Engagement with PPSA on Human Settlements matters; FS Department of Human Settlements on the Progress made on Recovery Plans

Meeting report

The Chairperson said the purpose of the meeting was to hear from the Public Protector and their team on issues relating to human settlements, and to hear from the Free State Department of Human Settlements (DHS) on their progress on the recovery of the Human Settlements Development Grant (HSDG). She welcomed Adv Kholeka Gcaleka, Public Protector (PP), and requested she begin by making opening remarks and introducing her team.

Adv Gcaleka introduced her team, and said Adv Nelisiwe Nkabinde, Chief Operations Officer (COO), Office of the Public Protector, would present the work done by their Office to the Committee.

Public Protector's response to human settlements complaints

Adv Nelisiwe Nkabinde presented the Public Protector’s response to complaints received on issues related to human settlements. She said most of the complaints received were related to issues regarding reconstruction and development programme (RDP) housing.

There were 82 total cases currently under investigation. These were due to conduct failure, corruption, maladministration, and undue delays. Issues related to RDP housing included not being placed on waiting lists despite applying, finding their allocated housing being occupied by other families, and title deeds not correctly reflecting the rightful owner. Some RDP projects remained incomplete despite being started in 2012.

Implementing projects under the human settlements sector went through multiple stages, so remedial measures had to take place at the national, local and municipal levels. The presentation covered particular reports between 2018 and 2023 that had been brought to the Committee previously, and had added any updates necessary.

Remedial actions suggested across these cases included:

• Investigations and reports being shared with stakeholders;
• Issuing of apologies in cases of maladministration;
• Prioritising the care of those at the receiving end of maladministration, corruption and undue delays, including negotiating ex gratia payments to be paid out to these citizens.

The remedial actions had been delivered in the form of a report signed by the Public Protector, and the resulting actions and closures of these matters were closely monitored by the Office.

Lastly, the Office of the Public Protector listed the various government departments with which they had entered into agreements. The memorandums of understanding (MoUs) existed to better establish the working and collaborative relationship between local governments and the Office.

See attached for full presentation

Discussion

Adv M Masutha (ANC) questioned the Public Protector on their decision to include issuing an apology as a legitimate means of remedial action. Were these requests from the affected parties, or were these suggestions deemed appropriate by the Office itself? He noted that during engagements with the DHS, mention had been made that many affected parties were unhappy with the outcomes of their cases. Ex gratia payments fell under relief, whereas it may be better to consider these parties as requiring compensation, rather than relief. This would allow these parties a higher payout. Had the Public Protector engaged with the municipalities on the role they played in paying out compensation?

He referred a petition that the Committee had been made aware of that accused the DHS of applying political favouritism in allocation processes. Was the PP made aware of this petition? What remedial actions had been taken or suggested to the Department? The PP should extend its scope to deal with issues of accountability, as their scope allows them to hold any structure, including government departments, accountable.

Adv Masutha expressed his concern at the changing of administration within various departments. Many issues brought to one administration had been lost in changing administrative and political offices. He suggested that it had become difficult for the PP to hold members of departments accountable when there had been few administrative staff that had transversed with this change.

Lastly, he commented on the remedial actions by the PP taken under review. He suggested that the Public Protector should publish their remedial action recommendations in such a way that discouraged litigation procedures from occurring thereafter. The PP should develop a new strategy that limits the litigation costs for the Office to deal with. This would prevent future backlogs in cases under remedial action.

Ms M Makesini (EFF) echoed the views expressed by Adv Masutha, and agreed that the Office must implement a resolution that would assist in avoiding backlogs. She suggested that the list of backlogged names and those on the waiting list be presented to counsel, so there was a body to hold members accountable despite changes in administration.

She acknowledged that the ex gratia payment of R10 000 towards those who had not yet received housing was not enough to cover the losses experienced by these people. She specifically made mention of the four families affected in report 18 from 2018, which had considered complaints received within the City of Tshwane.

Mr C Malematja (ANC) expressed his concern about how long some of these cases had taken to resolve, and there was little clarification on the action against fraudulent members. Resolving these issues so slowly did not effectively send a message of warning to other people occupying RDP housing illegally. He requested a special unit to deal with these complaints urgently.

