ATC130204: Report of the Portfolio Committee on Human Settlements on the Oversight visit to Lenasia, Gauteng, dated 27 November 2012
Human Settlements, Water and Sanitation
REPORT OF THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON
HUMAN SETTLEMENTS ON THE OVERSIGHT VISIT TO LENASIA, GAUTENG, DATED 27 NOVEMBER
2012
The Portfolio
Committee on Human Settlements, having conducted an oversight visit to Gauteng
on 19 November 2012 in relation to the demolition of houses in
Lenasia
, reports as follows:
1. Background
In terms of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa of 1996 as
well as Parliamentary Rules, the Portfolio Committee of Human Settlements (the
Committee) has a responsibility to conduct oversight over any executive organ
of State that falls within its portfolio. The Committee agreed to visit
2. Objectives of the visit
The objectives of the oversight
visit were as follows
:
Ascertain challenges or allegations that led to the demolition of houses.
Receive facts from the parties that were affected or involved.
Ascertain who authorised the alleged illegal sale of land and what mechanisms
were in place to take care of the families who were affected by the demolition.
It was also envisaged that the delegation would visit the site and interact
with the families in order to understand their side of the story.
3. Delegation
3.1 Portfolio Committee on Human Settlements
The multi-party delegation consisted of Ms BN Dambuza (Chairperson of the
Committee and leader of the delegation (ANC)); Mr JM
Matshoba
(ANC); Ms G
Borman
(ANC); Ms AC Mashishi (ANC); and
Ms M Njobe (Cope).
The following parliamentary officials accompanied the delegation
:
Ms K
Pasiya
(Committee Secretary); Mr M
Nyatela
(Committee Secretary) and Mr L
Tsoai
(Committee Researcher).
3.2 Members from the Gauteng Legislature
Mr E
Magerman
(Chairperson of the Portfolio
Committee on Local Government and Housing - (ANC)); Ms C
Sodlulashe-Motau
,
Ms P
Masepe
and Mr R
Gudlhuza
accompanied the delegation. The delegation was also accompanied by the
following officials from the legislature: Mr T
Kepedise
(Researcher); Mr M
Masilo
; Mr J
Moteke
;
Mr M
Radibe
and Mr S
Mhlambi
.
3.3 Departmental officials
The
delegation was accompanied by Mr M
Mnyani
(Head of Department) and Ms F
Koloko
from the provincial Department of Local Government and Housing and Mr M
Shabangu
from the national Department of Human Settlements.
4. Presentation by Head of Department: Department of Local Government and
Housing
The Head of Department, Mr M
Mnyani
, reported
that all vacant land is vested within the provincial department and is managed
in terms of the Gauteng Land Administration Act, No 11 of 1996, while any disposal
of land is done through the Gauteng Land Disposal Policy of 2008. He also
reported that part of the challenges with managing the land was the high rate
of land invasions where people illegally occupied land and built temporary or
permanent structures on it. Some invasions were averted while others were not
as they occurred overnight and on weekends while inspectors were off duty.
The investigation into the illegal sale of land was conducted in Johannesburg
South, that
is
Lenasia
,
Ennederdale
and
Lawley
, as far
back as 2006. In 2007, developers were arrested for the illegal sale of land in
those areas. More complaints came forth and investigations were widened and an
audit was conducted. It was found that properties of the provincial department
were illegally sold or occupied and occupants of the land were constructing
houses.
The provincial department started to demolish houses under construction. By the
time of the audit, 678 stands were illegally occupied, and in
Ennerdale
and
Lawley
the
estimated number of stands affected were 1 000.
4.1 Investigations and civil cases
In September 2010, two of the syndicates were arrested for the illegal sale
of land in the aforementioned areas and the third suspect was arrested in June
2011. In April 2011, all complaints of the illegal sale of land were referred
to the provincial Hawks and the Housing Task Team and 10 more cases of fraud
were opened. One of the accused in the five cases that were on trial was an
employee of the City of Johannesburg Municipality.
