Community Practice Notes: Informal Settlement Series

informal settlement series

Makause: Resisting Relocation on the East Rand

CommunityPRACTICE NOTES

1

In SERI’s Community Practice Notes we document the socio-economic struggles of community-based organisations in

different settlement contexts in South Africa

Informal Settlement SeriesSERI’s first community practice notes are a series on informal settlement struggles for development, in which we examine how community-based organisations (CBOs) in four informal settlements in South Africa have organised and mobilised for development, particularly around the in situ upgrading of informal settlements.

The series examines the strategies and tactics of CBOs in four informal settlements located in Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality (Gauteng), Mahikeng Local Municipality (North West) and the City of Johannesburg (Gauteng). The four CBOs profiled are: Makause Community Development Forum (Macodefo), Rooigrond Committee, Thembelihle Crisis Committee (TCC) and Slovo Park Community Development Forum (SPCDF).

The series documents and analyses the relationship between evictions, development, community organisation and mobilisation, local politics, protest and the use of courts.

Makause: Resisting Relocation on the East Rand is the first community practice note in the series. The other three are: Rooigrond: Community Struggle in the North West; Thembelihle: Engaging an Unresponsive State and Slovo Park: Twenty Years of Broken Promises.

Design and layout: www.itldesign.co.za

1

Contents1. About Makause ................................................................................ 2

2. Key Events ........................................................................................ 3

Timeline of events .....................................................................................4

3. Macodefo: Strategies and Tactics ...............................................11

4. Conclusion .......................................................................................15

Makause: Resisting Relocation on the East Rand

1



Makause: Resisting Relocation on the East Rand is the first in the Informal Settlement Series of community practice notes.

It provides a brief background to the Makause informal settlement; summarises the key events in the struggle to resist eviction and push for development at the settlement; and examines the strategies and tactics of the local community structure, the Makause Community Development Forum (Macodefo).

2

01 About Makause

Makause informal settlement is located in the suburb of Primrose in Germiston, which falls within the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality in the Gauteng province. The settlement was established in the mid-1990s after retrenched mine workers occupied the abandoned vacant site, known as Driefontein Farm. Some residents have lived at the settlement for over 20 years. Currently at least 10 000 people reside at the settlement, which is very densely populated and spans an area of approximately 60 hectares. The land on which Makause is situated is owned by two companies: Rose Acres Development (Rose Acres) - which holds three title deeds comprising 40 hectares - and Harrigan Properties. DRD Gold has servitude rights over some of the land. The settlement is located on an old mining ridge and is classified as a mine residue area (MRA), exhibiting geotechnical concerns relating to the formation of sinkholes and the danger of unsealed mine shafts. Makause is considered well-located to the residents as there are economic opportunities and social amenities in the surrounding areas of Germiston and Primrose.

Figure 1: Aerial view of Makause

3

02 Key Events

The following figure summarises the key events in the struggle to resist eviction and push for development at Makause informal settlement.

Figure 2: Makause summary timeline

2006A Makause resident dies after falling into a collapsed sinkhole. Threats of eviction lead to Macodefo being revived as a

community structure

2008 -2009Negotiations for interim services

begin. Municipality installs two

standpipes and five high mast lights at

the settlement.

2011Macodefo, ISN and

Rose Acres meet to discuss a way forward.

The local ANC branch sets up an alternative community structure

at Makause.

2013Arrested Macodefo members appear in court several times.

General Moyo is eventually charged with intimidation.

Macodefo begins community water

project.

2007Over 2000

households are forcibly relocated from Makause to

Tsakane. Macodefo takes up the

struggle.

2010Rose Acres, the

majority landowner, proposes that the municipality enter into negotiations

around purchasing the land.

2012Macodefo, launches

High Court application to compel upgrading

at Makause. The municipality opposes

the application.

Macodefo members are arrested after a protest

march is banned.

2014High Court

application launched to declare section

1(1)(b) of Intimidation Act unconstitutional.

4

TIMELINE OF EVENTS2006

OCTOBER

DECEMBER

2007

FEBRUARY

A Makause resident dies after falling into a collapsed sinkhole at the settlement while

picking waste from the concealed opening.1

The Makause Community Development Forum (Macodefo) is revived as an informal community structure, with a focus on

assisting residents resist forced relocation from the settlement.2

A “housing beneficiary workshop” is convened by the municipality at the Makause informal settlement. Community members are told that they will be relocated to Tsakane Extension 10 – a temporary relocation area (TRA) located 40km away on the periphery of the municipality. The meeting is disrupted by Macodefo members, who tell the community that they had investigated the area and it is an open site with no houses.

The municipality uses the death at Makause as a pretext to relocate the community on the emergency grounds of “immediate threat to their safety”.3 It states that Makause will be turned into a “green belt”, after the land is rehabilitated.4 The Red Ants are contracted by the municipality and start marking shacks at the settlement.

JANUARY

Evictions at the settlement begin and the community approaches the High Court to obtain an urgent interdict prohibiting the municipality from unlawfully demolishing people’s shacks at the settlement. The first application is dismissed. A week later the community approaches the court for a second time. The judge grants an order permitting residents to be relocated only if they consent to it under a process

supervised and monitored by a high ranking South African Police Service (SAPS) officer.5 However the municipality and SAPS abuse the court order and take a bundle of pre-signed eviction consent forms (stamped by a Primrose SAPS officer) and distribute these to residents in food parcels,6 as confirmation that they had received the parcel (and consented to voluntarily relocate).7

1 News24 “Woman’s body pulled from home” (26 October 2006).2 C Benit-Gbaffou (ed) “Community activists tell their story: driving change in Johannesburg and Ekurhuleni” (June 2013) 212.3 Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality “Amendment of Resolution: Relocation of Families Living under Stressful Condition

and the Immediate Threat to their Safety on the Mining Belt in the Southern Service Delivery Region” Minutes of Mayoral Committee Meeting (18 January 2007).

4 SABC News “Families removed from mining area in East Rand” (2 February 2007).5 Ndawoyakhe and Others v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality and Another (1 February 2007) 2007/40346 Benit-Gbaffou “Community activists tell their story” (2013) 210. 7 M Langford “Housing Rights Litigation: Grootboom and Beyond” in Langford et al (eds) Socio-Economic Rights in South Africa:

Symbols or Substance? (2013) 215.

5

OCTOBER

Over 2 000 households are relocated from Makause to Tsakane.8 While some people are in favour of relocating, others choose to challenge the eviction.9 61 households living in shacks marked for demolition successfully resist having their homes destroyed (they remain the subject of an eviction in 2008). Many people are misled into believing that they would be allocated an RDP house at Tsakane, however all they are given is four poles and plastic to reconstruct their homes.10 Residents are forced to buy back building materials confiscated by the Red Ants during the eviction.11 People’s livelihoods are destroyed, as they cannot afford the travelling costs associated with the relocation, estimated at the time as R38 for a roundtrip. Those who depend on the neighbourhood surrounding Makause attempt to commute for work, with many simply relocating back to Makause permanently.12

The impact of the relocation from Makause to Tsakane has an overall negative effect on households: food insecurity rises, families are separated because of the lack of jobs in Tsakane, which require some family members to move back to Makause, children struggle to get into schools at Tsakane and the majority of pupils have no choice but to commute to Makause to attend school.13 According to research conducted into the impact of the relocation, it “caused a lot of confusion, anger, and hopelessness attributed to a lack of communication with the community and the sense people felt misled”.14

Following engagements with the municipality, an agreement is made that Makause residents living at Tsakane can return if they wish.15 Around two-thirds of households return permanently, while the rest reside at Tsakane only on weekends.16 Many people are forced into rental arrangements on their return.17

Rose Acres acquires 40 hectares of the land on which Makause is situated. It begins the process of establishing an industrial township

on the property, zoned for light industrial and business use.

SEPTEMBER

The municipality applies for an eviction order to remove the remaining 61 households living on a 200m belt of land which had been largely cleared in the 2007 demolition. The households oppose the application and call for meaningful engagement with the municipality. Negotiations are held with the

municipality in 2008 on the issue of installing interim services at the settlement. The municipality’s position is that the services are a temporary solution, and that they had to be installed at the edges of the settlement because the private landowners will not allow them to be installed on their land.

8 Residents from a number of other informal settlements in the municipality are also removed to Tsakane. H Bangerezako “A piece of plastic called home” Mail and Guardian (28 May 2007).

9 A Moyo “Interview” (3 June 2013).10 U Jessee “An Urban Risks and Reconstruction Model” Thesis submitted in terms of a Master of Arts degree at the University of

the Witwatersrand (2008) 26. 11 Ibid 83.12 Ibid 67.13 Jessee “An Urban Risks and Reconstruction Model” (2008) 107.14 Ibid 95.15 Benit-Gbaffou “Community activists tell their story” (2013) 211.16 Langford “Housing Rights Litigation” (2013) 216.17 K Kornienko “Engaging Informal Settlements as Landscapes of Place: Reconceptualising Urban Communities in the Struggle for

In Situ Upgrading” PhD thesis, University of the Witwatersrand (2013).

6

2008MAYXenophobic violence breaks out across Gauteng, including at Makause. Macodefo criticises the action of the Primrose SAPS

in assisting preventative efforts to stop the violence. A number of foreign nationals are killed at the settlement.18

JUNEMacodefo is invited to a “Roundtable on Informal Settlement Upgrading” at the School of Architecture and Planning at the University of the Witwatersrand. This invitation is as a result of Macodefo organiser General Alfred Moyo’s networking. It provides the

opportunity for Macodefo to meet members of social movements, municipal and provincial government officials, and lawyers. At the workshop the Centre for Applied Legal Studies (CALS) agrees to take on Makause’s case.19

JULY - AUGUSTAfter a long struggle by the community and Macodefo, the municipality eventually installs two standpipes and five high mast lights at Makause. However, given the size of the settlement and the number of households,

this is inadequate. A notice is posted on a tree at the settlement, announcing an application for the establishment of a township to be zoned for industrial and business purposes.

SEPTEMBERThe Ekurhuleni Housing Department states that it has no objection to the establishment of an industrial township on the property owned by Rose Acres, however notes that “the site is currently occupied by an informal settlement. The [Housing] Department is concerned as to the future of this community and what steps will be followed to resolve the resettlement of this community.”20

The Informal Settlement Network (ISN) is formed in a number of provinces after a

series of informal settlement dialogues are held.21 Macodefo becomes a member of the ISN, and networks with other settlements in the municipality and the province. Moyo is elected as the chairperson of the Ekurhuleni ISN.22

A meeting is set up between Macodefo, ISN representatives and the Office of the Speaker of the municipal council to discuss the provision of services at Makause.

