Constitution will not allow Sisulu to discriminate on basis of age

THE Minister of Human Settlements Lindiwe Sisulu, like everyone else, is constrained in her actions and pronouncements by the requirements of the constitution. Laws and conduct inconsistent with the constitution are invalid. The question now at issue is whether Sisulu’s pronouncement that most people under 40 years of age should not expect a house from the state will stand up to constitutional scrutiny?

Certainly, the bill of rights does not promise a house to anyone of any age. Instead, it guarantees to all, of all ages, the right "to have access to adequate housing".

This right is not absolute. It is expressly subjected to the duty of the state to take reasonable measures "within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of this right". The right can also be limited "only in terms of a law of general application to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom".

The discrimination against the under 40s inherent in the minister’s announcement makes it fall foul of the equality provision in the bill of rights, as discrimination on the grounds of age is forbidden.

The phrase "access to adequate housing" has received judicial consideration by the Constitutional Court in the well-known leading case of Grootboom versus the government of SA, in which Justice Zak Yacoob found the following:

• Like all the other rights in chapter 2 of the constitution (which contains the bill of rights), section 26 must be construed in its context. The section has been carefully crafted. It contains three subsections. The first confers a general right of access to adequate housing. The second establishes and delimits the scope of the positive obligation imposed on the state to promote access to adequate housing and has three key elements. The state is obliged: (a) to take reasonable legislative and other measures; (b) within its available resources; (c) to achieve the progressive realisation of this right. These elements are discussed later. The third subsection provides protection against arbitrary evictions.

• Interpreting a right in its context requires the consideration of two types of context. On the one hand, rights must be understood in their contextual setting. This will require a consideration of chapter 2 and the constitution as a whole. On the other hand, rights must also be understood in their social and historical context.

• Our constitution entrenches civil and political rights and social and economic rights. All the rights in our bill of rights are interrelated and mutually supporting. There can be no doubt that human dignity, freedom and equality, the foundational values of our society, are denied those who have no food, clothing or shelter. Affording socioeconomic rights to all people therefore enables them to enjoy the other rights enshrined in chapter 2. The realisation of these rights is also key to the advancement of race and gender equality and the evolution of a society in which men and women are equally able to achieve their full potential.

• The right of access to adequate housing cannot be seen in isolation. There is a close relationship between it and the other socioeconomic rights. Socioeconomic rights must all be read together in the setting of the constitution as a whole. The state is obliged to take positive action to meet the needs of those living in extreme conditions of poverty, homelessness or intolerable housing. Their interconnectedness needs to be taken into account in interpreting the socioeconomic rights and, in particular, in determining whether the state has met its obligations in terms of them.

• Rights also need to be interpreted and understood in their social and historical context. The right to be free from unfair discrimination, for example, must be understood against our legacy of deep social inequality. The context in which the bill of rights is to be interpreted was described by Judge Arthur Chaskalson in the case Soobramoney versus the Minister of Health.

Justice Yacoob then quoted Judge Chaskalson: "We live in a society in which there are great disparities in wealth. Millions of people are living in deplorable conditions and in great poverty. There is a high level of unemployment, inadequate social security and many do not have access to clean water or to adequate health services. These conditions already existed when the constitution was adopted and a commitment to address them and to transform our society into one in which there will be human dignity, freedom and equality lies at the heart of our new constitutional order. For as long as these conditions continue to exist, that aspiration will have a hollow ring."

The court went on to require of the state that it foster conditions that enable people to gain access to land on an equitable basis, but stressed that this did not oblige the state to go beyond its available resources or to realise these rights immediately. Nevertheless, the state must give effect to these rights and, in appropriate circumstances, the courts can and must enforce the obligation to provide access to adequate housing. The question is always whether the measures taken by the state to realise the rights afforded by section 26 are reasonable.

It is highly unlikely that the courts are going to find that the utterances of Sisulu, which deprive most under forties of their right to access to adequate housing, are constitutionally valid.

The minister would do well to pause to consider whether the measures presently in place are in fact doing anything to achieve the progressive realisation of the right to access to adequate housing by using available resources in a manner that achieves this worthy constitutional goal.

According to the National Development Plan, the backlog of housing units is about 2.1-million and the cost of addressing it is estimated at R300bn, a sum which the state clearly does not have readily available. The General Household Survey shows that about 7-million people are informally housed in SA today. This implies that most of them do not have access to adequate housing. Many shacks are dark and dismal, rat-infested and prone to fires in summer and floods in winter if they are situated in the Western Cape. The fire and flood season is different in the north of the country, but the effects are the same. Intolerably poor living conditions, with inadequate sanitation and overcrowding are the lot of too many people in SA.

Instead of casting aside the under-40 group, Sisulu should be giving consideration to innovative designs and methods of adequate housing for everyone. This does not necessarily mean an RDP house for all, but if the bill of rights means anything, it means that nobody should be deprived of access to adequate housing for a moment longer than is necessary, given the available resources of the state and its duty to progressively realise the right to access to adequate housing.

The notion of transition housing has previously been suggested. It is aimed at affording the inadequately housed a measure of dignity pending their own or the state’s ability to comply with the provisions of section 26 of the bill of rights. That transition housing is preferable to informal housing is beyond question. Transition housing is in fact "adequate housing" and it costs a mere fraction of an RDP house. Many more people can be accommodated in a much shorter time if the authorities simply throw their weight behind the rolling out of various forms of transition housing as soon as possible.

It is simply not sustainable to persist in expecting so many people to live for so long in such intolerable conditions as exist in the informal settlements around the urban fringes of the country. Transition housing is a constitutionally compliant solution to the problem the minister seeks to solve by requiring most people under 40 to solve it themselves. She should champion transition housing.

• Paul Hoffman SC is a director of the Institute for Accountability.

- BDLive

Diverse imperatives cannot be contained in a mass housing programme

MINISTER of Human Settlements, Lindiwe Sisulu recently raised two controversial issues. One was that people younger than 40 should not expect free houses from government. Her logic is that they have not experienced apartheid firsthand. The other issue was that people selling or renting out their state-provided houses would be subject to a judicial tribunal.

