Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality on complaints from contractors; Newtown housing challenges: update

Meeting report

Opening Remarks
The Chairperson told the Committee that the agreement between itself and the Eastern Cape Department of Human Settlement (DHS), together with the Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality, was that those concurrent functions had had to meet earlier with the contractors who were in Parliament on the day, so that both functions, together with the contractors could come before the Committee on 28 February. Seemingly the state functionaries had changed the dates and had arranged to meet the contractors on 28 February as well. The Chairperson had since informed them that they would have to set up another date as the contractors were in Parliament that morning to present their submissions.

Ms M Borman (ANC) asked for clarity on whether the South African Housing Cooperatives Association and the Housing Coops were one and the same. The Chairperson replied that they were not the same entity.

Metro Builders and Civil Construction complaints
Mr Samuel Chetty said that before Metro Builders became involved in the contract in dispute; it had been a solid and stable company with grade 7 General Building (GB) and grade 6 DB. He had been introduced to the contractors by the Maguire developers, who had since withdrawn from the contract. Mr Maguire had sent a letter to the developers asking Metro Builders to take over. Mr Chetty had prior experience of Mr Maguire’s practices and did not want any business dealings with him. Metro Builders had negotiated with Thubelisha and it had discussed pricing as well, which was also laid out in the document before the Committee. Metro Builders were fairly new to DHS as that was its first pitch for Human Settlements. He went to the site and he was very disappointed with what he saw on site. He reported what he had seen, his company was told to proceed to the site and that Thubelisha would sort out a contract with them. That site was called Joe Slovo 950. Maguire and Darren Builders also had their own sites. Mr Chetty said that he had been misled through the onsite negotiations, where a contract had been promised for Metro Builders, which had never materialized to date. The site had been completed. At the commencement of the work Metro Builders had been stopped by about 300 workers who told them that they were not vacating the site, until Thubelisha paid them. He had called Thubelisha and a meeting had been organized two days later, with Thubelisha, DHS, and the ward councilor in that area. The councillor in that meeting had confirmed that Metro Builders were the contractors that were going to finish that job.

Metro Builders was given false numbers, which seemed to be changing. While Metro Builders were working on site, additional instructions were given to it. Before Metro Builders started, it had been agreed at that meeting that Metro Builders would pay the outstanding wages for the former contractor and that Thubelisha would sort out Metro Builders’ reimbursement. That reimbursement of R325 000 had never been paid to Metro Builders, but it proceeded with the work anyhow. The previous contractor’s site offices and other material which Metro Builders had found on site had been removed and it had placed its own offices with its own equipment on the site. Thubelisha had instructed Metro Builders to complete ten new houses which had not been paid for to date. It had done rectification work in the region of about R800 000 and its retention on that contract as far as the Joint Building Contracts Committee (JBCC) document was concerned was that it belonged to itself as Metro Builders, since it had taken over the contract which had amounted to R871 000. Moreover Mr Chetty had been misled over the figures that were still remaining in that contract, because he had been told that it would amount to R4,1 million, but the amount of work cost substantially more than that, with the additional instructions included.

Looking at the way the house was presented as complete, from the street, three sides would be painted with windows in and the roof would also be done, and one could also see one door to the toilet. Going inside the house, one found that only the front ceiling had been completed, there was no plumbing, and the back walls would not be painted. Mr Chetty had decided to record everything he had found on a spreadsheet, in detail and on each site that Metro Builders had had to touch up. Metro Builders had been paid R2,363 million. The contractor which he had to use to receive payment through had wanted R115 000 to sign an invoice. Indeed Mr Chetty did his first couple of invoices in that manner with Darren Builders, which had never been part of the initial negotiation between Metro Builders and Thubelisha.

Metro Builders had cleaned and tidied up the site on Thubelisha’s instructions, but had never received payment for that work. After analyzing the entire operation, Metro Builders had found that Thubelisha had been using the wrong quantum, because the back up for the quantum had been R78 000, whilst Thubelisha had been giving them R55 000. When Metro Builders organised meetings with Mr Nicholas Tsewu, who had been the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Thubelisha, it would have to wait two hours before he deemed he could see them, and when he emerged from his office, he would announce that he had no time for Metro Builders.