18 IOL News “Boksburg hit by xenophobic violence” (19 May 2008).19 Kornienko “Engaging Informal Settlements as Landscapes of Place” (2013) 259. This case has since been transferred to the

Socio-Economic Rights Institute of South Africa (SERI).20 Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality “Letter from Housing Department to City Development” (16 September 2008).21 ISN is a “bottom-up agglomeration of settlement-level and national-level organisations of the urban poor” in South Africa. See

http://sasdialliance.org.za/about/isn/22 Kornienko “Engaging Informal Settlements as Landscapes of Place” (2013) 255.

2009As a result of the municipality’s refusal to install services at Makause, Macodefo starts to engage with the ISN and a private

company, Toilet Boss Distributors, to pilot a system to improve individual pit latrines at the settlement.

7

2010FEBRUARYEkurhuleni MMC for Water and Energy and municipal officials conduct a site visit to Makause prior to an Informal Settlement Summit organised by ISN and the Office of the Mayor. At this visit the municipality is made aware of the lack of water points, illegal dumping, overgrown grass and a large number of trees in close proximity to shacks at the settlement.23

Macodefo begins attending ward committee meetings in 2009, and pushes for a clinic to be built near Makause, and for traffic lights to be installed. In 2010 a clinic is built across the road from the settlement and two traffic lights are built at a busy intersection bordering Makause.

MARCHThe ANC Germiston Alberton Regional Parliamentary Constituency Office (PCO) management holds a meeting with the Makause community about service delivery challenges at the settlement, including refuse removal, additional communal water taps, chemical toilets and the trimming of grass.24 The municipality begins working with Macodefo and the community to clean the area, cut trees, clear waste and trim the grass.

The municipality offers to provide chemical toilets on the edges of the settlement; however Macodefo rejects the offer. Macodefo requests municipal approval for the Toilet Boss system to be rolled out at Makause. The municipality deems the product to be safe but refuses to approve its implementation at the settlement, stating that the company would need to enter into an agreement with the occupiers in a private capacity.25

APRIL - JUNEThe Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (GDARD) requests the Ekurhuleni Housing Department to provide it with information on what steps will be taken to relocate the occupiers of Makause so that it can authorise development on the land.

Representatives from the landowner, Rose Acres, meet with the municipality to discuss

resettling the occupiers of Makause. They state that they are willing to negotiate about the municipality purchasing the property or entering into a development lease, and propose that the two parties enter into negotiations for the municipality to purchase the land to develop residential units there.

SEPTEMBERGDARD authorises the establishment of an industrial township on the land owned by Rose Acres, zoned for light industrial and

business use. The township is to be known as Germiston Extension 40 once it is proclaimed.

23 Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality “Report on site visit to Makause informal settlement” (8 February 2010). 24 ANC Germiston Alberton Regional Parliamentary Constituency Office “Letter to the Executive Mayor of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan

Municipality: Ward 21 Makause Service Delivery Issues” (31 March 2010).25 Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality “Letter to Toilet Boss Distributors: Implementation of Interim Sanitation at Makause

Settlement” (1 April 2010).

8

OCTOBERA fire breaks out at Makause killing one man and destroying a number of shacks. The Red

Ants are contracted by the municipality to help rebuild people’s shacks.26

FEBRUARYAs part of the local government election campaign, the Ekurhuleni Mayor visits a number of informal settlements, including

Makause. Community members raise the lack of basic services at the settlement.

MARCHA meeting is held with the MMC for Housing, Macodefo, the ward councillor and the landowners. Rose Acres rejects the municipality’s proposal to install interim services while it explores options to accommodate the Makause residents elsewhere and wants a permanent solution and suggests that the municipality purchase the land or negotiate for long-term leasehold. The property owners and the municipality each accuse one another of acting in bad faith. Macodefo and ISN set up a meeting with

the property owners to further discuss the issue.

A meeting is held on 15 March with the landowner, ISN and Macodefo. The landowner proposes to launch an eviction application against the occupiers, suspended for six months while a plan to relocate the occupiers is formulated by the municipality. The owner argues that this is the best way to spur the municipality into action and consider a permanent solution. Macodefo does not agree to this approach.

MAYOn 18 May 2011 - the day of the local government election - the municipality begins implementing a high mast lighting project at the settlement.27 According to Macodefo, local ANC branch members accuse community members employed at the project of being members of the Democratic

Alliance (DA) and being paid to not vote for the ANC. After the election the ANC loses the Primrose ward to the DA, which exacerbates tensions between Macodefo and the local ANC branch. Macodefo fears the use of force to “overthrow” the committee leadership.28

2011

26 M Rambau “Makause recovers from fire” (10 October 2010).27 Macodefo “Primrose ANC branch threatens attack on the leadership of the Makause shack settlement in Ekurhuleni” press

release (29 May 2011).28 Ibid.29 Moyo “Interview” (2013).30 See http://sasdialliance.org.za/isn-gauteng-cuff-projects/ for more on the CUFF initiative.31 The Mvula Trust is a water and sanitation NGO operating in South Africa working to increase access to sustainable water and

sanitation services. See http://www.mvula.co.za/ 32 SDI South African Alliance “Informal Settlement Upgrading: Makause” (18 July 2013).

JUNEThe local ANC branch chairperson and treasurer set up an alternative community structure at Makause, ostensibly to challenge

Macodefo’s legitimacy and undermine the struggle for upgrading of the settlement.29

DECEMBERMacodefo obtains funding from the Community Upgrading Facility Fund (CUFF), an initiative of the Community Organisation Resource Centre (CORC),30 as well as The

Mvula Trust,31 to upgrade the existing water connections and to install four additional taps at the settlement.32

9

JUNEMacodefo, represented by the Socio-Economic Rights Institute of South Africa (SERI), launches an application in the South Gauteng High Court to compel upgrading at Makause.33 The application requests the court to review the municipality’s failure to take a decision to make an application to the Gauteng provincial government for funding to upgrade Makause in terms of the Upgrading

of Informal Settlements Programme (UISP) contained in the National Housing Code. The application also requests that the municipality provide the residents with access to basic water, sanitation and refuse removal services until the settlement has been upgraded, or formal housing has been provided to the residents through other means.

JULY - SEPTEMBERThe municipality opposes the application and attempts to reach a settlement agreement with the occupiers regarding interim services. The occupiers request the provision of water through communal standpipes, the provision of water-borne sanitation and the provision of waste removal and management through a community driven project. In August, the Macodefo offices and the homes of Macodefo organiser General Moyo and Macodefo secretary Michael Dzai are attacked, allegedly by members of the local ANC branch. 34

In September, Macodefo gives notice in terms of the Regulation of Gatherings Act 205 of 1993 to the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Police Department (EMPD), notifying them of

a planned protest march on 5 October. The purpose of the march is to protest against police brutality by the Primrose SAPS, the police’s alleged refusal to investigate Makause residents’ cases, and the lack of police action in investigating the attack on Macodefo offices and homes in August, when the leadership was in Marikana to show solidarity with the families of the deceased.35 The SAPS station commander organises a meeting with Macodefo where community leaders are allegedly threatened and told that if they march against the SAPS there will be “another Marikana”.36 They are told that the other community structure at Makause had planned to march on the same day, so Macodefo could not go ahead.

OCTOBER

2012

Rose Acres launches a counter-application to the Macodefo application and also issues a summons against the municipality, requesting that constitutional damages be paid it and demanding that the municipality either purchase the land through negotiation or expropriation, or relocate and resettle the occupiers to suitable land in the area.37

A fire at the settlement burns 18 shacks to the ground. The lack of access to water appears to be a factor which contributed to the rapid spread of the fire. The municipality is criticised for its response to the fire, and for again outsourcing to the Red Ants to assist fire-affected communities and rebuild shacks.38

33 For more on this case, see http://www.seri-sa.org/index.php/litigation-9/cases/19-litigation/case-entries/112-michael-dzai-and-others-v-ekurhuleni-metropolitan-muniicpality-and-others-makause

34 Macodefo “Focus group interview” (26 October 2012).35 Macodefo “Makause community to march against police brutality in Primrose” press release (17 October 2012). 36 M de Waal “Police to people of Makause: ‘March and there’ll be another Marikana’” Daily Maverick (5 October 2012).37 Rose Acres “Affidavit” (8 October 2012).38 M de Waal “In the wake of the Makause shack fire, the destitute and forgotten” Daily Maverick (15 October 2012).

10

Macodefo re-applies for the march against police brutality to be held on 19 October. The march is telephonically approved by an EMPD officer two days before the march. However a day later, one day before the march is due to take place, a meeting in terms of section 4 of the Regulation of Gatherings Act is convened. In a surprising move the meeting is held at Primrose SAPS station (section 4 meetings are normally held at the EMPD offices). During this meeting there is much hostility from SAPS officers towards Macodefo leaders, particularly towards Moyo, as well as from ANC members forming part of the opposition community structure (who had been invited to the meeting by the police). The police refuse to grant permission for Macodefo’s march.

The following day Macodefo and Makause residents convened a mass meeting at the Makause Sports Ground to decide on a way forward after the march was banned.39 SAPS officers arrive in numbers, dispersing the peaceful crowd and arresting Moyo. At the Primrose police station the police arrest a further three people: two members of the Makause Community Youth Brigade (MCYB) and a staff member of the NGO Planact. The two MCYB members are arrested for wearing Marikana solidarity t-shirts and badges.40 Bail of R1 000 is eventually granted to the four and they appear in the Germiston Regional Magistrate’s Court.

JANUARY - JUNE

2013

Moyo and the two MCYB members appear in court a number of times during 2013. Each time their case is postponed.41 After several unreasonable delays, the state decides to drop the charges against two of the accused, but pursues a charge of “intimidation” in terms of the Intimidation Act 72 of 1982 against Moyo. A trial date is eventually set for 29 October 2013.

Macodefo begins a community project to connect Makause residents to municipal water pipes. The organisation also begins an enumeration exercise at the settlement and a recruitment drive to get more members and promote community unity at the settlement.42

OCTOBEROn 29 October a complete charge sheet and a docket in connection with Moyo’s trial is finally provided. This is a full year after his arrest.

The case is again postponed to allow Moyo and his legal representatives from SERI the opportunity to study the charge against him.

APRILAn application is launched in the North Gauteng High Court to declare section 1(1)(b) of the Intimidation Act unconstitutional and

invalid.43 Moyo’s trial is postponed until this challenge is finally determined.