He expressed further concern that the perpetrators in the case of the City of Tshwane had not been mentioned in the reports. What action had been taken against these perpetrators?

The reports had only done a case-by-case analysis of failures in delivering RDP housing. There were large areas where RDP houses were occupied by others who had not gone through the relevant processes. How did the Office of the Public Protector plan to deal with these blanket cases, and the damage that would have occurred while others occupied these houses illegally?

Mr Malematja congratulated the newly appointed Public Protector, and requested that big changes be implemented under her leadership.

Dr N Khumalo (DA) asked the presenters to clarify whether all the cases were addressed in the presentation. What was the relevance of these particular cases, considering there were 82 current cases? At what stages were these cases, and had the Office set a deadline or timeline for when these cases should conclude?

Regarding the remedial actions recommended by the Office of the Public Protector, to what extent was the Office mandated to follow up and monitor their implementation? No mention was made of the findings and recommendations related to the report on the National Rapid Response Task Team. She requested an update on the progress of this case.

Ms Khumalo questioned the Public Protector on their projected or preferred timeframes from the moment they received a case to its conclusion. She agreed with her colleague's comments on the pace at which these cases were concluded, mentioning that some applicants for housing had applied in 1994 and, to date, had still not received assistance from the DHS. This was not an issue specifically related to the City of Tshwane, but continued to be an issue all over South Africa.
 
Mr A Tseki (ANC) echoed the views of his colleagues, and requested clarification on why these cases had taken so long to conclude. Did the Office of the Public Protector communicate with the Department on the implementation processes? Was the role of the PP to confirm or deny claims made in their complaints, or did it extend beyond that?

He requested another meeting where more time could be allocated to understanding what exactly had gone wrong in individual cases, such as the case where an RDP house was reportedly built in the middle of a road. This would better allow the Committee to track the investigation process of these complaints, and the larger issues facing the Department of Human Settlements.

Ms N Sihlwayi (ANC) drew upon previous experiences that the Committee had had with the Office of the Public Protector. She requested that the current administration offer the Committee better transparency on their roles and proceedings, to avoid future negative interactions. She placed emphasis on the Office's responsibility to clearly establish and outline their procedures, timelines and views for the Committee.

She said the Department of Human Settlements receives a fixed budget to build a certain number of houses according to the price per house budgeted, mandated by Parliament. In their recommended remedial actions, the PP should be guided by these policies to mandate and hold accountable the DHS to deliver their mandate. The reports failed to mention the individuals accountable for the failure of the Department to deliver what they were mandated to deliver according to these policies. She suggested that the remedial actions of the PP should be included in the legislation of the DHS, and that their mandate should extend to dealing with the perpetrators of this criminal activity within the Department and other departments within the government.

The Chairperson contributed to the submissions made by the other Members of the Committee. She expressed concern at the fact that five years after the initial complaint was filed in the City of Tshwane, the Committee had still not heard from those involved, and they had chosen to implement only partially the recommended remedial measures.

She requested that the Office of the Public Protector work closely with the Minister of Human Settlements and other executive members, and use a holistic approach to solving issues that arise within the Department, including the blacklisting of companies that had caused considerable delays to the Department's projects.

The Chairperson acknowledged the efforts of the Department to digitise backlogged lists of applications so that changes in administration did not cause great disruption to the progress of providing housing. She requested that beneficiary lists should be updated annually, and cases should be finalised.

She echoed the concerns expressed about individuals illegally occupying government housing. She suggested that the Office of the Public Protector establish a close working relationship with the security cluster to have these individuals swiftly removed. She emphasised a collaborative effort between the Office, various stakeholders and departments, to ensure a swift conclusion of these cases.

Office of the Public Protector's response
 
Adv Gcaleka began by discussing some of the reforms to be implemented within the Office. These included a review process on the issue of timeframes of investigations, and the available complaint forms. There was no longer a recommended timeframe given to complainants -- they were instead given a timeframe according to the complexity of the case, as assessed by an assessment team made up of executive managers. These reforms had been taken on an extensive road show, to discuss the recommendations with various stakeholders, speakers and Ministers.