 Metro Builders had approached DHS in Port Elizabeth for assistance as it could not recover anything from Thubelisha. DHS had promised that Metro Builders would be paid for value created, after it had completed an audit of that operation. Three and a half years had lapsed since that promise, which had been in writing. DHS had classified Metro Builders as a subcontractor, but the document for that classification was nowhere to be found. When Mr Chetty approached Mr Tsewu’s office, he had been told that Thubelisha had had to return R8 million to DHS, after the completion of that job - even though DHS with Metro Builders had signed off on each house.

Metro Builders had contacted the Speaker of Parliament in the Eastern Cape in June 2011 although it only managed a first meeting in February 2012. It had been sitting for a year and a half with the Eastern Cape's Portfolio Committee on Human Settlements. It had resolved everything, to the point where an instruction from that Committee had told the Head of Department (HOD) of DHS to pay Metro Builders, by 12 November 2012. It had not heard from the HOD since. The committee chairman had instructed the HOD to get its own Special Investigating Unit (SIU) investigation done by national, so as to compensate the contractor and to recover the DHS money. In June 2013 the Eastern Cape Member of the Executive Council (MEC) had given the HOD three months to get that investigation underway. In a meeting with the HOD in 2013 December there had been no apology for the delay in the investigation and he went as far as to deny owing Metro Builders any money.

Metro Builders currently had no grading, no tax certificate even though it was one of the pioneer BEE companies in the Eastern Cape. It had had a transport and plant hire subsidiary that had been liquidated for a year since 2012; it had to sell its trucks that had been valued at over R2 million for R560 000. Metro Builders had lost R9 million and could not tender for the past two years running. Thubelisha and Darren Builders had contacts in DHS right up till national level, Metro Builders was aware that Darren Builders had received R4,1 million for a job that it had completed.

Mr Chetty said that it was not a small issue coming to Parliament as it had been expensive. He said the HOD in the Eastern Cape was a total liar, who came to committee meetings with about 12 people who never spoke. He said that Metro Builders had rehashed the entire exercise but all he wanted was the money owing to him.

Discussion
Ms Borman said that she felt that Mr Chetty’s story was indeed very sad, as that was not how the state intended to work with people. The facts were there, the frustration could also be heard, and as such she was not surprised that the state functionaries from the Eastern Cape were not present at the meeting this morning. Possibly one way to resolve the matter would be for the Committee to go on site with all affected stakeholders simultaneously, as everybody currently was blaming everybody else.

Ms N Mnisi (ANC) agreed with Ms Borman and asked for clarity on what the initial agreement had been between Metro Builders and Thubelisha, pertaining to classification. When did it realise it had been given the wrong quantum? Did Metro Builders pay the R2,36 million from its own purse? When it found that the work was more, were Metro Builders communicating that to Thubelisha? Where there any documents that had been signed committing Metro Builders to more work than was initially agreed upon?

Ms A Mashishi (ANC) asked for clarity over the R2,36 million as she had heard that Thubelisha had paid over part of that money to Metro Builders. After being misled once, did Metro Builders not suspect the motives of Thubelisha after the first instance?

Mr R Bhoola (MF) said that when one did business, the only time one slept was when one’s eyes were closed. In fairness he said one had to apply the audi alteram partem policy, and the Committee had listened to Metro Builders concerns. Had Metro Builders applied for the initial principal tender? On what basis and conditions had it entered into an agreement with varying builders? At what stage was it around the agreement and principles of an emerging contractor, because he had heard Mr Chetty say that Metro Builders were one of the pioneer emerging contractors in the Eastern Cape. He also could not fathom why a company of Metro Builders calibre, profile and reputation would want to go and pay salaries to complete a job, if it had not concluded proper contracts with varying builders. There had been very broad statements made against state institutions from Municipalities to the MEC, but it was imperative for the Committee to apply the rule of calling for such evidence and reports. Mr Bhoola would recuse himself from making comments against the individuals mentioned by Mr Chetty, until those reports came from those institutions.