Both points need urgent engagement to avoid fuelling anger and frustration. Calls have already been made to consider carefully young people’s prospects in the context of the present situation of high unemployment, low skill levels and low wages. We add our concern on the role housing plays in relation to poverty.

The rationale in 1994 was for the government to give fully subsidised housing to impoverished people to alleviate poverty, allowing them to use property as an asset. Conceptually this included the idea that the house could be used to generate income, such as letting part or all of it. It was also hoped that, eventually, the housing asset could be traded, should a household need to relocate or had found the means to move to better accommodation. Ultimately, subsidised housing was to form a component of the property market.

In 2000, the government reasoned such trading was appropriate only after a period of time and sought to restrict trade in the early years of occupation.

Our research shows that housing beneficiaries are indeed making use of their subsidised housing asset in various ways, including selling or renting the houses to others, although the extent of this unclear. Other strategies include living in the subsidised houses part-time, only on weekends or holidays, for example, if daily transport costs are too high or the location of the allocated house is inconvenient.

For many people these are rational and strategic responses to adverse conditions. They are ways to address the pressures of poverty. Criminalising these strategies does not enable beneficiaries to use the housing asset constructively to reduce poverty.

Underlying Sisulu’s condemnation of the sale or rental of RDP housing is the concern that, in disposing of an RDP house, beneficiaries might end up in worse rather than better living conditions. This is seen to undermine efforts to house the nation in formal accommodation. But the current drive by her department for decent shelter overlooks how people earn a living and the priority some might accord to minimising their living costs. These diverse imperatives cannot be contained in a mass housing programme of the sort adopted in 1994, notwithstanding the benefits that programme had for many.

The notion that the present pattern of free housing delivery is economically and spatially unsustainable has long been acknowledged. But to the long-unemployed, constrained by the uneven post-apartheid economy, the prospect of a RDP house may mean a lot. The challenges are how to change the approach of RDP housing without reducing the much-needed social benefits and how to support people’s efforts to reduce living costs and increase household income.

These are hard questions that require careful deliberation. One avenue to pursue is to greatly increase other forms of housing delivery as outlined in the decade-old Breaking New Ground. This would mainstream in-situ upgrading of informal settlements, while also accelerating the servicing of sites for self-built houses. For various reasons, this has not contributed to the overall housing production by the government to date.

Incremental, in-situ upgrading of informal settlements recognises the fragility and complexity of the livelihoods that poor households have secured in chosen localities. It aims to stitch these households more securely into the urban fabric while promoting dignity through community involvement in decision making for tangible and meaningful improvements. The emphasis is on interventions that support livelihoods. In recent years, extensive groundwork by the department’s National Upgrading Support Programme and the Housing Development Agency has paved the way for an approach that now needs full political support.

In the same vein, political support is needed for programmes that provide advantageously located low-cost rental housing, which can provide households and individuals with a base from which to accumulate resources. Additionally, a drive for well-located affordable serviced land can offer opportunities to consolidate long-term homes.

With the new mega-projects that are currently on Sisulu’s agenda, very careful planning will be required to ensure the state housing interventions positively transform SA’s towns and cities.

The minister’s recent statements seem to signal a willingness to change direction and tackle problems such as duplication and corruption in the demand database. This will be good news for those patiently waiting for a house for more than a decade.

From our base in an academic institution, we would like to see research findings considered and shared, potential consequences of new approaches examined and realistic alternatives sought for young people and those attempting to build an asset base.

Sisulu recently signed a social compact with the planning profession. While this is welcomed, there is a need for the public and private sectors, and civil and political society to engage more widely, so a constructive, participatory and mutually satisfactory outcome can be achieved for all.

• Charlton, Huchzermeyer, Klug and Rubin are with the Centre for Urbanism and Built Environment Studies at the School of Architecture and Planning at Wits University.

- BDLive

Housing not free for all - MEC

Cape Town - Western Cape Human Settlement MEC Bonginkosi Madikizela had tempers flaring in the provincial legislature on Thursday when he said the government was not obligated to give free houses to everyone.

Tabling his department’s annual report, Madikizela said only the most deserving, those who had been on the waiting list the longest, would be prioritised.

There is a housing backlog of more than 500 000 and only 12 681 houses were built during the past financial year.

EFF MPL Nazier Paulsen questioned why such a low targets were set as a goal for the past financial year.

Madikizela explained that the constitution did not state that government must give people houses for free but instead stipulated that the state must provide within its “available resources”.

“That’s what the constitution says, it does not give us a blank cheque,” he said.

But Paulsen interjected saying “only sell-outs agree with it”.

Madikizela also criticised the notion that giving unemployed people houses was a solution.

“If people have houses and they are not working they end up selling them, so this notion that because people are not working they must be given houses and we think that is a solution, it is not,” Madikizela said.

He stressed that the days of giving 20 year olds houses were also over.

“We need to encourage young people to demonstrate for jobs instead of demonstrating for houses… As a country collectively we have to deal with the challenges of unemployment but you can’t then compensate by giving someone a house.”

The MEC said apart from exceptional cases like child-headed households and people with special needs or disabilities, would also be prioritised.

Conceding that the state must do everything possible to deal with the legacy of the past and apartheid the MEC cautioned against “overcompensating for the past at the expense of the future”.

“It is a reality that we cannot give this impression that government will provide everything for people and people must fold their arms. And that is the impression that some of the honourable people are giving here. We are misleading our people if we say that,” he stressed.

But ANC MPL Khaya Magaxa said that free housing was a very important issue for people who had been historically marginalised for many decades.

“It is not a mistake that every poor household has to have a free house; it’s an acknowledgment of our past. And I think 20 years after democracy that is still far from being resolved.”

And he lashed out at Madikizela saying “I think to reduce it to just a mere (issue of being) dependent on the state, is irresponsible even for an African to say that,” he said as he urged for sensitivity.

Magaxa questioned Madikizela about his department’s engagement with communities to avoid situations like the sanitation issue which saw resistance in some communities.