Adv Gcaleka clarified that the role of the PP was to take remedial actions as opposed to recommending them, according to the Constitution. All remedial actions were required to be in alignment with the available legislation, policies and guidelines. She acknowledged that the greatest challenge facing South Africa, as reported by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) report, was the failure to implement reforms across all spheres of governance. The Office of the Public Protector had made a submission to the Constitutional Court to amend the act to allow for the criminalisation of the non-implementation of remedial actions mandated by the Office. She confirmed there had been a considerable decline in the litigation of cases after the Office conducted reviews and analyses on their previous failures, and they continued to do so.

Responding to the questions posed on the monitoring processes of the PP on the implementation of remedial measures, Adv Gcaleka confirmed that their role would be considered ineffectual should they not be closely monitoring these processes. It was the role and responsibility of the investigator who concluded the report to monitor the implementation processes, which were reported monthly to senior management. Monitoring reports were also submitted to departments, provinces, and the Speaker of the National Assembly. Under her leadership, the implementation of remedial actions had increased from 2% to 18% between January and September.

Adv Gcaleka clarified that the PP should be the recipient of a complaint of last resort, but departments and provincial governments were not timeously or effectively dealing with complaints, and cases were landing in the Office of the Public Protector. She advised the Committee that this would be an issue the Office would deal with soon.

In addressing the issue of illegal occupations and evictions, she advised the Committee that neither the Office of the Public Protector nor law enforcement had the capacity to enforce any evictions, according to the Eviction Act. Court orders must first be granted before any evictions could be enforced, which seriously delays these processes.

Adv Gcaleka confirmed that the Public Protector had no ability to determine an ex gratia amount in remedial measures -- it was the responsibility of the parties in negotiations to decide on an amount.

The Committee did plan to have an inter-departmental meeting related to the current 82 cases before the Public Protector, and their various stages of implementation.

Adv Gcaleka advised that the role of the PP was, first and foremost, the role of an ombudsman with particular responsibilities and powers. Guidelines of 'Ubuntu' outlined that apologies should always be offered to those negatively impacted by government procedures. The PP supported the notion that acknowledgement of wrongdoing should precede other remedial measures to allow for impactful and meaningful mediation.
 
She said that their Office could not directly deal with those found to be committing criminal activity. This could be taken on only within departments or by individuals.

Adv Gcaleka expressed concern about her experience when overseeing allocation procedures. She had found that service providers had been allocated tasks outside of their jurisdiction, including the allocation of housing. She confirmed that the Office of the Public Protector would be doing a deeper investigation into the institutional issues prohibiting these processes from occurring smoothly, and was addressing it as a blanket issue. This included the mandate that the Office had given to departments to conduct audits on the backlogs, and for waiting lists to be reported to their Office.

Adv Nkabinde advised Members of the Committee on the proceedings of their investigations, which included a process of verifying occupants within RDP houses. An audit was still needed to be conducted in other provinces, as this had been done thoroughly only in the Eastern Cape thus far. The reports done thus far would be shared with the Committee so that they could engage more with particular cases, investigations and reports.

Adv Gcaleka offered to share with the Committee the presentation they intended to present to the Minister of Human Settlements on the state of the complaints within the housing sector. This presentation would have more particular details on the cases that lay with the Office.

Discussion

The Chairperson noted that Members of the Committee had follow-up questions, which she would allow. She also acknowledged the request made by Mr Tseki to have a subsequent meeting with the Office of the Public Protector, to allow for more time to clarify the issues raised and to provide the Committee with more concrete feedback.

Dr Khumalo requested that the Public Protector provide clarification on the timeframe of the report to be shared with the Committee, on the state of affairs within the human settlements sector. She also asked that the PP clarify how many of the 82 cases were currently under active investigation. Lastly, what was the progress on implementing remedial actions on the National Rapid Response Task Team?

Adv Masutha thanked the PP for her responses, and acknowledged the work the Committee had done to expeditiously deal with petitions that had been submitted to them. He questioned the role of the Public Protector in holding entire institutions such as municipalities accountable, as opposed to individuals. He believed that this was within the scope of the Public Protector.

PP's responses

Adv Gcaleka responded to Dr Khumalo's question on implementing remedial actions in relation to the National Rapid Response Task Team. She confirmed that the new Minister had disbanded the task team, acknowledging that they were aware that such a committee did not fall under the Department's prescripts. She confirmed that they considered this matter to have been implemented successfully.