Mr C Mathale (ANC) said that Mr Bhoola need not be apologetic about the questions he had asked because he himself would have asked the same of Mr Chetty. That would be based on the premise that as a business person one had to follow certain principles, because the case bordered around the lack of applying those principles, which created unnecessary problems for everyone else.

Ms J Sosibo (ANC) agreed with Ms Borman that the Committee needed to familiarise itself with the document that Mr Chetty had submitted to the Committee. She recalled that Mr Chetty had mentioned two contractors that he had not wanted to conduct business with. She asked whether they had ever been involved with Thubelisha. Had Metro Builders paid the wages of the 300 individuals on site which were blocking further work, from its own purse? What had been the outcome of the meeting with the Speaker of Parliament in the Eastern Cape?

Mr S Mokgalapa (DA) said that that was what happened when tenders went wrong. With all the technicalities that had been raised, they simply begged more questions than answers. He agreed with Ms Borman that the Committee could only address the matter when all the relevant stakeholders were gathered in one room.

Mr J Matshoba (ANC) said receiving the contractors' submissions were not problematic, the issue was that there was a motive behind the Eastern Cape DHS and Port Elizabeth Municipality both not being present at the meeting. Those concurrent functions were very aware that contractors would give the Committee the real story of how they had frustrated the contractors by not paying them what they owed, and had decided not to come. Those functions were not only playing with the contractors but were also playing games with the Committee too.

The Chairperson said the issues and facts had been put to the Committee and she reminded the Committee again that it had met with National and Provincial DHS twice. As such, it knew the story about Metro Builders. She said the Committee knew what was said and that she would not rehash it today. All Members knew the Committee’s decision and that was what it had to be discussing. The decision had been that National and Provincial DHS, together the City of PE should meet and discuss those matters, and compile a consolidated report thereafter. The Committee had dated that meeting between those functions for 17 February. After that meeting and report, those functions would have to meet with the contractors involved on 26 February, so that on 28 February all of those involved from DHS, PE and the contractors would come before the Committee to give it one report from all those engagements. On the 28 February, National and Provincial DHS together with the City of PE had not come for the meeting. It was up to the Committee to decide on a way forward, but the Chairperson was happy that the contractors had come; because the Committee would listen to them as per its constitutional mandate, so that it could resolve the matter in a fair and just manner. The Committee had requested Eastern Cape DHS to bring the outcomes of the provincial petition and the response of the Office of the Premier, but none of those reports had come before the Committee. She asked Mr Chetty to respond to questions only and not the comments

Mr Chetty said that Metro Builders always strived to be professional in conducting its business, especially regarding contracts. It had concluded private as well public contracts before. It was simply the first time it had experienced people handling public money with gay abandon as if it was their personal money.

Regarding subcontractor status, Metro Builders had no documents in that regard, as it had not dealt with Darren Builders at all. Metro Builders had had to give its claim to Thubelisha which had asked Metro Builders to go to Darren Builders, to facilitate the payments only, but when it got to Darren he wanted money. That was where the R115 000 came from.

The wages payment had been on the instruction of Thubelisha.

The final decision of the Eastern Cape Committee on Human Settlements was that, seeing that the investigation from National DHS had fallen through, the HOD had been instructed to pay Metro Builders. Since November 2013 there had been no correspondence from the HOD, there had been no apology from him either at the next meeting.

Metro Builders had worked in every corner of the Eastern Cape, in places where other contractors would not go and so it had built a reputation there. It had rescued Human Settlements in PE on another contract one and a half years ago, where it was still waiting on outstanding payment as well. There was an additional contract with Human Settlements in PE where the HOD was denying Metro Builders having ever done that work, even though it had been completed. Human Settlements had issued an illegal cession on top of Metro Builders cession, and that contract had been paid to a different entity.