2014

39 N Pingo “Witness statement” (30 May 2013). 40 Marikana Support Campaign “Police arrest Makause activists for wearing Marikana solidarity t-shirts” press release (23 October

2012).41 For more on this case, see http://www.seri-sa.org/index.php/19-litigation/case-entries/147-s-v-moyo-swetsana-and-sisulu-

primrose 42 Benit-Gbaffou “Community activists tell their story” (2013) 216.43 For more on this case, see http://www.seri-sa.org/index.php/19-litigation/case-entries/240-moyo-and-another-v-minister-of-

justice-and-constitutional-development-and-others

11

For the last seven years the residents of Makause informal settlement have resisted relocation to Tsakane by the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality, and pushed for the in situ upgrading of the settlement. Prior to 2007 Macodefo focused on domestic issues within the community; however after the threat of relocations in 2006 it was revived and repurposed to focus on resisting eviction, mobilising for basic services, and pushing for in situ upgrading. According to Langford, “it is clear that the eviction itself was the key catalyst for the mobilisation of the community” and that “litigation has strengthened rather than diminished the struggle.”44

One of the main challenges facing Macodefo’s struggle for development has been the “political influence” of the local ANC, the Primrose SAPS and the DA ward councillor.45 In 2011 the Primrose ward was won by a DA candidate. The Macodefo leadership was accused by the local ANC branch of supporting the DA and paying people to vote for the DA.46 However, according to Macodefo, the DA ward councillor also wanted the

03 Macodefo: Strategies and Tactics

44 Langford “Housing Rights Litigation” (2013) 216.45 Benit-Gbaffou “Community activists tell their story” (2013) 212.46 Macodefo “Primrose ANC branch threatens attack on the leadership of the Makause shack settlement in Ekurhuleni” press

release (29 May 2011).

Strip of land cleared of shacks at Makause, 2007 Shacks being constructed at Tsakane, 2007

12

community to relocate to Tsakane as she “sees us [Makause residents] as a disgrace” and wanted development at the site.47 The role of the local ANC in fostering community divisions and destabilising the work of Macodefo is a large part of the story of Macodefo. In 2010 the local ANC PCO held a meeting with Macodefo to discuss service delivery; however, according to Macodefo, the meeting was intended to measure community support for the Macodefo leadership, as the regional ANC resisted the upgrading of the settlement. Macodefo believes that the local ANC has been promised financial benefits from the planned development in the area, were the entire Makause community to relocate.48 According to Moyo in an interview:

The ANC is the government so whenever we are challenging issues like the lack of service delivery we are challenging the ANC directly. The ANC got its wings around the community: all the structures, from the region down to the local levels, will be used to disorganize the community and to disempower civic organisations; to demobilize the community, to make all those promises that will not be fulfilled, to keep you unfocused.49

Macodefo maintains that the Primrose SAPS facilitates divisions in the community and is not impartial regarding development at the settlement.50 The relationship between the community and the police has in the past been a collaborative and fruitful one, focused on working together to combat the high crime rate at the settlement.51 However this has changed over the years. According to Moyo, the “mob ANC group” claiming to be community leaders at Makause are remote-controlled by ANC members who reside in Primrose and have strong ties to the Primrose SAPS.52 Distrust of the Primrose SAPS

47 Benit-Gbaffou “Community activists tell their story” (2013) 213.48 Macodefo “Focus group interview” (26 October 2012).49 Benit-Gbaffou “Community activists tell their story” (2013) 213. 50 Moyo “Interview” (2013).51 Kornienko “Engaging Informal Settlements as Landscapes of Place” (2013) 228.52 Ibid.

Macodefo protest against police brutality, 2012 SAPS at Makause Sports Ground, 2012

13

began in 2007 when police officers were involved in the relocation of households from Makause to Tsakane. This remained over the years.53

Indeed, a number of incidents over the years have demonstrated the seemingly political manner in which the police have operated, particularly in relation to the leadership struggle at the settlement. These incidents include: SAPS officers confiscating the keys to Macodefo’s container office (donated by DRD Gold) and handing them over to the rival community structure; Primrose SAPS discontinuing their relationship with Macodefo in the Community Policing Forum (CPF) and incorporating members of the rival structure; SAPS officials complicit in the selling of the containers donated as Macodefo offices; SAPS not assisting Macodefo when its offices and shacks are attacked; and SAPS officers arresting Macodefo and MYCB members in 2012. Police brutality and attacks on Macodefo leaders at the settlement have led to a serious lack of trust in the police. The ongoing trial of Macodefo leader Moyo is evidence of the complicit nature of the SAPS in silencing dissent.

Over the years Macodefo community leaders have engaged with a number of different partners in the struggle for development at the settlement and against repression by the police. In addition to the municipality and the private landowners, Macodefo have engaged the private sector, activist organisations, academics, journalists and public interest lawyers. The latter have included ProBono.Org, Centre for Applied Legal Studies (CALS) and SERI. Due in part to experiences of its organiser Moyo, Macodefo has a focus on human rights and constitutional law, but is also affiliated to activist groupings.54

53 Ibid.54 Benit-Gbaffou “Community activists tell their story” (2013) 207.

Improved water infrastructure at the settlement, 2011

Makause informal settlement, 2013

14

Macodefo engaged informally with social movements Abahlali baseMjondolo (AbM)55 and the Landless People’s Movement (LPM),56 as well as with the ISN in 2008. While Macodefo was part of ISN initially, this relationship apparently soured when Macodefo realised that the owner of Toilet Boss was promoting his own commercial interests. According to Moyo, the company’s owner courted the ISN leadership, presumably in an attempt to gain access to informal settlements, and this tainted the agenda of ISN. Moyo believes ISN is being used by officials to quash “radical struggle” and community activism.57 However, the organisation continues to work with ISN (despite abandoning the joint sanitation project) because, according to Moyo, “if you not working with ISN, CORC isolates you and does not help you”, and the relationship with CORC is valued. 58 For example, in 2011 Macodefo partnered with CORC on a project to improve access to water at the settlement.

Macodefo has also formed relationships with other organisations and academics, including Marie Huchzermeyer,59 who has facilitated a number of research projects at the settlement as well as provided advice on informal settlement upgrading.60 Moyo is also the Gauteng provincial organiser for the Democratic Left Front (DLF), which serves as a network for social movements and CBOs and supports independent candidates in local elections.61 DLF is also affiliated to the Marikana Support Campaign, set up after the Marikana massacre to provide support and solidarity to the affected miners and families. It was this affiliation that partly led to Moyo’s arrest in October 2012.

55 AbM is a South African shackdwellers movement formed in Durban in early 2005 with a key demand for land and housing in the city. See http://www.abahlali.org

56 LPM was a social movement formed in 2001 to challenge rural and urban landlessness and land dispossession.57 Benit-Gbaffou “Community activists tell their story” (2013) 207.58 Ibid.59 Huchzermeyer is a professor at the School of Architecture and Planning at the University of the Witwatersrand whose

research examines housing and informal settlement policy across different contexts from a historical, political and rights-based perspective.

60 Moyo “Interview” (3 June 2013).61 The DLF is “an initiative started in 2008 to bring together anti-capitalist forces for unity in action around an eco-socialist

programme”. See http://www.democraticleft.za.net/

15

This community practice note documents the Makause community’s struggle for permanence in the face of competing interests between residents, private landowners, the municipality and local politicians. It shows how the forced relocation of Makause households to Tsakane in 2007 catalysed the community into action, and was the turning point in mobilisation. It also highlights how relatively well-located informal settlements, even if they were established decades previously, are under land market pressures. In this case an industrial and commercial land use has been pursued by the private landowners, and is preferred by the municipality as well as local politicians linked to the neighbouring suburb of Primrose.

The engagement between Makause community representatives, the private landowners, local government officials and political party leaders over the years underscores the inertia of municipalities in situations like these, and the failure to adequately address the concerns of the community to find a more permanent solution and access to services in the interim. Macodefo has utilised a variety of formal and informal tactics to try to compel upgrading at the settlement. These include building partnerships with other CBOs, social movements and academics; formal engagement with government; litigation as a tool; and protest.

However the story is also extremely politically complex and charged. It highlights how communities are not homogenous, but consist of multiple intersecting interests and motives. The dynamics of party politics and contestation over development have complicated matters in the area, and the actions of the local police have become politicised. The pursuing of a criminal charge against Moyo is particularly disturbing, and raises serious questions around the practice of silencing of dissent through the criminal justice system.

04 Conclusion

16

Abbreviations and Acronyms

AbM Abahlali baseMjondolo

ANC African National Congress

CALS Centre for Applied Legal Studies

CBO Community Based Organisation

CORC Community Organisation Resource Centre

CPF Community Policing Forum

CUFF Community Upgrading Finance Facility (CUFF)

DA Democratic Alliance

DLF Democratic Left Front

EMPD Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Police Department

GDARD Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

ISN Informal Settlement Network

LPM Landless Peoples Movement

MMC Member of the Mayoral Committee

MRA Mine Residue Area

Macodefo Makause Community Development Forum

MCYB Makause Creative Youth Brigade

PCO Parliamentary Constituency Office

SAPS South African Police Service

SERI Socio-Economic Rights Institute of South Africa

RDP Reconstruction and Development Programme

UISP Upgrading of Informal Settlements Programme

17

References

• ANC Germiston Alberton Regional Parliamentary Constituency Office “Letter to the Executive Mayor of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality: Ward 21 Makause Service Delivery Issues” (31 March 2010).

• H Bangerezako “A piece of plastic called home” Mail and Guardian (28 May 2007). http://mg.co.za/article/2007-05-28-a-piece-of-plastic-called-home

• C Benit-Gbaffou (ed) “Community activists tell their story: driving change in Johannesburg and Ekurhuleni” (June 2013). http://www.wits.ac.za/files/9oih7_780966001372335762.pdf

• M De Waal “In the wake of the Makause shack fire, the destitute and forgotten” Daily Maverick (15 October 2012). http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2012-10-16-in-the-wake-of-the-makause-shack-fire-the-destitute-and-forgotten#.UzNTKqL_rIU

• M De Waal “Police to people of Makause: ‘March and there’ll be another Marikana’” Daily Maverick (5 October 2012). http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2012-10-05-police-to-people-of-makause-march-and-therell-be-another-marikana#.U1Y6YaLY0_4

• Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality “Letter to Toilet Boss Distributors: Implementation of Interim Sanitation at Makause Settlement” (1 April 2010).

• Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality “Report on site visit to Makause informal settlement” (8 February 2010).

• GDARD “Study on Reclamation and Rehabilitation of Mine Residue Areas for Development Purposes: Phase II Strategy and Implementation Plan” (2012). http://www.gdard.gpg.gov.za/DocumentsandForms/Documents/Reclamation%20and%20Rehabilitation%20of%20Mine%20Residue%20Areas%20Strategy%E2%80%9D.pdf

• IOL News “Boksburg hit by xenophobic violence” (19 May 2008). http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/boksburg-hit-by-xenophobic-violence-1.401029#.U1Y6CKLY0_4

• U Jessee “An Urban Risks and Reconstruction Model” Thesis submitted in terms of a Master of Arts degree at the University of the Witwatersrand (2008). http://wiredspace.wits.ac.za//handle/10539/7621

• K Kornienko “Engaging Informal Settlements as Landscapes of Place: Reconceptualising Urban Communities in the Struggle for In Situ Upgrading” PhD thesis, University of the Witwatersrand (2013). http://wiredspace.wits.ac.za/handle/10539/13640

• M Langford “Housing Rights Litigation: Grootboom and Beyond” in Langford et al (eds) Socio-Economic Rights in South Africa: Symbols or Substance? (2013).