The illegal occupants secured an interim court order preventing the provincial
department from demolishing their houses and the court also ordered that the
illegal occupants should also stop construction. The department filed
affidavits in court to request the eviction of the occupiers and the applicants
(illegal occupiers) also filled counter applications. In March 2011, the court
ordered that the matter be referred for mediation for the applicants to explain
how they acquired the properties. The outcome of the mediation was that of the
168illegal occupants, only 11 applicants responded, and only three applicants
were found to have applied and were on the demand database of the department.
The department approached the court to seek a final order and the court ruled
that the applicants (illegal occupants) whose names appeared in court papers
were ordered to vacate the properties they were occupying. The applicants were
ordered to remove or demolish their structures within 30 days, failing which
the department had the right to remove or demolish those structures.
4.2 Internal controls by the provincial department
It
was reported that parallel to the legal process
taking its course, the provincial department put in place key internal controls
to contain the land loss problem, particularly through the illegal sale of
land. Other controls were exercised through the following:
An Internal Provincial Land Task Team was established consisting of the Land
Management Directorate, Legal Advisory Services, Planning, Anti-Fraud and
Corruption Unit, and the Assets Disposal and Regularization Directorate (ADARDI).
The provincial Portfolio Committee met to consider all matters relating to land
in the province and brought together all units that played a role in this
regard. Part of its urgent matters included the land matters in Johannesburg
South.
The Land Management Directorate had since put caveats in the various land
parcels that were registered under the department to prevent the illegal sale
of the land via the deeds office.
Before the caveats are lifted or the property is transferred to the tenant of
the department, the properties in question are verified by the Land Management
Directorate and the Anti-Fraud and Corruption Unit before the Head of
Department can sign them off.
These controls have proved to be very useful and the occurrence of
unauthorized land transfer or change of ownership at the deeds office has been
noticeably absent since the controls were put in place.
4.3 Financial implications for the provincial department
The Head of Department reported that, on average, the provincial department
spent between R2 000 to R8 000 per month per stand on rates and taxes and that
these figures excluded the costs for the illegally connected services such as
water and electricity that the municipality is also charging the department as
the owners of the land. Effectively, the department has spent over R300 000 per
annum on rates and taxes for the properties illegally occupied. Furthermore,
the department pays an average of R100 000 per annum on services used as a
result of the illegal services connection at the three areas in question, which
cannot be budgeted for as it is not consumption of the Department. It should be
noted that these financial figures are for
Lenasia
only and that, the figures change drastically for the province-wide situational
analysis. By May 2012, the department had paid an amount of R197 148
,14
in legal fees to contest the matter in court. More costs
have been incurred through the appearance of the state attorney in court. Since
then it was estimated that the cost would be above R250 000 and continue to
rise as more appearances were made in court.
4.4 Plan of action
The Member of Executive Council gave a directive that the illegally
constructed structures on the provincial departments land in
Lenasia
,
Lawley
and
Ennerdale
needed to be demolished as a matter of urgency as
the legal process had been followed and it had not swayed people from looting
government assets. The actions were agreed upon as follows
:
Cutting off of illegal water, sewer and electricity connection sat the above
areas to
minimise
wastage and damage to government
property;
Packaging of a security plan;
Planning and development of the stands.
4.5 Progress on the implementation plan
The Head of Department reported that a meeting was held on10 October 2012
during which a presentation was made to the MEC who afterwards approved the
project plan and implementation of the court order. The service provider was
appointed to assist with the demolition and removal of rubble once the
demolition had been completed. The provincial department engaged the services
of the South African Police Service and the Johannesburg Metro Police
Department to assist with the security and public order policing during the
demolition of the illegal structures. In October 2012, notices of eviction were
issued to occupants of the stands in
Lenasia
, who
were given seven days to respond to the provincial department if they had any
compelling reasons to put forward against the evictions.
On 8 and 9 November 2012, the department carried out the demolition of
incomplete and unoccupied structures in the area. The demolition that was
carried out was with regard to incomplete structures which were not occupied at
the time of being demolished. There were 54 stands that were cleared so far.