She agreed that the Office held institutions accountable. Institutional reports were also collated, highlighting the systemic issues identified by the Office, and recommended reforms and measures to be put in place to correct the identified systemic barriers. Thanks was given to the Committee for expeditiously dealing with petitions at the Committee level, which allowed the Office of the Public Protector not to spend time on basic service delivery complaints.

Lastly, she acknowledged that the 82 cases listed were the cases currently under active investigation. She confirmed that her Office would provide Members with the detailed status of individual cases by 30 November.

The Chairperson proposed that the Committee work closely with the Public Protector to close issues expeditiously, and that it assist with the closure of report 14 on the City of Tshwane.

Progress on Free State DHS recovery plan
 
Ms Rosinah Nghaka Dumalisile, Deputy Director General: Affordable Rentals and Social Housing, Free State DHS, introduced her colleagues from the provincial DHS and asked the Committee to take note of the considerable progress made by their Department.

Mr Ketso Makume, Member of the Executive Council (MEC), Free State DHS, said they had been requested at their previous meeting with the Committee to compile a report after consulting relevant stakeholders and senior management. He thanked the Committee for providing the Department with honest criticism, which guided them towards the considerable changes they had implemented.

Ms Mosa Masimene, Head of Department (HOD), Free State DSD, confirmed that the current focus of the provincial department was to conduct investigations and benchmarking excursions on the quality of housing and asbestos use, amongst other flagged issues. These remained incomplete projects.

Mr Thabiso Makepe, Project Management Unit, Free State DHS, said the financial allocation towards the Human Settlements Development Grant (HSDG) was listed as R848 099 000, but had been cut down to R598 099 000 after the Department had experienced budget cuts. To date, it has spent 52% of this allocated budget. The financial allocation towards the Informal Settlements Upgrading Partnership Grant (ISUPG) was listed as R252 209 000, but it had been cut down to R223 704 000. To date, the Department has spent 10% of its budget. The units identified to be of main concern within the recovery plan included building new units, identifying land and building sites, the removal of asbestos, accreditation, title deeds, and township establishment projects.

Mr Makepe listed the number of projects occurring under each identified unit of concern with the number of projects under various stages of progress. Under township establishment, there were 26 projects, and under infrastructure projects, there were 16 projects. Each individual project was listed in the presentation.

The Department confirmed that it planned to have spent its entire budget by the end of the financial year. Further, they had put measures in place to improve the overall performance of the Department in relation to the allocated grants.

See attached for full presentation

Discussion

Ms Makesini questioned the Free State DHS on the township establishment project. She noted that the number of projects remained quite low. What plans had the Department established to ensure the budget was fully expended, and the number of projects increased?

She asked how many contractors had been removed due to bad performance, and how many projects and areas were affected by the removal of these contractors. How far was the Department in ensuring that new contractors were swiftly hired?

Dr Khumalo agreed with Ms Makesini on the low performance of the township establishment programme. She requested that timeframes be attached to the detailed outline of the projects listed within the presentation.

Ms Sihlwayi said that the Free State had presented a new, higher capacity for the work they planned to undertake. She raised concerns about the project listed under title deeds. Did the Department have a plan to prevent underlying issues from arising? This strategy would allow it to address the technical challenges that may arise before the title deed project begins. This process must be closely monitored.

Ms Sihlwayi also asked the Department if they had given contractors and other processes a timeline, or a projected finalisation date.

Mr Malematja requested that the Department publicly blacklist the contractors and other persons who had delayed or disrupted projects of the DHS, so that they no longer contributed to these projects in the future.

Mr Tseki reminded the Department of incidents of shack invasions that had been taking place within the Free State, which he had raised previously on 20 September. He requested clarity on this issues, as that was not provided in the presentation.

Adv Masutha suggested it was delayed development that had led to the issues alluded to by Mr Tseki, so those who had reached levels of desperation were helping themselves to whatever housing and other resources they could get. Development remained a key issue, and he requested that the Department facilitate a workshop on the logic of township development projects.

How did the Department plan to integrate RDP housing construction into more rural areas, considering that urban areas were currently the only beneficiaries of RDP housing projects?

The Chairperson commented that the presentation had informed the Committee that zero cases had been listed under the accreditation of municipalities. What did this accreditation process aim to achieve, and could the Committee be provided with a reason why there were zero cases currently being pursued under this item?