The Chairperson said that the Committee had resolved that it was not going to leave this and the Newtown matters unattended. The Committee would make sure that these issues would go to the Fifth Parliament with proper recommendations, even if that meant that the Committee would have to sit until late the following week, it would do so. This meeting would be repeated the following week, but DHS would incur all costs for the accommodation and travel for all the contractors that were in Parliament on the 28 February, because it had failed to use this opportunity to give its side of the story so that the Committee could hear the different sides with all stakeholders in one room.

Ms Borman said that indeed the Committee had taken resolutions on those matters, and the DHS had not abided by them and the only proposal was that the Committee summon DHS the following week.

Mr Matshoba emphasised that DHS concurrent functions were undermining the Committee across all spheres of government, because the presentation of the provincial budget of the Eastern Cape was not a satisfactory excuse for its absence.

Mr Bhoola said that the Chairperson's ruling was proper, as it was in line with the President’s State of the Nation Address (SONA) that government needed to centralise the issuing of tenders, which hopefully would alleviate some of the problems that were being experienced. He lauded the Chairperson’s stance that the Committee was not in Parliament to support any state official or Department in any sphere of government, which was giving Human Settlements at national level a bad reflection. The Committee would serve as eyes and hawks to make sure that it eliminated corruption to whatever depths it was in.

Chatty 600 Contractors' complaints
Mr Patrick Momo said that Chatty 600 was made up of the Cacadu Development Trust, Big Eye Construction, Nombasa Building and Civil, IT Trading and Ubuhle ngobuso Trading. Chatty 600 was at that meeting for the non-payment of Zanemvula Contractors.

The Chairperson asked Mr Momo to summarise what happened.

Mr Momo said that Chatty 600 had similar complaints as that of Metro Builders, because all five contractors that had been working under the umbrella of Thubelisha in 2007, where consulted by the Nelson Mandela Metro Municipality (NMMM). Chatty 600 had been appointed by the NMMM on 4 December 2006 for construction of top trusses. It was common cause that that project could not proceed from January to June 2007, because of problems in the Housing Delivery Sub-Directorate which resulted in the director for housing delivery being suspended for a long time, together with Mr Khohlakala, who had been the principal agent for that project. Minister Dr Lindiwe Sisulu had intervened in mid 2007 by taking over the project from NMMM to Thubelisha Homes. Despite all the problems facing the NMMM, Chatty 600 was still expected to continue with the project even though there were no NMMM officials attending to the problems that directly affected the project. Those issues needed to be resolved by the principal agent, which at that point had been suspended, without a provisional replacement.

Mr Don Makhaza communicated the outcome of the ministerial intervention to Chatty 600 on 13 August 2007. Despite that intervention, Thubelisha had only signed an agreement with Chatty 600 by way of cession in October 2008. Amongst the problems in that project, Chatty 600 was being paid for only two roof trusses although no roof could stand with only that number of trusses. As a result, in accordance with the plans that had been agreed upon, Chatty 600 erected ten roofs. It had also not received payment for the foundation for those houses, whereby the NMMM had wanted a specialist contractor to do that job, but because of the cost the foundation had not been laid. Chatty 600 also quoted for corrugated iron as per the housing plan, but on site it had been instructed to construct a tiled roof, which required more timber than zinc roofs.

Thubelisha never corrected the problems in that contract despite the fact that Chatty 600 had been appointed as a solution to the issues already troubling the project. Instead it had added an amount because of escalated operational costs. Chatty 600 had built 589 out of 600 houses, since some of the sites were below the flood line. The National Home Builders Registration Council (NHBRC) had certified those entire houses and a final unit report (FUR) had been issued by the same entity. It had already presented records that proved that it had approached Mr Tsewu who currently worked for the Housing Development Agency (HDA), about its unresolved issues, with no help from him at all. Similar records where Chatty 600 had approached the MEC had been presented as well, with no assistance.

Emerging companies did not deserve to suffer because of state related issues.

The Chairperson asked Eastern Cape Builders Association to present as she felt the Committee could not engage any more. She asked that the presenters not be discouraged but the Committee had received what it needed, which was the voice of the affected parties in the whole contractual problem, but she was ruling that no questions would further be entertained from the Committee.