But the MEC said they were required by law to embark on a consultation process prior to starting any projects.

He said the people who were at the forefront of demonstrations were the same people who were at the forefront of consul- tations, agreeing with government. “We’ve learnt valuable lessons, that there are people who are gatekeepers in communities who claim to represent communities while they represent their own interests,” he said.

warda.meyer@inl.co.za

- Political Bureau

Wife to get RDP house in divorce: Sisulu

Parliament - A law amendment is in the pipeline to ensure that if a couple in a free government house get divorced the house goes to the wife, Human Settlements Minister Lindiwe Sisulu said on Tuesday.

“That is how our policy should read,” Sisulu told Parliament's portfolio committee on human settlements after a briefing on the first 100 days of her second stint in the portfolio.

“In 2006, we were involved in a women's build in Gauteng and after that we had an imbizo, and we came up with an idea that I had hoped in my second coming would have crystallised into policy, where we agreed that the house belongs to the man and the wife for as long they're married.

“When they get divorced the house belongs to the woman. That is our policy. So the man picks up his jacket and gets out,” she added.

The minister said her thinking was informed by the fact that mothers were the primary caregivers for their children.

“The wife stays because the wife is indeed responsible for the children.”

Sisulu suggested the policy had not yet found its way into law because the department had been “presided by men”.

She said if a wife died the house would go to the husband, on condition the children were also considered beneficiaries and that the house accrued to them if he remarried.

“If he finds somebody else, he gives the house to the children and goes to the other woman.”

Sisulu served as housing minister from 2004 to 2009. The portfolio was then given to Tokyo Sexwale before she returned to it earlier this year.

She told Sapa the provision on divorce would be enshrined in upcoming amendments to the Housing Act. She hoped in a year it would be on its way into law books.

In the meanwhile, her department would implement it as policy, she said.

- Sapa

The twin scourge of promise and legacy

Minister of Human Settlements Lindiwe Sisulu thinks that if you’re under 40 years of age, you’re not affected by apartheid’s consequences. Don’t be lazy, then, and expect a free house. Housing from the state is strictly intended to “right the wrongs of the past”, and therefore under forties should be excluded.

This is a shocking argument, and although it has generated discussion, the minister deserves further engagement on the multiple ways in which her viewpoint is ahistorical, and even unconstitutional.

Minister Sisulu went on to say (addressing anyone under 40): “None of you are ever going to get a house free from me while I live.” What incredible arrogance, based on a poor understanding of history’s reach into our democracy, and a poor understanding of the government’s constitutional duties.

First, let’s engage the most compelling defence of the minister that some have offered on her clumsy behalf. Some argue that, actually, the minister has a point when you take into account the fact that the state necessarily has limited resources to provide housing, and so must prioritise older people, and only young people with special needs like those from child-headed households.

This is justified, so the argument goes, because young people are too entitled, and at any rate have a lifetime of opportunity ahead of them still, if only they used their energy to get ahead in life rather than waiting for the state to give them everything they need.

Is this defence of Sisulu fair, and convincing?

Not really, for the simple reason that the various ANC governments of the past 20 years are mostly responsible for any culture of entitlement that South Africans have become addicted to. So the state doesn’t have the moral authority to lecture any lazy or demotivated or entitled citizens. Instead, the state should take the biggest slice of the blame for engendering this culture of expectation.

This, of course, doesn’t mean it is false to say many under forties are wrongly waiting for the government to do everything for them. But who makes that argument matters. If you are responsible, in large part, for my entitlement attitude, then it’s not clear to me that you should be the first to tell me, in the name of newly discovered tough love, that I should now pull myself together.

This message would be far less controversial, divisive and worthy of scorn had the minister – or even better the president – delivered a major speech first in which they apologised for the state consistently raising false expectations among citizens over the past 20 years that they would deliver a better life for all.

The very use of phrases like “service delivery” and the size of our welfare budget engendered a culture of expectation. A confession that it was wrong, unrealistic and not sustainable would be a good start from the state.

If the state were to take responsibility for this culture, and took citizens into its confidence about what, realistically, it can do to help citizens, and what it can’t do, then the tough-love message would resonate with many more than was the case when Sisulu shouted from the rooftops recently.

However, even if the minister did have the moral authority to tell young people where to get off, the tough-love viewpoint isn’t entirely convincing. It is premised on the false belief that the past does not affect someone under the age of 40. That is ahistorical and based on patently false beliefs about the nature of apartheid

It is a viewpoint I’d expect from AfriForum, determined to pretend that in 1994 we all started on an equal footing and with a blank slate.

That is not historical reality. Apartheid didn’t just affect my grandparents and my parents. It has affected me too, and materially so, although I am only 35, as a result of being born into a family that was affected by the evil of apartheid.

If, in 1979, I was born into a white family, for example, the statistical and empirical truth is that I would have a much better chance of being a professional, educated and employed 35-year-old in 2014 than if I had been born in a shack.

That is because the intergenerational consequences of poverty, and state-sponsored anti-black racism, have far-reaching structural consequences that cannot be wiped out in one or two generations. Some of us born in 1979 did, of course, escape our cycle of poverty in poor black townships. But we were lucky, beating the odds, and know the face of structural poverty when we go home. It still exists.

Sisulu ought to know better, and yes particularly so as a black South African coming from a family that was deeply steeped in the fight against the structural impact of apartheid.

Perhaps what her comments highlight are two uncomfortable truths about democratic South Africa: politicians who have always been, or have become, privileged (regardless of skin colour) suffer from convenient amnesia about the structural nature of apartheid and exclusion; second, if the state runs out of excuses for poor delivery, it could try to shift the conversation away from its track record towards citizen attitudes. Yet, if we are honest, very few South Africans under 40 would demand houses from the state if they had been given adequate opportunities from the state to excel and become self-sufficient.

So unless the state wants to also argue it never had a political and constitutional duty to progressively realise the rights of citizens to education, healthcare and housing, then it must be embarrassed that many citizens who are under 40 actually don’t desire to be dependent on the state. They simply don’t have opportunities to become educated, and many who are don’t have opportunities to find work as a result of the low economic growth we’re experiencing, and barriers to becoming entrepreneurs such as a risk-averse banking sector not about to give a loan to asset-less Eusebius.