• Macodefo “Makause community to march against police brutality in Primrose” press release (17 October 2012). http://abahlali.org/node/9276

• Macodefo “Primrose ANC branch threatens attack on the leadership of the Makause shack settlement in Ekurhuleni” press release (29 May 2011). http://abahlali.org/node/8075/#more-8075

• Marikana Support Campaign “Police arrest Makause activists for wearing Marikana solidarity t-shirts” press release (23 October 2012). http://www.seri-sa.org/images/stories/freedom_of_assembly_under_attack_in_makause.pdf

• A Moyo “Text message diary of Alfred Moyo” (30 May - 26 June 2011). http://abahlali.org/node/8117

18

• News24 “Woman’s body pulled from home” (26 October 2006).

• M Rambau “Makause recovers from fire” (10 October 2010). http://sasdialliance.org.za/makause-recovers-from-fire/

• M Rambau “No agreement between Makause residents and municipality” (8 March 2011). http://sasdialliance.org.za/no-agreement-between-makause-residents-and-municipality/

• SABC News “Families removed from mining area in East Rand” (2 February 2007).

• South African SDI Alliance “Informal Settlement Upgrading: Makause” (18 July 2013). http://sasdialliance.org.za/projects/makause/

6th floor Aspern House54 De Korte StreetBraamfontein 2001JohannesburgSouth Africa

Reception: +27 11 356 5860Fax: +27 11 339 5950Email: [email protected]


Rooigrond: Community Struggle in the North West


2


different settlement contexts in South Africa.




Rooigrond: Community Struggle in the North West is the second community practice note in the series. The other three are: Makause: Resisting Relocation on the East Rand; Thembelihle: Engaging an Unresponsive State and Slovo Park: Twenty Years of Broken Promises.


1

Contents1. About Rooigrond ............................................................................ 2

2. Key Events ........................................................................................ 3


3. Rooigrond Committee: Strategies and Tactics ...................... 10

4. Conclusion .......................................................................................15

Rooigrond: Community Struggle in the North West

2



Rooigrond: Community Struggle in the North West is the second in SERI’s Informal Settlement Series of community practice notes.

It provides a brief background to the Rooigrond settlement; summarises the key events in the narrative to resist relocation and push for development in the context of broader political struggles, inter-governmental relations failures and protest in the North West province; and examines the strategies and tactics of the local community structure, the Rooigrond Committee.

2

01 About Rooigrond

Rooigrond informal settlement is located in ward 27 of Mahikeng Local Municipality in the North West province. It is a rural settlement informally divided into two sections and comprising approximately 600 households (1 500 people) living mainly in shacks, but also in mud and brick houses. The settlement is located 18km outside Mahikeng, opposite the Rooigrond Prison and adjacent to the R503 road leading from Lichtenburg to Mahikeng. Rooigrond was established in 1993 after farm workers, who had been dismissed from neighbouring commercial farms, moved onto the land. Water for the settlement is pumped from two generator pump boreholes and residents use self-dug pit latrines for sanitation. One third of the households have access to a formal electricity connection.

Figure 1: Aerial view of Rooigrond

3

02 Key Events

The following figure summarises the key events in the struggle to resist eviction and

push for development at Rooigrond informal settlement.

Figure 2: Rooigrond summary timeline

1997The NWDA commits to allocate 140 hectares of

neighbouring Bauwel land

to Rooigrond community.

2003203 households

at Rooigrond receive

electricity from Eskom as part of the

implementation of the IDP.

2006Mafikeng City Council reverses its agreement

to expropriate the Rooigrond land and takes a decision to

resettle the Rooigrond community on Bauwel

land.

2012Service delivery protests occur

throughout the North West.

The Executive Mayor publicly commits to

rescind the resolution to remove the

Rooigrond community.

1998Mafikeng City Council says

it will consider expropriating the Rooigrond

land.

2005NWDA agrees to facilitate the

acquisition of part of Bauwel land on behalf

of the Rooigrond community.

A housing development is

planned for the area, including at Rooigrond.

2007-2008Rooigrond community

attempts to engage with government

officials and politicians about

the lack of services and the proposed

eviction.

2014Ward

councillor Moeti’s house is burnt down.

Construction of houses

begins at the settlement.

2010Operation

Rooigrond is formed.

2011Local government

election is held. Monametsi Moeti from Rooigrond is elected

ward councillor.

Rooigrond community members march to the Provincial Legislature to hand over a list of

grievances to the MEC for Housing.

4

TIMELINE OF EVENTS1993

1998

JUNE

Farm workers move onto the Rooigrond land after being dismissed from neighbouring farms.

The North West Department of Agriculture (NWDA) requests that the Mafikeng City Council expropriate the land on which the Rooigrond settlement is located, which is owned by the Department of Public Works. The NWDA also commits to allocate 140 hectares of neighbouring agricultural land - known as Bauwel 128 - to the Rooigrond community to “be used for economic

purposes either for crop production or any other agricultural activity instead of settlement as there are no other economic activities in the area.”1 This land is owned by the Department of Public Works. The Office of the Premier approves the allocation of the Bauwel land, subject to verification of the farm workers.2

The Mafikeng City Council says that it will consider expropriating the Rooigrond land on condition that the NWDA surveys the land at

its own cost and consults with neighbouring property owners. The NWDA agrees to these terms.

MARCH

The North West Department of Developmental Local Government and Housing (NWDLGH) expresses its concern to the Mafikeng City Council at not being consulted on the Rooigrond issue and

accuses the NWDA of encouraging the “invasion of and squatting on” land “without due regard to issues pertaining to integrated development planning”.3

1 North West Department of Agriculture (NWDA) “Letter to Mafikeng City Council: Application for expropriation of ERF 99 JO Rooigrond” (27 October 1997).

2 North West Office of the Premier “Letter to the MEC for Agriculture: Allocation of Land to Farm Workers in the Rooigrond Area: Farm Bauwel 128 JQ” (1 August 1997).

3 Office of the MEC of Local Government, Housing, Planning and Development “Letter to the CEO of Mafikeng City Council: Land invasion next to Rooigrond” (19 June 1998).

1997

5

According to the Rooigrond Committee, 1999 and 2000 were “years of rejection” for the Rooigrond community during which time

“confused” government officials and “junior deployed cadres” promised a lot but did not deliver.4

From 2001 the Rooigrond community attempts to address the development of the settlement through participation in

formal decision-making spaces, including ward committee elections and integrated development plan (IDP) meetings.

4 Rooigrond ANC Members “Letter to ANC Provincial Secretary: Intervention in brutality and torture of vulnerable Rooigrond community at the hands of ANC deployed cadres” (18 February 2008).

5 J Gwiriri “Letter to NWDA: Occupation of Farm Bauwel 128 JQ: Rooigrond” (16 November 2004).6 L Stewart “14 Years in Limbo: Waiting for the Promised Land” (2011) 13.7 M Setlholdi “Tough to enforce rights if you are poor” paper presented at “Strategies to Overcome Poverty and Inequality:

Towards Carnegie III” conference (University of Cape Town, 3-7 September 2012). 8 M Moeti “Telephonic interview” (16 April 2013). See also City Press “Rooigrond – The forgotten village” (4 August 2012).

1999-2000

2001

203 households at Rooigrond receive electricity from Eskom as part of the implementation of the IDP.

2003

The Rooigrond community appeals to the NWDA to officially hand over the Bauwel land to them and to clarify whether the other

people who had moved onto the land since 1997 are there legally.5

2004

A memorandum of agreement is signed between the NWDA and the Rooigrond community stating that the NWDA agrees to facilitate the acquisition of part of the remainder of Portion 3 of Bauwel, comprising 138 hectares, on behalf of the Rooigrond community.

In 2005 a contract is signed between the municipality and NWDLGH in terms of a housing project to deliver 8 000 housing units in the municipality. 1 000 units are earmarked for rural in situ upgrading, with 250 of these units to be allocated to Rooigrond residents.6 This project never materialises.

2005FEBRUARY

The Mafikeng City Council reverses its agreement to expropriate the Rooigrond land and takes a decision to resettle the Rooigrond community on the neighbouring Bauwel farm land.7 This is apparently because the housing development and shopping centre had been approved for the Rooigrond

site.8 In an effort to force the residents to accept the relocation, the municipality halts services that it had provided at Rooigrond, discontinuing the monthly mobile clinic and instructing Eskom to halt the further installation of electricity meters.

2006

6

2007-2008During 2007 and 2008 community representatives from Rooigrond attempt to engage with numerous government officials and politicians (as well as a public interest lawyer) about the proposed eviction of Rooigrond and the lack of services. These include the Premier of the North West in February 2007; the Mafikeng City Council in

2007; the Director-General in the Presidency in February 2007 and March 2007; the North West Office of the Public Protector in February 2007; Lawyers for Human Rights (LHR) in March 2007; the Office of the President in June 2007 and February 2008; and the ANC provincial secretary in February 2008.9

MARCHThe NWDLGH announces that a R54 million housing development is to commence at Rooigrond informal settlement. According to the MEC, “the project for the construction of 1 000 housing units in the area had to be suspended and reallocated to the City

of Tlokwe Municipality after the appointed contractor was intimidated”.10 The Rooigrond community is not given much information on this project, however it appears that the 1 000 units are to be built far from the settlement.

JULYRooigrond community members participate in a march to the Office of the Premier, where a memorandum is handed over. In response to the memorandum, two meetings are held between community representatives, the Office of the Speaker, officials from the municipality as well as the Executive Mayor.

Resolutions are taken to make available the scientific report from Mafikeng City Council that shows that the Rooigrond land is not habitable and the community must relocate to Bauwel.11 This report is never produced and it is unclear why land is claimed to be uninhabitable.