However, the rubble in the area had not yet been removed since that would be
undertaken at a later stage. No people were evicted and displaced as a result
of the demolition. No injuries occurred and no arrests were carried out on both
days. It was also reported that 11applicants who were the illegal occupants of
some of the properties earmarked for demolition had since made an application
to court for an interdict to stop the department from demolishing the 11properties.
The matter was still before the court and no decision had been granted yet. The
department would provide the Committee with progress on the matter.
The South African Human Rights Commission had since made an urgent application
to court asking for the suspension of the demolition and eviction and also
asking the courts permission to grant it 30 days to conduct an investigation
into the matter, specifically with regard to the infringement of the
constitutional right to dignity of the affected parties. The matter would be
heard on15 November 2012 in the Gauteng South High Court. The outcome of the
court case would be communicated to the Portfolio Committee by the department.
5. Deliberations - Comments/Concerns of the delegation
The delegation enquired as follows
:
Why were the other large houses left out and not demolished?
Who was responsible for mediation, was it an independent
body or the department itself?
When did the department discover that the area was
dolomitic
?
Was the department aware of its illegal action and what was the departments
plan of action?
Was the community committee elected from stakeholders?
The delegation was concerned that it seemed that there was somebody somewhere
who was selling the land and asked the department whether it was investigating
the matter. On the issue that the court order did not compel the department to
give these people alternate accommodation, the delegation referred the
department to section 26 of the Constitution. The delegation enquired whether the
building plans were approved and also whether the banks were aware that those
people were building illegally. The delegation enquired whether an assessment
was done to determine for how long people were living there and whether notices
were issued to them to vacate the area. The Portfolio Committee on Local
Government and Housing of the Gauteng Legislature informed the delegation that
they went on site and were blocked by the community from entering the area. On16
November 2012, the department made a presentation to the provincial Portfolio
Committee. The Committee was made aware of the following weaknesses
:
Lack of implementation of by-laws;
Prevention of Illegal Eviction and
Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, No. 19 of 1998 (PIE Act) was not working
effectively in the province.
The Portfolio Committee of the
Gauteng Legislature further informed the Portfolio Committee on Human
Settlements about its recommendations to the department on this matter, as
follows:
Individual engagement with the
illegal occupiers of the stands;
Enforcement of by-laws;
Demolition of occupied houses
should be avoided until the process of court cases was finalised.
The delegation acknowledged that the department was dealing with a complex
matter that required appropriate action in order to ensure that
government as well as citizens were
not compromised. The delegation
condemned the illegal land invasion in the strongest terms. In relation to the
ineffectiveness of the PIE Act, the delegation raised a question of the lack of
commitment from government to implement the Act. Hence the national Department
of Human Settlements or any provincial department had never come before the
Portfolio Committee to indicate where challenges are in the implementation of
this Act. No impact assessment or evaluation had been conducted so far by the
department. The Committee observed that there was a lack of intergovernmental
relations and cooperative governance as well as the provision of support
mechanisms by the national and provincial governments to local government in
order to prevent the illegal occupation or these invasions.
The delegation raised a concern on the departments decision to stop the action
plan which was in place because of a change in political leadership. The
delegation said that it would be understood if the department indicated that
the MEC instructed it to do so.
The delegation asked the department the following questions
:
What was the action plan for selling land?
What would be done with the syndicates?
When did the department notify the Portfolio Committee on Local Government
and Housing, and what was the departments role in terms of advising?
Why
were
the community committee members not
arrested?
Did the department have a plan to protect witnesses?
How far was the department with considering the recommendations of the
Portfolio Committee on Local Government and Housing?
The delegation observed that the issue of
Lenasia
should be a lesson to all leaders of public representatives and spheres of
government.