How can Sisulu be so oblivious to her government’s role over the past 20 years in not generating enough opportunities for young people to escape the consequences of the past? It is baffling. But maybe not, if you take into account that acknowledging this narrative is the equivalent of admitting that you’ve been less awesome in the driving seat of state power than you often proclaim.

Sadly for the minister, while she can choose to be politically arrogant, she cannot ignore the constitution. The constitution doesn’t say every citizen must get a house. But it does say the state has a duty, within its available resources, to realise the right to housing, progressively. As with Aids drugs, it would have to show that the state has rational grounds for not providing housing, within its budgetary constraints, for all citizens that need it, and not just over forties.

The constitution doesn’t distinguish between under forties and over forties. I would love to see the minister try to convert that viewpoint into a successful constitutional argument for discriminating against citizens younger than 40.

Must we stop being reliant on the state as young South Africans? Absolutely. But then the state, in turn, must stop making empty promises that worsen a sense of entitlement among young people.

Better still, jack up the education system, reduce barriers to entrepreneurship and make the economic climate exciting enough for local business to invest more in the local economy, while also attracting further foreign investment. I bet my left kidney that fewer under forties would demand housing if the state performed better than it currently does.

* Eusebius McKaiser is the best-selling author of A Bantu In My Bathroom and Could I Vote DA? A Voter’s Dilemma. He is currently working on his third book, Searching For Sello Duiker.

** The views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of Independent Media.

- The Star

New regulations gazetted on priority housing development areas

Regulations published yesterday in Notice R610 of Government Gazette 37899 spell out the role of the Housing Development Agency (HDA) in identifying and declaring a municipal priority housing development area, preparing an appropriate plan and implementing it, writes Pam Saxby for Legalbrief Policy Watch. Among other things, the process entailed includes consulting the owner of the land earmarked for development - as well as any authorities and other parties with a 'legally recognised interest' in it and likely to be impacted by the development concerned. 

In finalising the plan, the regulations require the HDA to consult the Minister on a range of issues including: funding; any obstacles encountered during the process; participants refusing to co-operate; changes in circumstances; and delays. No priority housing development area may be declared without the Minister's approval, upon receipt of which the ensuing project is deemed a 'dedicated' national housing programme as defined in section 1 of the 1997 Housing Act.

According to section 1, the term 'national housing programme' refers to any national policy framework to facilitate housing development - including any housing assistance or other measure/ arrangement aimed at: assisting persons who cannot independently provide for their own housing needs; facilitating housing delivery; or rehabilitating and upgrading existing housing stock, including municipal services and infrastructure.

The regulations also provide for the development of an implementation protocol for affected organs of state and housing institutions aimed at facilitating, assisting, supporting and funding the programme's implementation - as well as a 'separate agreement' with the private sector 'where applicable'. 

- Legalbrief

Housing subsidy too high - Sisulu

The government subsidy for the top structure for a basic 40m2 social housing unit has rocketed to R154,000 from only R58,000 in 2008/09, prompting a Human Settlements departmental review.

Human Settlements Minister Lindiwe Sisulu said the current R154,000 subsidy amount was “unacceptably high”.

The minister, in an exclusive interview with Business Report this week, stressed that the government had “never intended to create a dependent people” but wanted to undo the wrongs of the past.

It had wanted to give people a decent home that would be a “starter pack” it hoped recipients would extend by using any resources available to them.

“But we had never intended that it would use up so much [money] because it makes the target of making sure we can actually provide houses to as many people as possible in the shortest space of time so much more unachievable.

“You cannot take a whole chunk of the budget and limit it to a small proportion of people when there are so many who live in abject poverty. It just doesn’t make economic or rational or human rights sense.

“I don’t understand how we have got to the place where we have got to now,” she said.

Sisulu did not know the reason for the sharp increase but stressed it would be discussed at the housing indaba in Pretoria at the end of next month.

South Africa has a backlog of 2.3 million housing units and Sisulu is hoping to convince the National Treasury to agree to the introduction of incentives to encourage the private sector to get more involved in the provision of social housing.

She said the focus in the future would be on mega-projects that would encourage the major construction companies to become involved.

Sisulu admitted her department had not had any success in getting municipalities to first offer any suitable land to the Housing Development Agency (HDA) before selling it, despite a moratorium.

“They have been selling land left, right and centre. But it (the moratorium) is not legally binding because it’s a different sphere of government,” she said.

Sisulu said it did not make sense to municipalities to offer available land to the agency when they had a developer wanting to purchase it.

She said there had also not been any progress in getting municipalities to fast-track the necessary approvals for social housing projects because delays pushed up the cost of housing units and made it unattractive for contractors.

Sisulu blamed “government processes” for this situation but stressed there was no reason why a developer had to wait up to three years.

“It’s ridiculous. But to turn this around we have decided to have a spatial master plan that will be adopted by all of us, with Human Settlements at the centre, so we can then have deadlines, say for the provision of bulk infrastructure.

“What happens is that we get the land and start putting up houses and the services only come later.

“The developer is sitting with houses that are almost complete without the necessary services that would enable them to be handed over to the beneficiaries and then these houses are vandalised,” the minister said.

- IOL

Sisulu looks to private sector on housing

Human Settlements Minister Lindiwe Sisulu is hoping to convince the Treasury to agree to the introduction of incentives to encourage the private sector to get involved in the provision of social housing.

Sisulu also wants every private sector entity, as part of their social responsibility obligations, to put something into housing.

In an exclusive interview with Business Report yesterday, Sisulu said that the private sector had made it very clear there had to be something “in it for us” for them to come on board and recommit to another social compact on the provision of social housing.

“We have to make it attractive for them to come on board. I have an appointment to see the [finance] minister. Incentives exist in various other forms for the private sector for various reasons. I think this one is very necessary.