She also asked if municipalities were contributing to the title deeds project, and if the Department was being assisted by the local work municipalities were able to do.

Free State DHS's response

MEC Makume said the Department had established ‘Title Deeds Fridays,’ which ensured that title deeds that must be distributed to individuals were done so every Friday. They reported this activity to the Department via a WhatsApp group containing all the relevant local municipal leaders. Conveyancers had been appointed to survey and fast track processes that allow townships to be officially established. Community-based organisations, mayors, and ward councillors had all been brought in to work with the Department on issuing title deeds to avoid conflict among various parties.

He said that all projects listed under the recovery plan have been presented to community leaders and the communities themselves, so there was a common understanding of these projects, and that local members formed part of the efforts to sustain and protect them. Community committees had also been established, and their members meet regularly and report back to the Department.

In response to the issue of shack invasions and land invasions, Mr Makume confirmed that incidents of criminality had been isolated and were dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Further, they had established land as suitable for those committing acts of land invasion, to which these people could be relocated.

Ms Masimene agreed that implementing the township development programme had been a slow process. This programme took time to reach its planning finalisation stage before the DHS could go ahead and use the allocated funds.

She confirmed that the contractors had been terminated as a result of the contractors leaving the various jobs assigned to them. An investigation occurred where the Department established the reasons why these jobs had been neglected, and should there be significant findings that would prohibit the project from continuing, those projects would be terminated. She admitted that no list of these contracts was available to Members. The Department intended to begin a process of ensuring that unfinished projects received engineering audits. It was only after these audits took place that the DHS could begin to compile a list of blacklisted contractors, using the evidence from the audit findings.

Ms Masimene acknowledged the slow progress of the finalisation of title deeds. She said they had recently appointed the council of conveyancers who were aware of the time constraints facing the Department, to ensure the speedy completion of title deeds.

She acknowledged the request by Adv Masutha for the Department to facilitate a workshop on the township development programme. The DHS welcomed this suggestion. She clarified that projects included implementing a prototype of a 'smart township'.

Ms Carol Tlali, Chief Director: Human Settlements and Development Planning, Free State DHS, addressed the question about the zero expenditure listed within the budget on the accreditation efforts. This resulted from finalising the appointment of a service provider who would assist in reviewing the accreditation strategies and plans. This process was close to its conclusion.

Ms Tlali also commented on the delays in the township development project's progress. She said that municipalities were facing fines under Section 24 (g). The HOD had engaged with the relevant stakeholders to promote waiving these fines, so that other projects under development could move forward.

Ms Dumalisile said that the accreditation sought to empower municipalities to enable them to deliver human settlements programmes. Municipalities would work under the guidance of provincial governance. Municipalities that had been accredited in the past were not able to perform without the intense support and guidance of provincial leadership. The review of the accreditation process had taken these prior issues raised to better empower municipal governments to render the service they were mandated to deliver.

The Chairperson confirmed with the Committee that there were no follow-up questions, and thanked the Free State DHS for their detailed presentation and answers. She acknowledged the work that had been done thus far to improve the effectiveness of the Department since their previous engagement.

Mr Makume made closing comments, admitting that the Department acknowledged that their beneficiaries were some of the most vulnerable groups in South Africa, and they understood the urgency of their work. He assured the Committee that he was committed to ensuring the effectiveness of the Department.

Committee oversight report

The last agenda item was the oversight report to the Eastern Cape and Western Cape, which Members were taken through briefly for their comments.

The Chairperson opened the floor for the Committee to make amendments and comments on the report.

Ms Sihlwayi commented on the issue of people with disabilities in the Western Cape being allocated housing that did not cater to their needs. She asked whether this had been included, or could be added into the existing document. She also suggested that the report should reflect the recommendation that the Western Cape collaborate with the Department of Social Development and the environment.

The Chairperson added that the report contained no mention of the monitoring of the national Department on the multi-year project. It also did not include the recommendation that all projects required timeframes. She acknowledged that there were many updates that the Committee had required following the recommendations given during this oversight excursion, and she asked the Secretary to reach out to the relevant parties.

The Committee adopted the report, which included the comments of the Members.

The meeting was adjourned.