6. Responses
The department responded that they
went to
Lenasia
on18 November 2012 and found that a
certain man called
Baloyi
was not living in the area
and the people staying there did not know each other. The department demolished
54 houses as from the date of the meeting but it was recorded that 53 houses
had been demolished before the day of the meeting and that it had since been
updated to54 houses. The department issued notices in October 2012 and put them
on the doors of the houses but no one came forward. The department reported
that it was working with the Hawks to deal with the matter.
The department also reported that the Hawks would protect any witnesses that
came up with any evidence to make a strong case for the government. There were
incidents of intimidation by the community committee members against witnesses,
hence the mitigation process failed. The applicants of the court order were
middle-income groups. The department reported that it worked well with the
councillor
since day one and that his house was under
surveillance by the Hawks. On Thursday, 15 November 2012, the department met
with the Banking Insurance and Securities Association (BISA) and out of 168
people, BISA reported 10 people as having loans and the department would
request the Anti-Fraud and Corruption Unit and the Hawks to work together on
the matter.
The department reported that they were not going to build in the area because
of the dolomite. The township had been established, which explains why there
was a tarred road in the area. The department was working with the Portfolio
Committee on Local Government and Housing and was taking the recommendations of
the Portfolio Committee seriously. The department responded that it were
organising
a meeting with the Mayor of the City of
The way forward from the department was that it was not going to demolish the
already-built houses. It was going to evaluate those houses and have the terms
and conditions with the occupiers of the land for purposes of sale agreement.
The department reported that it had requested condo nation from National
Treasury and the Premiers Office to continue developing the area without first
submitting the plans and costing.
The
Fivaz
Commission, which was commissioned in 2002,
found that there was illegal selling of land. The department started the
demolition of illegally built houses but that action was stopped because of a
court interdict. Ten people were arrested for illegally selling land and for
fraud but the cases against three people were provisionally withdrawn by the
court.
The delegation was of the view that there was a need for all individuals to
come forward and discuss this matter with the department, and national and the
provincial department needed to have a plan and strategies to deal with people
who were not abiding by the law. There was a need for robust public participation
processes.
The delegation agreed to adjourn the meeting in order to visit the site to
convey the message of the meeting to the community and make some observations.
7. Site visit to
Lenasia
areas
7.1 Extension 13
The
department highlighted that the large houses
in
Lenasia
Extension 13, which had 54 houses, were
empty and fully furnished.
The owner of the house,
erf
number 10634, illegally
took another stand with
erf
numbers 11620 and 11619
and was collecting rent ofR2 500 from the tenants and had built a driveway to
the other houses behind the main stand. The department reported that all newly
built houses were illegal structures and were badly built. The department
indicated that
Lenasia
South Extension 4 had just
erupted and the people chose their space and built illegal structures. According
to the department, some houses were built within three days.
The delegation interviewed some community members occupying the area illegally
and they requested not to reveal their names for fear of reprisal.
7.2 Persons interviewed by the delegation
The
people were informed that the Committee was
busy with
factfinding
and that they should work
together and advise government.
Interaction with community members
Person No. 1
The
person interviewed was self employed and
reported that he met with a friend and talked about trying to get a place to
stay. His friend told him that there was a place where he could build his house
on a vacant stand. This happened for two or three years. His friend came back,
in 2012 and reminded him about that place. His friend is working in government
and even showed him the map of the place, saying that there was water and
electricity that needed free connections. In March 2012, person no. 1 gave the community
committee papers to build on the stand and took ID copies and other information.
They paid him an amount of R25 000 and said that they must ensure that they
finish building by April 2012. Person no. 1 said that he knew the name of the
person but was not going to reveal the name and that he was still meeting with
him.
He said that they were vulnerable and were always knocking on the doors of
banks for loans but could not get any because they were self employed and
therefore ended up getting that place illegally.
Person No. 2
Person no. 2 said that in the previous year they were trying to find a
place to build houses for themselves and could not find any. In 2012, they
found a place in
Lenasia
. She said that she paid
someone an amount of R10 000 and was still owing that man R15 000 to makeup R25
000. She was not given a receipt but was shown a map where she must build her
house on a vacant stand. Another lady came to person no. 2 and said she was
selling the same stand on which person no. 2 was trying to build a house. She
told person no. 2 that she had bought the stand from the same person and they
started arguing about the stand. Fortunately, person no. 2 got the stand with
the assistance of the community and has built a house on it.