9 Stewart “14 Years in Limbo” (2011). 10 North West Department of Local Government and Housing “R54,6 million Rooigrond housing development to commence in

two weeks’ time says Yawa” press release (24 March 2009).11 North West Provincial Legislature Office of the Speaker “Letter to Ward 27 Rooigrond community” (28 July 2009).12 See Operation Rooigrond blog: http://operationrooigrond.wordpress.com/aboutoperationrooigron/

2010Operation Rooigrond is formed by Koketso Moeti, the daughter of the ward candidate Monametsi Moeti. Operation Rooigrond consists of a blog, Facebook page and Twitter account and aims to create awareness of Rooigrond community projects. According to its website, it has the mission to facilitate positive change in

the community by utilising education and knowledge as a means of alleviating poverty; eradicating substance abuse, unplanned pregnancies and the spread of HIV/AIDS; as well as encouraging the formation of partnerships between the community and other organisations.12

2009

7

2011During the run-up to the May 2011 local government elections a political campaign is carried out to discredit the Rooigrond community and its candidate for ward 27, Monametsi Moeti.13 Her name is removed three times from the ANC party list even though she won the most votes in her branch’s electoral meeting.14 The Independent

Electoral Commission (IEC) steps in and Moeti is added to the provincial list, eventually becoming the party’s ward candidate in 2011, receiving almost 70 of votes cast in the election.15 After taking office, ANC councillors sideline her from council decision-making processes and attempt to turn the Rooigrond community against her.16

SEPTEMBERA law professor at North West University, Linda Stewart, hears about the Rooigrond community after an engagement with Koketso Moeti on the social media platform Twitter.17 Stewart becomes involved in the Rooigrond community’s struggles and begins to engage with them on service delivery and

other socio-economic rights issues.18 She puts Rooigrond community representatives in touch with the Socio-Economic Rights Institute of South Africa (SERI). Monametsi Moeti approaches SERI to request assistance regarding the provision of services at the settlement.

NOVEMBERRooigrond community members march to the Provincial Legislature in Mahikeng to hand over a list of grievances to the MEC for Housing, Local Government and Traditional Affairs.19 Nothing happens after the march.20 The community starts preparing for a follow-up protest where a memorandum of demands will be handed to the Premier. The community

notifies the municipality of their intention to protest, following which they receive a call from the municipality to request a meeting between community representatives and the Executive Mayor. This meeting is postponed to 10 January 2012 after she does not attend the scheduled meeting.21

JANUARYRepresentatives from the Office of the Premier meet with officials from the municipality and Rooigrond leaders to discuss the memorandum of grievances handed to the MEC in 2011. It is agreed that the

settlement will be provided with petrol and diesel for the water-pumping generators on a daily basis. However by March the community continues to having intermittent access to water.22

13 Ward 27 consists of Matshepe, Matlhonyane, Setlopo, Rooigrond, Schoongesicht, Dihatshwana, Dithakong tsa ga Sehuba and Mothakga.

14 K Moeti “Interview” (Johannesburg, 16 April 2013).15 Ibid. See also Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) “Municipal Election Results: Local Government Elections 2011”. 16 M Moeti “Interview” (Rooigrond, 25-26 July 2012). K Moeti “Interview” (Rooigrond, 25-26 July 2012). 17 K Moeti “Interview per email” (28 April 2013). 18 L Stewart “Letter to the Portfolio Committee on Human Settlements: Rooigrond Informal Settlement” (24 July 2012). In

November 2011, Stewart published a report on the settlement entitled “14 Years on Limbo: Waiting for the ‘Promised Land’” and launched a website chronicling the struggles of the Rooigrond community.

19 E Torerai “Waiting for the Promised Land” The New Age (17 November 2011).20 E Torerai “Rooigrond people take on Premier” The New Age (12 November 2011).21 Platinum Weekly “Letter to the Editor: Rooigrond Saga” (13 January 2012).22 Ibid.

2012

8

MAY - JUNESERI takes legal instructions from over 200 households at Rooigrond settlement, recording the numbers of people per household, the number of children and elderly persons, levels of access to basic services, and the socio-economic conditions of each household.

During May and June a number of service delivery protests occur in the province. On 30 May at least 6 villages in Moroleng protest and are later joined by 7 other villages. On 6 June residents of Top Village in Mahikeng barricade the road between Mahikeng and Zeerust. On 7 June the Lomanyaneng community embarks on an approved march to hand over a memorandum; however when the Executive Mayor allegedly does not show up to receive it, the residents get angry and barricade the road. On the same day Ganyesa experiences a service delivery protest which sees a school set alight, shops of foreign nationals being looted and results in the death of a pregnant

woman. On 9 June residents of Manokwane village embark on a protest sparked by a lack of access to water.

In June, the Portfolio Committee on Human Settlements conducts an oversight visit to the North West province. During this visit the Committee is surprised to find that no houses have been built at Rooigrond. The Committee is informed that the municipality has decided to revoke its decision to evict the Rooigrond residents, and further processes are underway to ensure basic services are provided at the settlement.23 Following the visit the Committee orders the municipality “to stop proposed plans to relocate people from the Rooigrond informal settlement, at least until they have negotiated with them.”24 Following this visit the ward councillor and the Executive Mayor address the Committee about the situation at Rooigrond.

JULYThe Rooigrond community’s anger over the slow response from the municipality grows and in July a number of people from the settlement protest on the R503. They are met with force by the police, who shoot at the protestors. Operation Rooigrond tweets about the ongoing police violence, which goes viral on social media platforms.25

On 23 July the Executive Mayor meets with the Rooigrond community where she publicly commits to rescind the resolution to evict the community and to table the matter before the Mahikeng city council within a month.26 She says that Rooigrond will be developed into a residential area. This decision is welcomed by the community.

On 26 July the NWDLGH – now called North West Department of Human Settlements – announces that it has allocated 1 000 housing

subsidies for the Rooigrond housing project and appointed a contractor. A meeting is initiated by the provincial department and the municipality to discuss development in the area and to identify issues to be resolved, including land acquisition, township establishment processes, service provision and the construction of houses. In relation to the proposed eviction of the Rooigrond community, the NWDLGH states that “the undertaking by the Mafikeng Local Municipality is that the decision to evict residents of Rooigrond will be revoked as a means of intervention to stabilize the area. However, this position is still to be served before the council.”27

While the public commitment by the Executive Mayor in July halts the litigation process, the relationship between Operation Rooigrond and SERI continues in another guise. Together with the Local Government Action (LGA)

23 Portfolio Committee on Human Settlements “Committee Commends North West’s Human Settlements Department” press release (July 2012).

24 M Kabeli “Rooigrond digs in heals” news article on Parliament website (June 2012).25 Conversation with K Moeti (2 September 2012). 26 Executive Mayor Cllr Miga “Letter to Rooigrond community: Housing development” (23 July 2012).27 North West Department of Human Settlements, Public Safety and Liaison “Presentation to Human Settlements Portfolio

Committee” (26 July 2012) 23.

9

network,28 SERI organises a two-day workshop at Rooigrond in September called “Democracy in Practice”.29 The workshop is for representatives of surrounding communities and settlements in ward 27, with an emphasis on local government. The day before the workshop is held, the

Mahikeng council, in line with the Executive Mayor’s undertaking in July, publicly rescinds the resolution to evict the residents and the Executive Mayor later visits Rooigrond to officially announce that the process to develop the settlement has begun.

OCTOBERA number of informal settlement communities in ward 27 attend IDP review meetings. The residents of Rooigrond are told that they are apparently earmarked to receive state-subsidised houses and that diesel to pump water will be delivered at regular intervals.30 They are informed that although contractors

have been appointed, there have been a few delays, the main one being that the Mahikeng municipality is waiting for the transfer of the land from the Department of Public Works.31 The latter wants the municipality to give it land elsewhere in exchange for transferring title deeds to the Rooigrond land.

28 The LGA network is loose affiliation of activists, NGOs and CBOs working to hold local government accountable and develop local communities in South Africa. See http://www.localgovernmentaction.org/

29 SERI and Local Government Action (LGA) “Democracy in Practice workshop” (Rooigrond, 1-2 September 2012).30 Conversation with K Moeti (20 February 2013).31 K Moeti “Interview” (Johannesburg, 16 April 2013). M Moeti “Telephonic interview” (16 April 2013).32 SERI and LGA “Deepening Democracy workshop” (Skoongesicht, 18-19 May 2013). 33 Portfolio Committee on Human Settlements “Budgetary Review and Recommendation Report” (16 October 2013).34 SERI and LGA “Building Bridges workshop” (Skoongesicht, 25-26 October 2013). The Public Protector is an independent

institution responsible for investigating excesses in the exercise of public power and ensuring good public administration.

2013MAYSERI and LGA hold another two-day “Deepening Participation” ward-based workshop in

Skoongesicht, as a follow-up to the 2012 workshop.32

OCTOBERThe Budgetary Review and Recommendation Report of the Portfolio Committee on Human Settlements states that the transfer of the Rooigrond land to Mahikeng municipality is

being facilitated by the Housing Development Agency (HDA), and that the construction of 1 000 housing units is envisaged.33

NOVEMBERA third workshop is held, entitled “Building Bridges”, aimed at building bridges between communities in the ward and other

stakeholders, including the Office of the Public Protector (which was in attendance at the workshop).34

APRIL

2014

A faction of the local ANC branch encourages a number of Rooigrond residents to burn down the ward councillor’s house, under the guise of a service delivery protest. This occurs as a

result of the orders of senior politicians in the municipality. The arson is strongly condemned by the Premier.

JULYThe construction of houses at Rooigrond begins.

10

Over the past eight years the Rooigrond community has fought against the relocation of the settlement, and to be allocated neighbouring Bauwel farm land to support their agricultural livelihoods. In 2006 the Mahikeng Local Municipality reversed its 1998 agreement to expropriate the Rooigrond land, and took a decision to instead resettle the Rooigrond community on the Bauwel land. This move led to a sense of despondency at Rooigrond, with the settlement feeling isolated and cut off from the rest of society.35 However the Rooigrond Committee and a number of key individuals in the community “willing to get their hands dirty” and with a vision for the settlement ensured community buy-in and pushed against this isolation.36 They established a crèche and community library at the settlement, and engaged the government on development at Rooigrond.

03 Rooigrond Committee: Strategies and Tactics

35 Torerai “Waiting for the Promised Land” The New Age (17 November 2011).36 K Moeti “Interview per email” (28 April 2013).

Shack at Rooigrond, 2012

11

Over the years numerous announcements were made by the municipality about a housing development at the settlement, but until 2014 these amounted to nothing concrete. The municipality did not anticipate the level of antagonism that developed over its plans to relocate the Rooigrond community and build an upmarket housing development in the area. As a result of this resistance to the relocation, the settlement was sidelined: the mobile clinic was stopped together with the installation of electricity at the settlement.

In early 2010 Operation Rooigrond was started.37 According to Koketso Moeti, who founded the project, it was precipitated by the breakdown of the settlement’s two water pumps and the subsequent lack of water to drink, wash or cook. Moeti contacted everyone in the surrounding area looking for help and, according to her, “our ‘SOS’ call worked — a nearby property owner brought in water and we managed to feed the children. A light went on for me that day: if we could connect people inside and outside our community, we would have the power to solve many of our problems”. This prompted her to “kick it [Operation Rooigrond] into top gear”.38 While the main aim of Operation Rooigrond is to facilitate positive change within the community,39 the project has also taken on board other priorities of the community: to resist relocation and have the settlement upgraded, to get access to improved services, to increase the frequency of the mobile clinic visits, and to have access roads that can accommodate emergency vehicles.40

37 Afrikan Goddess Magazine “Kokesto Moeti: Founder of Operation Rooigrond” (6 July 2012).38 K Moeti “The world is in my hand” Sunday Times (10 June 2013). 39 See http://operationrooigrond.wordpress.com/aboutoperationrooigron/40 SERI “Report on first consultation with Rooigrond residents” (16 March 2012).