“The story of Marikana and the conditions there just doesn’t need to be repeated for anybody to see that we really need to do something about the conditions in which our people live,” she said.

“It degrades a person and does not give them the necessary dignity that any human being would require to behave in accordance with their responsibility.”

She said she would like to find a way of defining and quantifying the social responsibility of entities towards housing, noting that she was shocked to find a housing entity, the National Housing Finance Corporation, had allocated its social responsibility obligation towards saving the whales.

Sisulu has arranged another housing indaba, which will take place in Pretoria at the end of next month, where she hopes to get private sector entities to recommit to a housing social compact similar to what had occurred in 2004.

This, apart from commitments from other stakeholders, led to the major banks committing in terms of the financial services charter to provide R42 billion towards loans for social housing.

The minister added that the government would like the banks to concentrate now on the provision of mortgage finance for rental housing stock, which would also help to address affordability issues in the housing market.

She said her department would like to hear from people involved in social housing about their successes and challenges and how her department could assist them.

She confirmed there had been a 25 percent to 30 percent decline in the delivery of housing in the past five years but did not as yet know the reason for this reduction other than it was because of “problems in the pipeline”. The previous housing social compact had laid the foundation for faster housing delivery and 275 000 houses were delivered in the department’s 2007/08 financial year, she added.

Her belief then was that delivery could only improve from that level and with the experience gained and knowledge about blockages in the system, about 500 000 houses would now be delivered each year.

She is hopeful that the planned government employees housing scheme will be up and running soon, noting that an agreement had been signed by the various stakeholders, including the unions and bargaining council.

- BusinessReport

all of this has happened before 

M&G releases e-book 'Nkandla: The Great Unravelling'

Phillip de Wet's e-book "Nkandla: The Great Unravelling" tracks key events and major themes surrounding President Jacob Zuma's Nkandla homestead.

The Mail & Guardian released Nkandla: The Great Unravelling, an M&G e-book by associate editor Phillip de Wet, that tracks key events and major themes over the past four years during which the R250-million upgrade to President Jacob Zuma's homestead has dominated the news agenda. 

This book does not represent a new piece of investigative journalism. It does not seek to present every fact or every voice. What we have sought to do instead is provide a readable analysis about where the Nkandla tale came from, how it developed, and where it may be headed. 

The story itself broke in bits and pieces over the years, beginning in December 2009. De Wet was assigned the task of bringing this story into context, taking those bits and pieces and weaving them into a comprehensive tale that started at a rough construction site in the Valley of a Thousand Hills, KwaZulu-Natal, and is still playing out loudly on the heels of the recently released public protector’s report, Secure in Comfort.

In the 12 chapters of Nkandla: The Great Unravelling, De Wet sifts through the key issues, difficulties and complexities of the Nkandla story, revealing a compelling story in his distinct, bold and easy-to-read voice that captures the essence of Nkandla – the story that would define a presidency. 

Nkandla: The Great Unravelling is available on Amazon for $2.99 or via Paperight outlets (see paperight.com for more information). 

This is the M&G’s second e-book, the first of which came out last year with the launch of Writing Invisibility: Conversations on the Hidden City, a project in collaboration with the Max Planck Institute and the African Centre for Migration and Society, which can be downloaded free on the M&G website at mg.co.za/acms. 

For general information about the book, please contact Tanya Pampalone on tanyap@mg.co.za. To schedule an interview with Phillip de Wet, please contact him on phillipd2@mg.co.za

- M&G

Who will save us from moral wasteland?

It is worrying that in the wake of the Nkandla report individuals with voices that carry ethical weight have chosen to remain mum, says Fikile-Ntsikelelo Moya.

Pretoria - One of the most glaring omissions in the light of Public Protector Thuli Madonsela’s report on President Jacob Zuma’s Nkandla homestead has been the silence of voices that carry ethical and moral weight.

Virtually every piece of commentary has come from either political parties, the media or professional punditry.

Very little has come from what may be broadly referred to as the ethical and moral sector, such as faith communities and men and women of redoubtable personal integrity and stature beyond reproach.

There was a time when South Africa had plenty of such people.

The likes of Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu, Dr Beyers Naude and Aggrey Klaaste were examples of individuals who did not need political office to say what was wrong in society and for their voices to carry weight.

The ANC itself was founded by men who were much more than political leaders in their communities.

These days such moral leadership is being entrusted to politicians.

It might be a throwback to the time when political leaders were understood to be men and women of integrity who carried themselves in accordance with that expectation.

It simply is not the case today.

In many instances, party politics have become dens of inequity where the extent of patronage is exchanged proportionally for the willingness to lie on behalf of the puppet master.

It is clear from this that those who seek to change society for the better might be making an egregious error in judgement if they assume political office is the best vehicle for pursuing a society with better morals.

One example after the other shows that politicians are straitjacketed by their sectarian interests.

Their comments on the moral and ethical failings of political leaders are always dismissed by their opponents as political point-scoring, rather than the desire to right wrongs.

It is not entirely the fault of politicians. They do what they naturally do. They became what they already are.

It is clear from this latest debacle that parliamentary politics have limitations.

It must now be clear that it is not necessary for all good patriots who have a vision of a different country to seek political office.

In many ways, party political office might hamstring those who want to speak truth to power.

The very person of President Jacob Zuma speaks to the folly of entrusting moral and ethical guidance to politicians.

How could we forget that it was the same Zuma who slept with the daughter of his friend – a young woman whom they both agreed during his rape trial shared the dynamic of a daughter to his father?

Civil society must not allow this moral crisis to continue.

There must surely be men and women in our communities whose stature is beyond reproach and who can be trusted to provide moral leadership.

I might not know who they are, but there must be a local equivalent of the international flavoured “Elders” created by Nelson Mandela.

The idea of the Elders was simple and universal enough.

Entrepreneur Richard Branson and musician Peter Gabriel agreed that communities in various parts of the world looked up to elders for guidance, dispute resolution and moral leadership and thought why not have a global group of elders who did this for all countries.

They took their idea to Madiba and in 2007, the group was launched.