Eastern Cape Builders Association (ECBA) complaints
Mr Khayalethu Mkhwetshane said that in June 2012 ECBA had submitted a request for a correction and non-payment by the Eastern Cape DHS.

Mr Mathale wanted clarity because he understood that Mr Mkhwetshane to be saying ECBA was an association of builders. Did that organization have a contract with the government?

Mr Mkhwetshane replied that ECBA was a support organization, established as a People’s Housing Process (PHP) entity.

The Chairperson said that Mr Mkhwetshane was not representing builders and she was clarifying the PHP.

Mr Mathale replied that he knew what the PHP was as it had been piloted in his village as the first one in the country.

The Chairperson commented that the way they were designated in different areas of the country differed.

Mr Mkhwetshane repeated that in June 2012 ECBA had submitted a request for a correction of a subsidy amount in the Patterson 240 Project to the MEC, and had asked that the official intervene in that project, since it was funded by the municipality and that municipality had received that funding from DHS for that project; but it had used some of that funding for its own operational costs. Additionally the municipality claimed back VAT monies on ECBA's behalf which it had never turned over to it. The municipality had been the account administrator hence it had been responsible for reclaiming VAT funds from the province.

The MEC had never dealt with its request. As a result, ECBA reported to the provincial Committee on Human Settlements, and its petition had been discussed on numerous occasions with all the relevant parties. On the 7 June 2013, the HOD provided ECBA with a letter, which had provided a way forward on the project as agreed upon with Eastern Cape DHS. That had never been implemented. On the 15 November 2013 ECBA sent a letter to the Human Settlements Committee reporting that the Municipality was not availing itself to meet with it and that DHS was not following through on the resolution in the letter. On 6 December 2013 ECBA met with that Municipality’s Chief Financial Officer (CFO), which had since left that Municipality, but who had agreed to refund the VAT amount in instalments of R150 000. That payment never came from the Municipality. In January 2014, ECBA had met the CFO for the second time and provided him with an invoice for December 2013 to January of 2014. The CFO told ECBA that the Municipality had received legal advice that that matter had to go to court. It felt that it could not simply go to court without exhausting all available avenues. There was a document verifying its standing on that project.
ECBA was requesting the Committee to assist it in getting DHS to honour the way forward it had proposed in the letter of the 7 June 2013 from the HOD. Additionally could the Committee assist by ensuring that the Municipality provided banking statements for the Patterson 240 Project, so that it could see how those monies were used when coming from provincial DHS to the Municipality? Moreover could it assist in helping ECBA resolve the issue of VAT that had been claimed on its behalf, but had never been turned over to it?

All of those issues had resulted in that project being stopped but the HOD had agreed to restart the project. Even that currently had not happened since.

Provincial DHS had paid R15 55 677 to the Municipality, but the Municipality had only released part of this to ECBA. The bank records that it was requesting would bear witness to whether the money had been used as it was due to ECBA. There was no assistance from the DHS in retrieving that money from the Municipality. The Municipality was also not paying an amount of R1 457 472 which was VAT that should have been paid to ECBA.

The Chairperson asked Mr Mkhwetshane to stop at that point as the Committee had received the content of his submission.

Ms Borman asked whether the CFO agreeing to refund the money had been recorded in the minutes of the Municipality Council meeting.

Mr Mkhwetshane replied that the meeting had been between provincial Human Settlements Committee, DHS and the Municipality.

She repeated her question on whether that had been a Council meeting.

Mr Mkhwetshane replied that it had not been that type of meeting, but there had been representatives from all those concurrent functions of state.

She asked on what date that meeting had taken plac.

The Chairperson replied that that information would be in the forthcoming documents from state functions in the Eastern Cape.

Mr Bhoola commented that the zeal that the Chairperson had in the promulgation of the Rental Housing Amendment Bill would alleviate the challenges on the ground, and perhaps the Committee needed to look at the Chairperson’s inspiration to seduce the Committee into deal with the issues of emerging contractors.

Mr Matshoba said that he was also concerned that the CFO had abandoned the earlier agreement with ECBA and simply referred ECBA to legal advice that had been given to the Municipality about going to court, knowing very well the contractors had no money to do so.