Workshop at Rooigrond, 2012

12

While the emergence of Operation Rooigrond in 2010 was significant, it was only during the run-up to the local government elections in May 2011 that the municipality took notice of the community’s grievances. The ANC candidate for ward 27, Monametsi Moeti (Koketso’s mother and Rooigrond resident), was against the relocation of Rooigrond. According to some residents of ward 27, the ANC sub-region did not want informal settlement communities to elect her as their ward representative for this reason. Moeti’s name was removed three times from the list even though she won in her branch’s electoral meeting.41 The local ANC was clearly concerned with the possibility of an ANC ward councillor actively resisting relocation in opposition to the decision of the ANC-run municipality. However this concern transcended political factions and ideological differences, and corruption and self-enrichment played a large part. The political campaign to discredit Moeti emanated from the toxic factional politics playing out in the provincial ANC, which have affected the functioning of provincial government departments and municipalities and compromised service delivery.42 Party members’ attempts to enrich themselves are directly linked to service delivery. According to one ANCYL leader in the area, when he would complain about lack of water in his community, the municipality would respond by saying that they should not raise such “political issues”.43

According to Moeti, ANC factionalism is largely peddled to cover up corrupt activities. For her, the goal is to ensure implementation of what the party has promised.44 It is on this basis that the Rooigrond Committee decided to fight against the eviction and relocation

41 K Moeti “Interview” (Johannesburg, 16 April 2013).42 M Olebogeng “Co-operate or be expelled” Sowetan (18 July 2012). 43 Anonymous interviews with community members at Rooigrond (25-26 July 2012). 44 Conversation with M Moeti (June 2012).

Protest at Rooigrond, 2012

13

both outside and inside the party, using the ANC’s own discourse. To illustrate this strategy, a participant at the 2012 “Democracy in Practice” workshop stated that “there is more struggle when one is detached from the ANC … it is better to use ANC machinery to organise ourselves”. It is therefore unsurprising that the Rooigrond community has opted for a strategy of positioning the community’s interests within the party’s agenda as well as positioning itself in the public space as challenging the local ANC on its own terms in respect of undertakings made to develop the community.

In July 2012, following the spate of protests and an oversight visit to the North West by the Portfolio Committee on Human Settlements, the Mahikeng Executive Mayor met with the Rooigrond community and publicly committed to rescind the resolution to relocate the community. The use of protest by the community is also complex. The mid-2012 protests in the North West gained national public attention but were dismissed as being driven by factional politics, with the North West provincial government even setting up a protest task team to review and make recommendations to deal with the protests.45 However, according to Rooigrond residents, there was very little recognition of what was really behind the protests.

According to Koketso Moeti, protests are not usually the first option for communities, and are more the result of frustration at not having one’s voice heard. She states that “instead of listening to what communities are saying, the service delivery protests are politicised with accusations of ‘political interference’ flying around. The people are once again ignored while threats of ‘finding those behind the protests’ fill the media space.”46 However Moeti believes that protests have to be strategic, with a clear set of demands, a time-frame for a response and plans for if demands are not responded to within that time-frame.47 In relation to the accusations against protesters, another Rooigrond

45 T Rantlha “New protest task team set” The New Age (11 June 2012). 46 K Moeti “North West: A continuing struggle” blog post (4 July 2012).47 K Moeti “Interview per email” (28 April 2013).

Community meeting at Rooigrond, 2012

14

resident is quoted as saying that: “They claim we closed the road but we didn’t. They also accuse our councillor of inciting us, but she is stopping us: we would be doing bad things if we wanted.”48

While the Rooigrond Committee approached SERI for legal assistance in November 2011, there has to date not been any litigation undertaken. The community sees litigation as a strategy of last resort to be employed only in instances where other engagement mechanisms fail. The Rooigrond community has also used a combination of local organising, government engagement, protest, party politics and social media. In terms of the latter, Operation Rooigrond gained momentum and intensified its mobilisation by using social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook on mobile devices to link with outside groups and raise awareness of the struggles of informal settlements in Mahikeng. According to Koketso Moeti:

Rooigrond used to feel so isolated — just another poor community in a poor province in an unequal country. But through the keypad of my cellphone we now feel part of the nation. There is a whole network of people who are concerned about Rooigrond and committed to improving our lives. Even the elders in my community have started to tweet, now that they’ve seen what the world of mobile technology can do! We still face extreme poverty, but now we feel like we have some control. Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and Google Plus tend to be regarded as useful tools for those with money and education. But South Africa has one of the highest levels of cellphone users in the world, and mobile technology could bring down many of the walls that still separate young people and poor communities from real opportunity.49

For the Rooigrond community, social media platforms have opened up democratic space and provided access to information that would otherwise be impossible to find.50 Social media attention on the community also led to mainstream media coverage. In 2012 the City Press newspaper sent a journalist to engage with Operation Rooigrond and cover protests in the province.51 This exposure also led to a number of organisations and private individuals stepping forward to assist the community.52 According to Moeti, “Now a constitutional law expert is helping us to access water and sanitation. A Cape Town-based activist is helping to get the early-learning centre registered for funding. An agricultural specialist has designed a farming plan, and a young social entrepreneur is working with us to find ways for women to manage the challenges associated with menstruation”.53

48 Kabeli “Rooigrond digs in heals” (June 2012).49 Moeti “The world is in my hand” Sunday Times (10 June 2013). 50 Afrikan Goddess “Kokesto Moeti” (6 July 2012).51 City Press “A province in disarray” (4 August 2012).52 K Moeti “Interview per email” (28 April 2013). These include Fundza Literacy Trust, Nal’ibali, Hippo Water Roller Project,

Operation Blanket, Operation Shoebox, Project: LAYLA, Souns, Southern African Association of Youth Clubs (SAAYC), Operation Hunger, World Servants, SANGONET and PLAAS.

53 Moeti “The world is in my hand” Sunday Times (10 June 2013).

15

This community practice note documents the Rooigrond community’s struggle for the development of their settlement in the context of broader political struggles, failures in inter-governmental relations and protest in the North West province. The 2006 decision by the municipality to relocate the settlement was a critical point in mobilisation of the Rooigrond Committee and the community. In 2010 Operation Rooigrond took those local struggles forward and mobilised broader support from academics and lawyers. The strategic use of social media and information communication technology (ICT) by Operation Rooigrond provides an important case study in how marginalised communities can garner broader support and make links to the mainstream media to assist with various forms of support, solidarity and assistance.

However the Rooigrond story also illustrates how complex political interests can overwhelm even a very organised and well-networked community structure. Despite the 2012 decision by the Executive Mayor not to relocate the settlement, the Rooigrond land has not been transferred from the Department of Public Works to the municipality. The Rooigrond struggle highlights how government does not ‘speak with one voice’ and there are in fact conflicting agendas even within a particular sphere of government. CBOs and communities like Rooigrond have to navigate this often complex terrain.

Further, the political context in the North West province, and particularly in Mahikeng Local Municipality, is extremely tense with corruption and political factionalism. Service delivery in the province is clearly negatively affected by this. While the Rooigrond community itself has used protest to show its frustration and draw the attention of politicians to issues at the settlement, there is an acknowledgment that protest can be destructive. After the 2012 protests, workshops were held with communities in the ward to try to channel some of residents’ frustrations into productive engagement with the municipality. In April 2014, the ANC ward councillor was forced to flee the settlement after a mob burnt down her house under the guise of a service delivery protest. It appears that this violence stems from political battles for positions in the municipality ahead of the upcoming local government election in 2016.

On a positive note, in July 2014 the construction of houses at Rooigrond finally began.

04 Conclusion

16




HDA Housing Development Agency

ICT Information Communication Technology

IEC Independent Electoral Commission

LHR Lawyers for Human Rights

MEC Member of the Executive Council


NWDA North West Department of Agriculture

NWDHS North West Department of Human Settlements, Public Safety and Liaison

NWDLGH North West Department of Local Government and Housing


RDP Reconstruction and Development Programme

SERI Socio-Economic Rights Institute of South Africa (SERI)

17

References

• Afrikan Goddess Magazine “Kokesto Moeti: Founder of Operation Rooigrond” (6 July 2012). http://afrikangoddessmag.com/2012/07/06/1633/

• City Press “Rooigrond – The forgotten village” (4 August 2012). http://www.citypress.co.za/features/rooigrond-the-forgotten-village-20120804/

• City Press “A province in disarray” (4 August 2012). http://www.citypress.co.za/columnists/a-province-in-disarray-20120804/

• Executive Mayor Cllr. Miga “Letter to Rooigrond community: Housing development” (23 July 2012).

• J Gwiriri “Letter to NWDA: Occupation of Farm Bauwel 128 JQ: Rooigrond” (16 November 2004).

• IEC “Municipal Election Results: Local Government Elections 2011”. http://www.elections.org.za/content/LGEPublicReports/197/Detailed%20Results/NW/NW383/63803027.pdf

• M Kabeli “Rooigrond digs in heals” news article on Parliament website (June 2012). http://www.parliament.gov.za/live/content.php?Item_ID=2254

• Platinum Weekly “Letter to the Editor: Rooigrond Saga” (13 January 2012). http://www.platinumweekly.co.za/2012%2001%2013%20P4%2013%20January%202012%20Rustenburg%20Newspaper.pdf

• K Moeti “North West: A Continuing Struggle” blog post (4 July 2012). http://koketsomoeti.wordpress.com/2012/07/04/north-west-a-continuing-struggle/

• K Moeti “The world is in my hand” Sunday Times (10 June 2013). http://www.activateleadership.co.za/uploads/Koketso%20Moeti%20%28Part%201%29_merged.pdf

• North West Office of the Premier “Letter to the MEC for Agriculture: Allocation of Land to Farm Workers in the Rooigrond Area: Farm Bauwel 128 JQ” (1 August 1997).

• North West Provincial Legislature Office of the Speaker “Letter to Ward 27 Rooigrond community” (28 July 2009).

• NWDA “Letter to Mafikeng City Council: Application for expropriation of ERF 99 JO Rooigrond” (27 October 1997).

• NWDLGH “R54,6 million Rooigrond housing development to commence in two weeks’ time says Yawa” press release (24 March 2009). http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/2009/09032416451002.htm

• NWDHS “Presentation to Portfolio Committee on Human Settlements” (26 July 2012). http://www.pmg.org.za/report/20120726-human-settlements-and-north-west-provincial-department-matters-were-o

• Office of the MEC of Local Government, Housing, Planning and Development “Letter to the CEO of Mafikeng City Council: Land invasion next to Rooigrond” (19 June 1998).