Admittedly, the Elders are mainly individuals who have at various points in their lives held political office, but the key ingredient in choosing them was their impeccable moral and ethical integrity, and a demonstrated activism for greater social good that transcends political ideologies.

South Africa needs such a group.

It needs men and women who can help divert our country from the moral dumpsite to which it is headed.

The often cited “good people” in the ANC able to steer the party that once upon a time occupied the moral high ground in our society have not materialised.

If they exist, their silence in the never-ending drama of shameless affairs by cadres of the party means they have chosen the ANC over their country.

Having dispensed with the moral compass in their own party, they cannot be trusted to be the rudder our society desperately needs.

We have enough analysts, columnists and other pundits.

Many of them are adept at describing the problem.

But through no fault of their own, do not have the gravitas to ensure their words count for something politicians feel the need to worry about.

However, there is value in analysis of society and punditry.

But we need words of vision and hope more.

Our degenerative state of affairs requires that this be as good a time as any to give way for the words of modern-day prophets who might just intervene where it really matters and where our politicians have failed us time after time.

* Fikile-Ntsikelelo Moya is executive editor of the Pretoria News

- Pretoria News

Nkandla corruption exposed

The R206 million upgrades at President Jacob Zuma’s private residence was fraught with corruption – with several companies and persons awarded tenders without the required security clearance.

And there were tenders galore because when it comes to Nkandla, even Zuma’s chickens and cattle are catered for because their living places were also identified as a potentially high-security risk in “a politically volatile” Nkandla.

These are some of the findings of a special report by the joint standing committee on intelligence (JSCI) into the Nkandla security upgrades, released on Thursday.

The findings were drawn from the Department of Public Works’ (DPW) task team report into the controversial expenditure.

The report was released a few hours before the security cluster ministers abandoned their court case against Public Protector Thuli Madonsela, which was supposed to have been heard on Friday.

The 36-page document paints a disturbing picture of the flouting of mandatory procurement procedures.

“Supply-chain management policy and prescripts were not fully complied with (in) the procurement of goods and services related to the project,” the report reads in part.

Another finding was of an unnamed firm employing foreign nationals, which is contrary to government security provisions and legislation.

The report also identified Minenhle Makhanya Architects from Durban as Zuma’s privately appointed architect, who had no security clearance to manage the Nkandla project.

Zuma was implicated by Madonsela’s court papers.

This has raised questions that he might have misled Parliament in June, when he denied that he had anything to do with the upgrades.

The report confirms the R206m splurged on the Nkandla upgrades, but exonerates the DPW in the expenditure. “There is no evidence that the DPW paid for the construction of houses of the president,” the JSCI found.

In a veiled attack on Madonsela, the committee condemns the launching of “parallel” investigations, saying unnecessary costs were incurred as the DPW had already launched an investigation.

The report justifies and lists “compelling” crime factors, especially rape, for the security upgrades.

It also raises fears of a political assassination because of “a volatile political situation” in Nkandla.

The list includes an amphitheatre, “high security cattle culverts (kraals) and “chicken roosting areas”.

Cluster security ministers have buckled under tough resistance from Madonsela and agreed to respond to her interim report at Zuma’s home by Friday’s deadline.

Presidential spokesman Mac Maharaj could not be reached for comment.

lebogang.seale@inl.co.za

- The Star

Nkandla report cannot be delayed: DA

Cape Town - Public Protector Thuli Madonsela's preliminary report on the upgrade to President Jacob Zuma's Nkandla homestead cannot be delayed because she does not know who to hand it over to, the DA said on Monday.

“While we appreciate... Madonsela’s dilemma in this regard, this report cannot be delayed by the government’s disregard of accountability measures,” Democratic Alliance parliamentary leader Lindiwe Mazibuko said in a statement.

“It is both in the public interest and in the interest of accountability and transparency to ensure that the full and unexpurgated report is made public.”

She said she would write to Madonsela for clarity on whether the full report would be made public.

The SABC reported on Monday that the report was “virtually finalised”.

“We have now asked government to indicate how far they are with deciding where these kind of reports should go to. We haven't had an answer yet,” Madonsela told the public broadcaster.

“The one issue, though, that will arise, which we have raised with the presidency... is who do we give the report to.”

The presidency was expected to comment on the matter later.

Madonsela said she encountered “unusual challenges” while compiling the report into the security upgrade of President Jacob Zuma's private homestead in Nkandla, KwaZulu-Natal.

Mazibuko said she would recommend to Madonsela that the report be tabled before Parliament's public works portfolio committee.

“I will also query whether I will be receiving a provisional report, as has been the protocol followed in the past,” she said.

“Indeed in other public protector investigations requested by the DA, a provisional copy is sent to the requesting party.”

Last year, the DA said it would ask Madonsela to investigate whether Zuma's family improperly benefited from the upgrade to his home.

Shortly before that, Zuma told Parliament that government was paying to upgrade the security at his home, but that he had taken out a bond to pay for the rest of the upgrade.

- Sapa

State of nation speech low on green details

Cape Town - President Jacob Zuma's state of the nation address covered a wide variety of social issues, but was scant on detail, a sociologist said on Thursday evening.

“The president covered a wide range of ground, but perhaps he lost a bit of focus,” said Prof Roger Southall of the University of the Witwatersrand's sociology department.

He said Zuma mentioned the importance of small business and government support for such entities, but gave “absolutely no details”.

It was promising that Zuma had spoken about renewable energy, but more money should be allocated to realising green initiatives, Southall said. 

- Sapa

Amanpour on Nkandla

Amanpour asked Ramaphosa about the spending of taxpayer money on Zuma's home in Nkandla.

He responded, saying: "One of the good things about our SA democracy is that we have institutions ... to look at all things that go wrong in government ...

"The Public Protector and the Auditor-General  are now busy with an assessment of this whole thing of money that has been used to improve Nkandla. Now we are waiting for the results of that and I think we should all wait and see what the outcome of all that is."