The Chairperson quelled Mr Matshoba’s ire, saying that the Committee was coming to those issues, where local government simply told its citizens to go to court, knowing very well it would use taxpayers' money for those court actions.

Mr Mathale said that if indeed the state official did those things that were being reported today, it felt like it was happening in a different world and not in South Africa because those things were simply not possible. He asked whether Mr Mkhwetshane had been in the meeting were the CFO had committed to some of the things he was reporting?

Mr Mkhwetshane replied in the affirmative. He had been at every meeting including the one where the CFO had told ECBA that it could take legal action if it wanted to.

The Chairperson thanked the contractors from the Eastern Cape and said that it was Parliament’s role to oversee the executive. The Committee said that even though it was made of public representatives, it was also advocating for citizens to take responsibility and not to compromise themselves. The contractors would know by the end of the day or by the weekend what the Committee had resolved.

She said that on the Newtown housing challenges, it was only for the citizens to say their piece and not for DHS to speak. She reminded the Committee that it had engaged DHS over Newtown, therefore today it would receive a report from the community over what had happened to the evicted residents, where they currently resided. It wanted to know how the residents had accessed the housing from which they had been evicted from, and what happened in the interim since eviction.

Follow up meeting on the Newtown housing challenges
Ms Mpho Mokwakwa from the Newtown Housing Co-operatives (NHC) said she was a board member there, as well as having been a resident of Newtown Urban Village since 2001. She said that most members of NHC had had to subsidise and also earn equity to stay at the Village. NHC had been under the Cope Housing Association (CHA) property management since the beginning. NHCs troubles had started in 2005 when Cope went into voluntary liquidation. NHC had engaged Gauteng DHS together with the National Housing Finance Corporation (NHFC) where on numerous occasions it had asked what would happen to the Co-ops seeing that Cope had been liquidated. The response was that Co-ops would continue as they were. NHC had to look for another company that could manage its affairs and property, so Trafalgar had been chosen to do that work. NHC quickly discovered that Trafalgar was quite expensive and that it was not generating enough revenue at that time either. NHC was struggling at that time, because of the threats of evictions by NHFC, whereby it was repeatedly in and out of court trying to fight the evictions. Eventually NHC split in half with one group having its own lawyer whilst the other also had its own lawyer. Moreover, a Mr Moloto had been appointed to become a liquidator and to foresee the running of Newtown, and to provide a report on what was happening at Newtown. As NHC was still awaiting that report, it was taken back in and out of court by NHFC, sometimes it had had to go to Bloemfontein to appeal dismissals, and that matter was never heard there. In 2013 all groups that had made up NHC had been evicted from Newtown.

People were still displaced, even though some members of NHC were still conducting meetings. On 16 March, there was an upcoming meeting. The issues where that they had been evicted, during winter time, over the school holidays. When schools reopened it was a struggle for their children to come to school so much so, that some children had to repeat classes in 2014 as they had not been able to finish those classes in 2013.

Some people died as they were left destitute during the cold season, as they had nowhere to go. NHC's request was for its members to be subsidised somewhere else, or to be moved back to Newtown or to be taken to alternative accommodation, because that was what it believed was the humane thing to do.

People had lost identity documents and other important documents so that they now had to start afresh entirely. The Johannesburg Housing Cooperation (JHC) which had put new tenants in had since renovated Newtown.

Mr Bhoola asked whether NHC members had not applied to be re-housed in Newtown, after it had been placed under new management.

Ms Mokwakwa said that some members had applied but had been rejected.

Ms Borman asked whether the City of Johannesburg had ever intervened in the Newtown eviction challenges.

Ms Mokwakwa replied that there had been no intervention and on numerous occasions NHC had tried to engage the City to assist, but no help ever came from them.

Ms Sosibo asked where the residents had gone after evictions.

Ms Mokwakwa said that she had gone back to Soweto back to her mother’s house. Some people had remained on the street, which was how one of the residents had died, because they had been only given 15 minutes to gather their belongings and move out.

