.

Breede Valley Municipality petition

Ms Kahmiela August, Chief Director of Human Settlement Planning, Western Cape Department of Infrastructure, introduced the delegation of the Western Cape Government.

Mr Louis Welgemoed, Town and Regional Planner, Western Cape Department of Infrastructure, presented the Breede Valley Petition. This petition had to do with the New Mandela Square housing, with two sites, where one half’s top structure had been constructed, and the other half not – this was due to dense population.

As per the project application, the intention was to develop on the already serviced sites.

It had been agreed that decanting and de-densifying these sites would be the only viable solution to have enough space to continue with top structure construction and conclude Project 3255.

Project 3528 Zwelethemba North of Mandela Square/ Emagwaleni (2000) upgrading of informal settlements programme (UISP) had been identified as the most suitable project to facilitate the decanting of Project 3255.

It had been further agreed that the Breede Valley Municipality would proceed with the planning and implementation of Project 3528, and that a temporary relocation area (TRA) would form the initial phase of Project 3528 to facilitate the decanting of Project 3255’s remaining sites.

The Breede Valley Municipality had submitted a project initiation document (PID) application for Project 3528 North of Mandela Square and Aspad (1315) UISP.

This PID application, served before the project assessment committee, had been approved by the Department.

The Planning Tranche 1.1 claim is currently being processed.

The next step towards project implementation would be the submission of the project feasibility report (PFR) application by the Breede Valley Municipality, which was expected by June 2024.

The Breede Valley Municipality must then submit the project implementation readiness report (PIRR), which was expected by August 2025, to proceed with the implementation of Project 3528.

Project implementation was expected in the 2025/26 financial year, whereby decanting could commence to allow space to become available in Project 3255 New Mandela (652) integrated residential development programme (IRDP) project, and in turn, allow for the construction of the remaining top structures.

Mr Welgemoed further discussed the activity programmes and timeframes. (See presentation).

The municipality concerned was in the meeting, and Ms August asked that they introduce themselves.

The Chairperson spoke out regarding the neglect of municipalities governed by opposition parties.

Councillor Moses Mangali, Breede River Valley Council, addressed the issue surrounding the neglect of municipalities which led to the failure to construct top structures in the other municipal section. The reasons given included exclusionary beneficiary lists, incorrect information, and municipal leaders using municipal benefits to fight opposing political battles. He pleaded with the Committee for the continuation of Project 3255 New Mandela (652) IRDP project. He asked that the Committee come physically to see Breede Valley for themselves, to avoid believing the lies presented in the report.

Ms August and Mr Welgemoed said that the report was an honest and accurate representation of the situation in the municipal area.

Ms August called upon Mr Rob Smith, Director: Housing Project Administration, to give clarity on the figures presented in the report.

The Committee Members expressed confusion over the stakeholders being dealt with, as the province and the municipality seemed to have conflicting perspectives.

Mr Smith provided clarity regarding where the funding had been allocated in past years, with allocations being made towards historical debt, the development of other areas, and particularly the Zwelithini area. He asked that the municipality answer the question regarding the generation of electricity in informal settlements. The provincial government was working closely with the municipality to try meet the basic needs of residents.

Mr David McThomas, Municipal Manager, Breede Valley Municipality, answered on the provision of electricity, saying that it had been provided only in erven developments. He hoped for the finalisation of municipal problems by the end of the municipal financial year in June 2024. Only after this financial year would the issue of electricity distribution be considered.

Discussion

Adv Masutha asked how long electricity had been an issue, and how long it would continue to be one. Who was to be held accountable, to ensure that certain policies may be amended to ensure service delivery? He asked that the stakeholders deal with the issues of prioritisation. It was unfair for citizens to wait for a decade to receive basic amenities.

Ms Khumalo said the politicisation of service delivery was wrong.

The Chairperson questioned the development of three areas, two of which were under the Democratic Alliance (DA), from which there was a positive response, and one where nothing was happening, which was under the African National Congress (ANC). What was the reason? He said the DHS was responsible for resolving this problem, to avoid further politicisation of development. The Committee’s oversight had shown the difference between the reality and what was in the report. He asked Ms Dumalisile to give clarity.

Ms Dumalisile responded that the DHS had had several inter-governmental relations meetings with the municipality, but it had been dissatisfied with the progress of the resolution of municipal issues. These challenges had been long in existence, and it was unfair that they would be carried on into the 2024/25 financial year. She said the DHS would collaborate with the Western Cape provincial government and the municipality to resolve the existing issues.

There were communication issues, which led to an abrupt adjournment of the meeting.

The meeting was adjourned.