• M Olebogeng “Co-operate or be expelled” Sowetan (18 July 2012). http://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/2012/07/18/co-operate-or-be-expelled

• Portfolio Committee on Human Settlements “Committee Commends North West’s Human Settlements Department” press release (July 2012). http://www.parliament.gov.za/live/content.php?Item_ID=2299

• Portfolio Committee on Human Settlements “Budgetary Review and Recommendation Report” (16 October 2013). http://pmg.org.za/atc131105-budgetary-review-and-recommendation-report-portfolio-committee-human-settlements

18

• T Rantlha “New protest task team set” The New Age (11 June 2012). http://www.thenewage.co.za/53268-1017-53-New_protest_task_team_set

• Rooigrond ANC Members “Letter to ANC Provincial Secretary: Intervention in brutality and torture of vulnerable Rooigrond community at the hands of ANC deployed cadres” (18 February 2008).

• SERI “Report on first consultation with Rooigrond residents” (16 March 2012).

• M Setlholdi “Tough to enforce rights if you are poor” paper presented at “Strategies to Overcome Poverty and Inequality: Towards Carnegie III” conference (University of Cape Town, 3-7 September 2012). http://humanrightssa2012.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/carnegie-news-clip.jpg

• L Stewart “14 Years in Limbo: Waiting for the Promised Land” (2011). http://www.academia.edu/1095984/_14_years_in_limbo_waiting_for_the_Promised_Land_

• L Stewart “Letter to the Portfolio Committee on Human Settlements: Rooigrond Informal Settlement” (24 July 2012). http://humanrightssa2012.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/my-letter-to-the-portfolio-committee-on-human-settlements-rooigrond-informal-settlement/

• E Torerai “Rooigrond people take on Premier” The New Age (12 November 2011). http://www.thenewage.co.za/mobi/Detail.aspx?NewsID=37618&CatID=1008

• E Torerai “Waiting for the Promised Land” The New Age (17 November 2011). http://www.thenewage.co.za/Detail.aspx?news_id=35356&cat_id=1008


Thembelihle: Engaging an Unresponsive State


3






Thembelihle: Engaging an Unresponsive State is the third community practice note in the series. The other three are: Makause: Resisting Relocation on the East Rand; Rooigrond: Community Struggle in the North West; and Slovo Park: Twenty Years of Broken Promises.

Cover photos: Phillip de Wet and Nicolette Pingo.


1

Contents1. About Thembelihle ......................................................................... 2

2. Key Events ........................................................................................ 3


3. TCC: Strategies and Tactics .........................................................12

4. Conclusion .......................................................................................16

Thembelihle: Engaging an Unresponsive State

3



Thembelihle: Engaging an Unresponsive State is the third in SERI’s Informal Settlement Series of community practice notes.

It provides a brief background to the Thembelihle informal settlement; summarises the key events in the struggle to resist relocation and promote in situ upgrading; and examines the strategies and tactics of the local community structure, the Thembelihle Crisis Committee (TCC).

2

01 About Thembelihle

Thembelihle informal settlement is located to the south-west of Johannesburg in the suburb of Lenasia, within the City of Johannesburg. The settlement was established on municipal-owned land in the mid-1980s by rural migrants and employees of a brick manufacturing company. At the time, residents were granted permission to reside at the settlement by the government and were given materials to construct informal dwellings. Some residents have lived at the settlement for over 20 years. Currently between 7 000 and 8 000 households reside at the settlement. Thembelihle is partially regularised and serviced and very densely populated. Although it is located far from the economic opportunities of the urban hub of Johannesburg, residents are able to leverage some of the economic benefits offered by the suburb and light industrial area of Lenasia. Much of the settlement is located on dolomitic land, which exhibits geotechnical concerns relating to the formation of sinkholes making development potentially risky and expensive.

Figure 1: Aerial view of Thembelihle

3

02 Key Events

The following figure summarises the key events in the struggle to resist eviction and push for development at Thembelihle informal settlement.

Figure 2: Thembelihle summary timeline

1992, 1998The municipality

conducts geological surveys

of the area and discovers

dolomite.

2002The municipality

declares the settlement unsuitable

for habitation and takes the decision to relocate the community.

2005Municipality agrees to

investigate the feasibility of in situ upgrading, but reneges on this promise.

2011Thembelihle

residents embark on a disruptive

week-long protest. TCC

leaders arrested.

2001Residents form the Thembelihle Crisis Committee (TCC).

2003Municipality seeks an eviction order. Residents resist and the case is

dropped.

2007TCC holds a mass meeting to present a memorandum to the ward councillor. With no response,

the community stages a protest.

2006TCC, through

Operation Khanyisa

Movement (OKM) contests local government

elections for the first time

2012Municipality

undertakes to conduct a new geological study. A TCC

member wins a ward committee seat.

4

TIMELINE OF EVENTS1980s

1992

JUNE

Thembelihle informal settlement is established by rural migrants and employees of a brick manufacturing company. The initial occupiers are granted permission to

occupy the settlement by the government at the time and are given material to construct informal dwellings.1

The settlement is regularised as a transit area in terms of the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act 52 of 1951. This means that residential stands can be marked out and numbered,

and that some water, electricity and telephone services can be installed.2 Despite this, many residents remain unable to access a range of basic services.

The municipality commissions a geotechnical survey of the settlement, supposedly to investigate the feasibility of in situ upgrading. According to the municipality,

the survey reveals that much of Thembelihle is located on dolomitic land of various risk categorisations.3

MAY

The municipality commissions a second geotechnical report,4 which substantially

confirms the findings of the 1992 report.5

1 Centre for Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) “Any Room for the Poor? Forced Evictions in Johannesburg, South Africa” (2005) 86. See also Webber Wentzel Bowens “Public Interest and Gender Law Department and Corporate Social Responsibility Annual Report” (2006) 3.

2 CORHE “Any Room for the Poor?” (2005) 86-87.3 Intraconsult “Interim Report to Keeve Steyn Inc on the Engineering Geological Stability Investigations on Sections of Portion 129,

Lenasia. Report No. IR69” (May 1992). See also M Huchzermeyer “The struggle for in situ upgrading of informal settlements: A reflection on cases in Gauteng” Development Southern Africa (2009) 26(1) 59-73.

4 Council for Geo-Sciences “Engineering Geological Study of the Greater Lenasia Area for the City of Johannesburg Southern Metropolitan Substructure, Parts 1 and 2. Report No. 1998-0091” (June 1998).

5 COHRE “Any Room for the Poor?” (2005) 87. See also Huchzermeyer “The struggle for in situ upgrading of informal settlements” (2009) 59-73.

1990s

1998

MARCHThe Thembelihle Crisis Committee (TCC), a membership-based CBO focused on promoting socio-economic development at the settlement, is formed. The TCC initially attempts to get the municipality to electrify

the settlement, and becomes aware of the dolomite issue and plans to relocate residents through its initial engagements with City Power over electrification of the settlement.

2001

5

On the basis of the geological reports, the municipality declares Thembelihle “unsuitable for human habitation” due to the presence of dolomite.6 The municipality formally informs the community that they will be relocated to the comparatively poorly serviced area of Vlakfontein, located 8km away on the periphery of the municipal area.

The TCC leadership attempts to re-negotiate the City’s decision using a mixture of formal and informal tactics. While some residents agree to relocate, “tired of the City’s decade-

long intransigence over proclamation and attracted by the lure of better services in the relocated settlements”,7 the TCC and other residents resist the relocation. They question the reliability, accuracy and interpretation of the geological reports and raise concerns about whether the surveys were sufficiently comprehensive, as both reports were based on an insufficient number of exploratory drilling holes.8 The community and TCC request that the municipality undertake a further comprehensive geotechnical study to properly assess the dolomite threat.

6 M Clark “An Anatomy of Dissent and Repression: The Criminal Justice System and the 2011 Thembelihle Protest” (2014) 14-15. This interpretation of the geological reports has been brought into question by COHRE and Marie Huchzermeyer, who suggest that large areas of the settlement are suitable for medium to high density residential development if certain water management precautions are taken. See COHRE “Any Room for the Poor? (2005) 89-90; Huchzermeyer “The struggle for in situ upgrading of informal settlements” (2009) 59-73.

7 T Tselapedi and J Dugard “Reclaiming Power: A Case Study of the Thembelihle Crisis Committee” in Good Governance Learning Network (GGLN) Active Citizenship Matters (2013) 59.

8 M Mabaso “Geotechnical report insufficient to remove residents” LookLocal (29 June 2012).9 COHRE “Any Room for the Poor?” (2005) 87.10 City of Johannesburg “Peace settling in Thembelihle” press release (3 March 2010).11 City of Johannesburg v Occupiers of Thembelihle Informal Settlement, South Gauteng High Court, 03/10106. Answering Affidavit.12 Webber Wentzel Bowens “Annual Report” (2006) 3-5.

2002

The Thembelihle community claims that municipal officials threatened a number of residents into relocating by claiming that their homes would be demolished if they did not.9 The municipality denies that it threatened residents and maintains that all relocations were voluntary.

Despite attempts by the TCC to engage the municipality, the latter sends security

personnel from the Red Ants to demolish dwellings at the settlement and forcibly relocate households to Vlakfontein. 647 households are relocated.10 In response, a group of residents gather in protest of the relocations and violence erupts between the Red Ants and community members.11 The residents get a temporary reprieve from relocation.

In April the City of Johannesburg approaches the High Court for an urgent application to evict all the Thembelihle residents and relocate them to Vlakfontein or Lehae. The municipality claims that the presence of dolomite poses an imminent threat to the safety of those in the informal settlement.

The community, represented by a pro bono lawyer from Webber Wentzel Bowens, oppose the eviction application. They argue

that the relocation would be prejudicial as it would mean that residents would be further from the livelihood opportunities of Lenasia and have access to fewer social amenities. The community also argues that the informal settlement is capable of being upgraded in situ.12 In support of these arguments, the community’s legal representatives consult with experts to verify the findings of the geotechnical reports on Thembelihle.

2003

MARCH - MAY

JUNE

APRIL - DECEMBER

6

2004The report commissioned by the community’s lawyer, based on the previous geological surveys done in 1992 and 1998, finds that large portions of Thembelihle remain upgradable if certain water precaution measures are adopted.13 The report finds that much of the settlement is suitable for medium- to high-density residential development and suggests that a more comprehensive survey of the Thembelihle area should be conducted. After a number of months in which it neither responds to the report nor takes any further steps to obtain

an eviction order, the municipality drops the case.

In 2004 the TCC begins working with the Centre for Applied Legal Studies (CALS) to help learners gain entrance to schools in Lenasia.14 The TCC accuses the schools’ administration of denying access to Thembelihle learners as a result of racism.15 The TCC also begins working closely with local schools to ensure that learners are admitted to and continue to attend school.