Person No. 3
In
2008, person no. 3 got two stands from two
different people for about R40 000 each. He had paid R20 000 and had been given
receipts and two maps. He was told that they would give him title deeds after
he had erected some structures on the stands.
Community committee member (
Bongani
Mpande
)
The community committee member reported that they were robbed by government
officials to buy stands and that by September 2010, the houses had been
demolished. They then realised that that was a scam. He said that they engaged
government and the former MEC. After the new MEC came in, houses were
demolished and the matter is now
sub
judice
.
He reported that they had a meeting with the department where the demolition of
houses was discussed and they wanted to resolve the matter of demolition
amicably.
The delegation asked him why other people were building whilst the matter was
before court, why people built houses overnight and why the community committee
did not stop them from building. The community committee member said that they
did not have there sources to stop people from building and requested the MEC and
her department to assist them to stop the people from building on those stands.
The delegation requested the community committee to assist the department by
ensuring that no more structures were going to be built as from Monday, 19
November 2012. The community committee members committed themselves to stop the
building of houses.
The delegation told them that the Portfolio Committee on Human Settlements was
disturbed by the demolition of the houses by government and that the Committee
was conducting oversight over governments actions. The Committee had met with
government and was there to hear the views of the community committee and get the
facts from the community and make recommendations. The Committee would sit with
government and have a way forward and would look at the gaps and try to fill
them.
Ring leader
The
delegation met with a certain person who was a
ring leader and was approached to tell the delegation how he got hold of the
stand. He told the delegation that he had bought it from a government official
and said that he knew the name, but was not going to reveal the name of the
person to the delegation. He said that he had submitted the details of the
official to the MEC. He reported that, as he was anticipating getting the title
deed from that official, he started to build a large house (32mx20m) on the
stand. He reported that he paid the government official an amount of R6 000.
The delegation requested him to co-operate with government on the matter. He
said that the community committee members were cooperative during the time of
the former MEC and received resources to root out the scam, but after the new
MEC took office, they were not getting the assistance, only the demolition of
houses. After the site visit the national and provincial committees together with
government officials met at a government office and highlighted the way forward
in terms of crafting the findings and recommendations.
8. Findings
Representatives from both legislatures (national and provincial) agreed
that there were policy gaps in terms of the implementation and enforcement of
the Prevention of Illegal Eviction and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, No. 19
of 1998, as well as the applicable by-laws.
The individual community members were willing to come to the department with
information as they found themselves being the victims of the circumstances.
However, they were threatened by the syndicate leaders.
The community committee was aware that there was a court interdict preventing
it from erecting new structures, but it had no resources to stop the community
from building their houses by night.
The houses were built illegally on the land that belongs to the department
and therefore people should not be the owners of those houses until the matter
was resolved.
The delegation observed that the community illegally connected water and
electricity. This was done in collusion with officials from City Power and
Johannesburg Water. The illegal connections cost the department an average of R100
000 per annum in terms of billing by the municipality.
The action of the department was viewed as harsh and inhumane in implementing
the court ruling.
9. Recommendations
The Minister should intervene and provide the necessary support to the
provincial department and ensure that the provincial department
:
Enforces the PIE Act and that all spheres of government implement the Act.
Stops the demolition of
already-built houses and begins to engage with community members.
Addresses the issue of syndicates (illegal selling of land) and the suspects
must be arrested by the police.
Assists the community together with the municipality with resources, such as
security, to guard the vacant stands, including the demolished houses.
Conducts individual profiling of the people affected by checking their
financial status as this would assist in identifying who qualifies for rental
housing, state subsidies and be assisted accordingly. The provincial department
should delegate an official dedicated to work with the community on this
matter.
During this period the delegation recommended that all stakeholders should work
together until the crisis is over.
Report to be considered.
Documents
No related documents