The Chairperson asked whether Ms Mokwakwa knew a Mr Bovu.

She replied that she had only seeing him when the residents were marching, with the South African Communist Party (SACP’s) intervention.

The Chairperson asked Ms Mokwakwa, whether Mr Bovu had not been a councillor prior to the evictions, because she was in possession of a report that said that he had been a ward councillor before the evictions.

Ms Mokwakwa mentioned two councillors that she knew about, one was Ms Nokuthula Xaba. She knew no Mr Bovu prior to the evictions. She had been shown him at the Civic Centre meeting where he had said that he would intervene in the NHC housing challenges.

The Chairperson asked if Ms Mokwakwa knew a Pastor Wally, because it was said that he had been delegated by the City of Johannesburg, and that he had conducted two sessions with the residents' committees, where he had explained the legal context of the situation between NHC and NHFC. He was also to provide alternative means of resolving issues between the two bodies. Had he been a member of the board at NHC, did he attend or direct meetings?

Ms Mokwakwa said she had not attended all of the meetings as she was working full time, but some members from her committee, as they had committees, possibly would have attended meetings, as to who they had been addressed by, she did not have all those facts.

The Chairperson asked how many groups were there before they had registered the Co-ops. Where they already divided? Did DHS, the City and NHFC invite all groups when they wanted to address the residents? Because procedurally even though there were two groups, they all had to be addressed at the same time.

Ms Mokwakwa said that of the meetings that had been held at the residential premises all affected groups, had been present as they all were fighting to stay in Newtown or find alternatives. Even beyond the yard residence, meetings were held in unity.

Ms Mokwakwa was asked if she was made aware of arrangements that temporary accommodation would be made available to residents?

Ms Mokwakwa replied in the affirmative and added that some residents had been moved to dormitories.

The Chairperson asked how big the dormitories were.

From the reports from those residents that had gone to the dormitories, Ms Mokwakwa said that she had heard that they were large and had been allocated by gender, one for males and the other for females.

The Chairperson asked had those residents been paying rent at those dormitories?

Ms Mokwakwa said that she was not aware of whether they did or not.

The Chairperson asked whether there was ever a Community Development Worker (CDW) that had been introduced to the Newtown residents, someone who was supposed to have been living amongst them. Someone who had presented a document from the ward councillor that indicated that the City had to provide alternative accommodation.

She replied that she did not know such an individual.

The Chairperson asked if Ms Mokwakwa knew a Mrs Mdluli.

Ms Mokwakwa said she knew a Mrs Mdluli with a disabled child, because there were two Mdluli’s in the residence. It was unfortunate as Mrs Mdluli was supposed to have been in Parliament today as well. However, because transport arrangements were not properly concluded she had been left behind. When the residents were evicted, the media would find her there outside and interview her, which had precipitated SACP negotiating with the Johannesburg Housing Cooperation (JHC) to at least keep her in her flat as she had a disabled dependent. She had been returned to her flat, but when renovations started on 10 December Mrs Mdluli was evicted. She had received a call at work that Mrs Mdluli was outside; she had called Mr Jacob Mamabolo who was the SACP liaison attached to NHC. When they rushed there they had found that both the child and Mrs Mdluli were outside and that the child had fell during an altercation between the parent and JHC which seemed to have been trying to remove the child from her care. Where she went after that Ms Mokwakwa did not know. She had only reunited with her the day before at O.R. Tambo airport. When they had to board, Mrs Mdluli’s name could not be found on the manifest. When she enquired about what name she had used, Mrs Mdluli seemed to be confused. When she asked what other name she had used, her plane had arrived and when Ms Mokwakwa left she had left instructions that Mrs Mdluli be put on the next flight to Cape Town.

She called her when she arrived in Cape Town enquiring about her situation, Mrs Mdluli told her she had decided not to come after all as there seemed to be very little care and sensitivity to her circumstances.

The Chairperson asked whether there had been five residents that had been relocated to central Johannesburg.

Ms Mokwakwa replied that those residents had gone to Jeppestown.