Asked by Amanpour, 'If money was wrongly spent and some restitution is recommended, would you support that?', Ramaphosa replied:

"Clearly once the institutions come out with a report [either the Protector or AG], it has to be analysed and carefully discussed... We will all be ready to back up the correct decisions that will take our country forward."

- Sowetan

Zuma misled Parliament over Nkandla

Opposition parties on Sunday lashed out at President Jacob Zuma for "misleading" the Parliament about the bond he had on his house in Nkandla.

"As the President was speaking under his oath of office he seem to have knowingly misled Parliament and the nation that he had a bond and this amounts to perjury.

"This is a very serious offence under the Constitution and the law as indicated in Section 89 of the Constitution of the Republic," Congress of the People leader Mosiuoa Lekota.

City Press reported that the land on which Zuma's home stands was owned by the Ingonyama Trust, headed by King Goodwill Zwelithini, which managed 32% of all land in KwaZulu-Natal on behalf of the state for the benefit of its occupants.

On Thursday Zuma told Parliament: "I took the decision to expand my home and I built my home with more rondavels, more than once. And I fenced my home. And I engaged the bank and I'm still paying a bond on my first phase of my home."

"My residence in Nkandla has been paid for by the Zuma family. All the buildings and every room we use in that residence, was built by ourselves as family and not by government," Zuma told the legislature during two hours of question time.

"I have never asked government to build a home for me, and it has not done so. Government did not build a home for me."

Zuma said he takes exception to accusations that government money was spent for his benefit.

"It is unfair, and I don't want to use harsher words because you believe that people like me can't build a home," he said, apparently referring to Democratic Alliance (DA) parliamentary leader Lindiwe Mazibuko, who had asked whether construction at the compound will be halted while the public protector investigates the spending.

City Press said it had been unable to locate public records to support Zuma's claim that the Nkandla property was bonded.

The deed document for the property showed that the Ingonyama Trust was the owner.

Belinda Benson, Ingonyama Trust's property manager, confirmed to City Press that the deeds office records, uncovered by the newspaper, were for Zuma's homestead.

Democratic Alliance leader Lindiwe Mazibuko said: "Serious consequences must follow if President Zuma misled Parliament this past week about having a bond on his private home in Nkandla.

She said what Zuma did reflected negatively on his office and warranted the most urgent and immediate consideration by the National Assembly.

"I will today [Sunday] write to the Speaker of the National Assembly, Max Sisulu, and urge him to request clarification from the Presidency as to the reports in the City Press today, as they seriously risk bringing Parliament into disrepute," Mazibuko said. – Sapa

Task team to investigate costs of Nkandla security upgrade - Thulas Nxesi

Minister says preliminary investigation will look into possible over-pricing

Security Upgrade of the President's Nkandla Residence

As Minister of Public Works it is incumbent upon me to clarify the Department's role and position in regard to the security upgrade of the President's residence at Nkandla. There are two aspects to the issue: the security of the President and accountability for public funds. 

The security upgrade was undertaken by the Department of Public Works in terms of the National Key Points Act. This piece of legislation provides for the declaration of certain places as National Key Points whenever it is considered necessary for the safety of the Republic or in the public interest. 

This declaration was made on the basis of a security risk assessment undertaken by a team drawn from the Departments of Defence, Police and State Security. There is nothing unusual about making such a determination which has been applied in respect of residences of past Heads of State. That security assessment still stands and therefore it remains the responsibility of Public Works to complete and implement the project at hand.

I have also said that where public funds are involved, there must be accountability, transparency and value for money. My Department has already requested the Auditor-General to conduct an audit in respect of all projects classified as "Prestige" - the first time that such a step has been undertaken by Public Works. 

In response to concerns about the cost of the security upgrade at the Nkandla residence, the Department has established a Task Team of professionals with legal, financial management control, auditing, security, physical protection and construction and maintenance 

expertise. 

This Task Team will conduct a preliminary investigation into aspects of procedural integrity, over-pricing and general supply chain prescripts. 

At the same time, the Department will give its full support to any investigation conducted by authorised state institutions. 

These steps have been taken in order to establish the facts which will form the basis for swift and decisive action should such investigation point to illegal, corrupt or irregular activities. Wrong-doers will be held to account. 

I will not pre-empt the findings of these investigations, nor will I act on the basis of speculation. 

The Department of Public Works is committed to applying state resources in an accountable and transparent way which gives effect to its constitutional imperatives. 

Statement issued by Thulas Nxesi, Minister of Public Works, November 14 2012

Cosatu breaks Nkandla silence

Congress of the South African Trade Union (Cosatu)’s Corruption Watch on Friday said it wants more information from government about the amount of money being spent on President Jacob Zuma's Nkandla residence.

The organisation said it was not happy with answers Public Works Ministry has given to its questions.

Corruption Watch Head David Lewis said they believe citizens have a right to know how much government money is being spent on this project, and he also wants to know, how it is being spent.

“As a Corruption Watch institution we are also interested in how that that massive procurement was effected.”

Cosatu itself has been quite on the Nkandla issue despite its commitment to fighting corruption.

Opposition parties have been very vocal in their criticism of the Nkandla development.

The project is estimated at over R200 million and they believe this is a slap in the face to the poor.

On Thursday, eight opposition parties tabled a motion of no-confidence in President Jacob Zuma in Parliament.

In a joint statement, the parties cited the Marikana tragedy and the so called 'NkandlaGate' demonstrate the country's lack of leadership.

The ANC made it clear that it would counter the vote of no confidence.

They ruling party said it supports Zuma.

- iafrica

Chief whip wimps out on Nkandla

The ANC’s attempts to stop the public from knowing the truth about taxpayers’ money spent on President Jacob Zuma’s Nkandla homestead have plumbed new depths with parliamentary chief whip Mathole Motshekga’s latest offering.

Motshekga says the DA’s request for  a  parliamentary debate on the matter is “frivolous”. 

In fact the matter is very serious and will not go away until questions are answered.

 He says: “The essence of a debate in Parliament is to enlighten the public with the information on the subject of debate, and provide guidance on the matter under contest.”

In our view Nkandlagate would fit this description  perfectly. 

The  public would dearly love to be enlightened with information on the subject.

The chief whip’s office said in a statement that Zuma and relevant ministers have “comprehensively” responded to questions from opposition parties on the   upgrade to Zuma’s home.

That’s complete nonsense.  Zuma and his ministers have ducked and dived, refusing to answer direct questions and hiding behind apartheid-era legislation. It is quite clear that a lot more has been spent on Nkandla than would be allowed under the much- vaunted ministerial handbook. 

It is also disingenuous to try, as ministers have done,  to bury the whole R238-million bill under the pretext that anything to do with the president’s private home is covered under the National Key Points Act.

It is a disgrace that the ANC chief whip is not interested in the democratic values of accountability and transparency.

 His bid to block debate is as childish as those of the MK vets who lay in the road en route to Zuma’s homestead, preventing a tiny DA delegation from passing. Pathetic.

- The Citizen

Zuma misses DA's Nkandlagate deadline

President Jacob Zuma may face court action over the financing of upgrades at his rural residence in Nkandla if the Democratic Alliance gets its way.

On Sunday, the opposition party gave Zuma 72 hours to respond to questions it sent on October 16 surrounding the financing of his rural homestead at kwaNxamalala, Nkandla in KwaZulu-Natal, insisting the president answer to South Africans for "stealing their money for his personal use".

But Zuma and his office failed to respond by the deadline on Wednesday.

"As we have not received any response from the president or the department of public works, the DA will now take the matter up legally," Geordin Hill-Lewis, chief of staff to DA leader Helen Zille told the Mail & Guardian on Wednesday.

"We will be advised accordingly by our legal team and make a decision as to what is the best course of action to follow," said Hill-Lewis.

The ultimatum followed the failure of a planned DA inspection on Sunday of Zuma's private residence, where improvements worth an estimated R248-million are reportedly being carried out at the state's expense.

ANC supporters prevented the DA from approaching Zuma's homestead, blocking the road leading to the property.

'Apparent ultimatum'

In response to questions from the M&G, Zuma's spokesperson Mac Maharaj said the president or his office are yet to respond to the "apparent ultimatum" as the DA had not followed the correct channels.

"The obligation is on them to follow due process in issuing any ultimatum to the president," he added.

"If they have questions, they must be addressed to the correct authority. Nobody issues ultimatums through the media, especially to a head of state."

Maharaj said it was the up to the DA to decide what the next course of action on the matter is, as the presidency "are not going to advise the DA what to do".

The DA contested that Zuma and the department of public works did not follow legal processes within legislation set out in the National Key Points Act of 1980.

What the Act says

Although Public Works Minister Thulas Nxesi has consistently said the upgrades were undertaken within the context of providing security for a national key point – of which the onus is on the state – the Act would suggest otherwise.

In the Act it is stipulated that the owner of any property that has been declared a national key point be responsible for any security upgrades deemed necessary.

Section 3.1 of the Act reads: "The owner of a national key point concerned shall after consultation with the minister, at his own expense, take steps to the satisfaction of the minister in respect of the security of the said key point."

The Act further stipulates that if the owner is unable to undertake the necessary security upgrades stipulated by the Act, the state may undertake them but the owner will remain liable for the upgrades.

"It needs to come to light that the state paid for this without correct procedures being followed. This needs to be addressed accordingly with legal action," Hill-Lewis added.

- M&G

DA gives Zuma 72 hours to answer for Nkandlagate

The DA has given President Jacob Zuma 72 hours to answer questions on his new home or face legal action.

The DA on Sunday gave President Jacob Zuma 72 hours to respond to letters sent on October 16 asking questions about the Nkandla development or face court action.

"We asked them for details on how much was spent, on what, by whom, and under what provision of law," the party said in a statement.

"If there is no substantive response by close of business on November 7, we will instruct our lawyers to make preparations to take him and the government to court."

The DA said it had not yet received a response, only a receipt of the letters.

A large group of ANC supporters sang as they waited for DA leader Helen Zille to leave the Nkandla police station on Sunday.

She laid a charge under the Gatherings Act against the ANC for blocking a public road during her failed attempt to visit President Jacob Zuma's KwaZulu-Natal homestead.

When the convoy transporting the Democratic Alliance and a media contingent left the satellite police station, ANC shouted "hamba" (leave).

An ANC supporter was arrested for drunk and disorderly outside the police station.

Police spokesperson Colonel Jay Naicker said another man was arrested earlier, during a demonstration by ANC supporters, for having an unlicensed firearm. "The man was in possession of a rifle. He will be charged for discharging a firearm in public and possession of a firearm."

'Lost the right'

Zille said Zuma had lost the right to call his home a private residence. "Nkandla belongs to each and every South African who has to sacrifice the basic services they need, so that the president could turn his home into a five-star fortressed palace.

"One day we will look at it as a monument to the fight against corruption."

She questioned how the government could spend R248-million on Zuma's home, when it would not pay to transport the relatives of the victims of the Marikana shooting to the Farlam commission of inquiry.

Earlier police stopped her and her entourage from approaching Zuma's homestead, in the village of KwaNxamalala, saying they wanted to prevent violence. Zille was told she could not pass the police roadblock as there were ANC supporters on the road to Zuma's home.

She said the party had permission to gather on a public road outside a school opposite Zuma's home. Several cars carrying ANC supporters passed the police roadblock on a side road. They carried sticks and sang Dubhula ibhunu (Shoot the Boer).

Buses full of ANC supporters were allowed to pass on the main road. When Zille asked officers why they were allowed to pass, she was told they would open a case against the organisers of the ANC march. "We never intended to go inside Zuma's home, we only wanted to gather opposite his compound on a public road," Zille said.

About 700m from where the Democratic Alliance was stopped, police in riot gear prevented ANC supporters from advancing. Officers formed a human chain across the road. Police had several armoured Nyala personnel carriers, two trucks with water canons, and a helicopter in the area.

The DA had wanted to visit Zuma's private residence, where an upgrade, reportedly costing over R200 million, and funded with taxpayers' money, was in progress.

– Sapa, M&G