The Chairperson asked DHS and Ms Mokwakwa how it was that Mrs Mdluli had two different names, that is her identity document name was not Mdluli, even though everyone seemed to be referring to her as such.

Ms Mokwakwa replied that was what she had also discovered at the airport and when she enquired over that, it was when Mrs Mdluli seemed to be in a daze.

The Chairperson said that DHS was supposed to be using the proper surname, as it was a state function. What identification had DHS used for Mrs Mdluli and from where had it gotten it?

She asked Mr Mogane of the NHFC to respond to the same questions as he was a representative of NHFC. DHS should only speak on matters before the eviction and not after, because the Committee had instructed DHS to intervene and to have meetings with those residents.

Mr Siegfried Mogane, NHFC Head of Risk, said that he had numerous meetings with the three co-ops that were under Cope with an additional two, that were not part of the group managed by Cope at the request of the Gauteng DHS. The purpose of the meetings had been to advise members of those communities about the seriousness of NHFCs position as well as the residents’ position, and what this would result in. NHFC had committed to assist the co-ops to choose a management company that had the proper capacity to replace Cope. Three companies had been shortlisted, names had been chosen, and voting had taken place. Mr Mogane had chaired that meeting, where the co-ops had chosen Trafalgar. There were groups that did not want Trafalgar amongst those residents and they had wanted to have their own management company. There was an agreement between all the co-ops; that the property management company needed to be acceptable to everyone. It needed to be acceptable in the sense that it needed to have the necessary staff expertise.

NHFC had not chosen a company for the residents, they had done that, themselves, however the groups that had not wanted Trafalgar chose not to participate in the voting which still left Trafalgar as the administrator of rent. Parallel with that, there had been another property management company that had been appointed by Zachariah Matsela that also collected rent. With such a state of affairs NHFC was not getting any revenue, and thus it decided to ask those companies for that revenue, and after asking a few times, it had decided to sell the property.

Ms Mokwakwa said that some of the members at NHC had along the line stopped paying rent. So when NHFC came asking for revenue, NHC wanted to know how much of the loan was still owing to NHFC and how far back were those members with their rent. She did not remember ever having seen any documentation in that regard or a response.

Ms Borman asked if there were lists of those that had accepted Trafalgar and those that had declined it, as a property management company.

Ms Mokwakwa said that NHC had asked Cope after it had been liquidated how much it had paid NHFC, so that the residents would know how much remained.

The Chairperson asked what the response from Cope had been over that request.

Ms Mokwakwa said that there had been originally seven co-ops, but two had gone their own way. From the remaining five, two co-ops paid monies to Trafalgar and another had paid money to the other property management company. Two co-ops never paid money to any management company.

Ms Borman said that a possible way forward was a full investigation as there were monies going in different directions.

The Chairperson asked whether the residents still had children schooling in town, and how they had being accommodated since the evictions.

Ms Mokwakwa said of those she knew about, they had moved schools as town had been quite far. Additionally she housed some older kids for the whole week, as she had returned to town and over the weekend they would go home. Some families had squeezed into small flats as two separate families, just to alleviate rental costs.

In answer to the question if the separate NHC groups had met in 2014 and where had they met, Ms Mokwakwa said that they all still met close to their former residence.

The Chairperson asked how they organized themselves because when government wanted them, they needed to be readily available. She asked for clarity over the attendance register for the meetings that NHC had been holding since the liquidation of Cope.

Ms Mokwakwa replied that those were the times they had started and finished meetings.

The Chairperson asked what the Newtown residents request of the Committee, because the Committee still wanted on its own to find out with whose money that building had been purchased and for what purpose.

Ms Mokwakwa replied that the residents wanted a thorough investigation of the irregularities in the collection of rent, loan repayments and what had happened from day one up until eviction. What processes had been followed, even if the residents were at fault regarding payments, they still wanted to know who had been in good standing and who had not.

The Chairperson told the DHS delegation present at this meeting that it could add something. [PMG note: This was inaudible]. Otherwise the Committee wanted to meet with all the affected parties from the Eastern Cape at the following meeting.

The meeting was adjourned.