JULYIn a surprise about-turn the municipality gives the community an undertaking that it will investigate the feasibility of in situ upgrading at the settlement pending a new geotechnical study of the area. However, despite its undertaking, the municipality’s official position remains that the community should be relocated to Lehae,16 an area

located 2km from Thembelihle with no schools, clinic, community centre, shops or public transportation. The municipality further refuses to fund the new geotechnical survey, arguing that the Thembelihle community should pay for it. The TCC rejects this position, maintaining that the municipality should bear the costs of development.17

13 See SRK Consulting “Thembelihle Township, Lenasia: Review of the Studies by Intraconsult and Council for Geosciences of the Dolomite Risk in the Area of the Township. Report No. 334569/1” (2004). See also COHRE “Any Room for the Poor?” (2005) 94.

14 Centre for Applied Legal Studies (CALS) “Access to Education for Learners in Thembelihle” (May 2006).15 TCC “Focus group interview” (21 July 2012).16 Huchzermeyer “The struggle for in situ upgrading of informal settlements” (2009) 59-73. See also Webber Wentzel Bowens

“Annual Report” (2006) 5.17 Tselapedi and Dugard “Reclaiming Power” (2013) 60.18 See N Pingo “Institutionalisation of a Social Movement: The Case of Thembelihle, the Thembelihle Crisis Committee and the

Operation Khanyisa Movement and the Use of the Brick, the Ballot and the Voice” Research Report submitted for MSc in Development and Planning, University of Witwatersrand (May 2013).

2006

The TCC and other CBOs form the Operation Khanyisa Movement (OKM), a socialist movement supporting independent candidates in local government elections in parts of Johannesburg, including Thembelihle and Soweto.18

TCC’s spokesperson Bhayi Bhayi “Bhayiza” Miya stands as the OKM ward candidate for Thembelihle during the 2006 local government election. The position is won by the African National Congress (ANC) candidate Dan Bovu (now MMC for Housing in the City of Johannesburg).

2005

MARCH - APRIL

7

2007

On 8 July the Thembelihle community holds a mass meeting demanding a report from the municipality in relation to the provision of housing and electricity at the settlement. There is no response from the ward councillor or the municipality.

As a result, the community stages a peaceful protest march to the municipal offices to meet with the City Manager and to bring previous memoranda to the attention of municipal officials. However,

the City Manager refuses to receive their memorandum, following which they decide to stage a blockade so that the Mayor would come to address their grievances. The demonstration continues late into the night and is eventually dispersed by police officers. Many community members are injured and 17 protestors (many of whom are members of the TCC) are arrested on charges of public violence.19 On 14 August, after various court appearances and two postponements, the charges against all protestors are withdrawn.20

JANUARYThe City of Johannesburg mayoral committee takes a resolution that the settlement should not be developed into a formal housing project due to the high risks associated with dolomite; however states that “if any party is able or willing to fund credible studies to verify the suitability or otherwise of the property for housing, such party may

approach the City for permission to conduct such a study at their own costs.”21 The Thembelihle community applies to the High Court to have the 2008 resolution by the mayoral committee reviewed in terms of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA).

MAYXenophobic violence breaks out across Gauteng. A local trader is attacked at Thembelihle and the TCC responds to prevent similar attacks at the settlement by organising a mass meeting with the

community to condemn attacks. The TCC also organises a soccer match between foreign nationals and locals as a gesture of good faith and organises street patrols to protect foreign nationals.22

19 Anti-Privatisation Forum (APF) “Charges against Boiketlong and Thembelihle activists dropped” press release (16 August 2007).20 Ibid.21 Mbhele and the Occupiers of Thembelihle Informal Settlement v City of Johannesburg 23783/08 (2009) 2.22 T Ngwane and N Vilakazi “Social Movement Responses to Xenophobia: A Case Study of the Soweto Electricity Crisis Committee,

the Anti-Privatization Forum and the Coalition against Xenophobia” Centre for Sociological Research (2011).23 APF “Gauteng landless communities march against evictions” press release (29 October 2008).

JULY - AUGUST

2008

OCTOBERThe TCC and a number of other CBOs march under the banner of the Anti-Privatisation

Forum (APF), demanding a moratorium on evictions.23

8

MARCHThe High Court dismisses the review application brought by the Thembelihle residents. The judgment states that the prior reports conducted at the settlement appeared to concur that development at Thembelihle would entail a significant cost, a high risk to the community, and the need to educate residents on an ongoing basis.24 The

judge did acknowledge that “the seemingly uncaring attitude of the authority to deal with and finalize matters has resulted in the inhabitants feeling that they are discarded and have been thrown away and forgotten about.”25 The judgment effectively brings an end to legal attempts to promote in situ upgrading of the settlement.

FEBRUARYThe Thembelihle community however continues to push the upgrading agenda. In February, residents gather at the municipal offices to hand over a petition containing a number of grievances. A month later, the Office of the Speaker of the City Council acknowledges receipt of the petition in a letter to the TCC. In the letter, the Speaker

states that she instructed “the administration to provide the TCC and the community with monthly updates until the petition is declared closed by the Petitions and Public Participation Committee”.26 However, despite this undertaking, the municipality fails to provide these monthly updates to the community.

24 Mbhele and the Occupiers of Thembelihle Informal Settlement v City of Johannesburg 23783/08 (2009) 19.25 Ibid 21.26 City of Johannesburg “Letter to the TCC: Various services delivery issues, J Water, City Power by the people of Thembelihle” (8

March 2011).27 A PR councillor is elected through a party list and is therefore primarily accountable to the political party they represent. The PR

system gives parties that are relatively popular, but not strong enough to win seats, a chance to take part in local government.28 Johannesburg Water is a water utility company wholly owned by the City of Johannesburg.29 J Ndarala “Interview” (Thembelihle, 15 August 2012). P Ranchod “Service delivery protests in Thembelihle” LookLocal (9 June

2011).

2009

2011

MARCH - MAYIn March and April, the months leading up to the 2011 local government election, the TCC garners support for Miya who is standing as an OKM ward candidate. On 18 May the local government election is held

and Janice Ndarala, the ANC candidate, is elected as ward councillor. Miya does not gain a seat, but Simphiwe Zwane, a TCC member, is elected as the OKM proportional representation (PR) councillor.27

JUNEA meeting is scheduled between the TCC, Johannesburg Water,28 the ward councillor, a contractor from Limpopo and the police to discuss the installation of sanitation services in the area. According to the TCC

this meeting fails to materialise, and residents embark on a protest. The ward councillor claims that the meeting did take place at a later date.29

9

On 22 August, frustrated by the continued delay in addressing their grievances, Thembelihle residents embark on a protest march to the municipal offices to hand over a memorandum to the ward councillor. According to the TCC the memorandum consists of a list of issues from the community and represents a participatory mandate for the councillor’s tenure.30 The memorandum underscores the community’s challenges in accessing adequate water, electricity, sewage and public lighting, and requests investigation into possible corruption in the allocation of state-subsidised housing.31 In particular, the memorandum criticises the fact that many

households do not have access to basic sanitation services, including Ventilated Improved Pit (VIP) latrines.

A week later the municipality acknowledges receipt of the memorandum, however does not respond to the grievances raised. A day later, the TCC criticises the municipality for not taking the community seriously and states that because the municipality failed to keep them updated on previous petitions – as the municipality promised in February 2011 – the TCC has “lost confidence in the petitions committee, the City structures, Region G administration and the Office of the Speaker”.32

30 TCC “Focus group interview” (21 July 2012).31 TCC “Follow up memorandum of grievances and demands from the community of Thembelihle” (August 2011).32 TCC “Ward 08 – Acknowledgement of receipt of petition” press release (30 August 2011).33 For a comprehensive overview of this protest and subsequent use of the criminal justice system, see Clark “An Anatomy of

Dissent and Repression” (2014).34 Ibid 21-38.35 Ibid 25.36 P Tau “Arrested man said to be peaceful protester” The Star (15 September 2011).37 LookLocal “Thembelihle riots continue” (6 September 2011).38 TCC “Focus group interview” (21 July 2012).39 Clark “An Anatomy of Dissent and Repression” (2014) 46-49.

SEPTEMBEROn 5 September amid rising frustration with the municipality Thembelihle residents embark on a large-scale protest at the settlement, which lasts a week.33 The South African Police Service (SAPS) respond with a severe clamp down on protestors, firing at protestors with rubber bullets and making multiple arrests.34 However, they struggle to maintain control in the settlement.

The police allege that the TCC, including Miya and Zwane, are the “ring leaders” of the protest and are responsible for the violence.35 However the police later acknowledge that Miya is instrumental in subduing the violence at various points throughout the protest.36

On 6 September, concerned about the number of sustained protests involving various poor urban communities in the province, Gauteng MEC for Local Government

and Housing Humphrey Mmemezi addresses the Thembelihle community. He states that water and electricity could not be installed at the settlement as a result of the presence of dolomite and that the community would be relocated to Vlakfontein and Lehae.37 Residents are unsatisfied with these pronouncements and continue their protest. Later, the MEC is heard on a local radio station, stating that authorities would “deal” with protestors.38

On 7 September, 13 protestors (including three minors) appear in the Protea Regional Court facing criminal prosecution on charges of public violence and malicious damage to property. The charges are all connected to their participation in the protest.39 The protestors are represented by the Socio-Economic Rights Institute of South

AUGUST

10

Africa (SERI). The prosecution requests a postponement to prepare a case against the protestors and rectify incomplete charge sheets.

On 8 September 50 protestors converge on the Protea Regional Court in solidarity with those arrested and in defiance of the police’s refusal to grant them ‘permission’ to protest. A number of residents are subsequently arrested outside the court.40

On 13 September Miya is arrested on charges of public violence, intimidation, malicious damage to property and arson. Although the police have virtually no substantial evidence against him, the prosecution opposes his release on bail. They claim that if he were released he would evade his trail or jeopardise the proper functioning of the criminal justice system.41 The prosecution singles Miya out as all the other protesting community members are granted bail.

APRILOn 10 April, after having been afforded nine postponements over a period of seven months to prepare for its case against the Thembelihle protestors, the prosecution requests another postponement claiming that it remained unable to proceed with the case due to incomplete charge sheets.43 The protestors’ legal representatives oppose this request, claiming that the unreasonable

delay in prosecution has caused the accused residents emotional, financial and educational harm. The Magistrate strikes the case from the roll stating that it is unreasonable to expect the accused to keep coming to court for no reason as the state was unable to provide any particulars of the charges against them.44

2012

AUGUSTThe matter against the 14 Thembelihle protestors is re-enrolled by the state and the trial is set down for 6 August. On this date, the case is again struck from the roll as

the prosecution failed to serve most of the accused with summons informing them to appear in court.45

SEPTEMBERIn September the TCC, together with the Informal Settlement Network (ISN) and a number of other informal settlement

communities,46 participates in a protest march to present a memorandum to Gauteng Premier Nomvula Mokonyane.

OCTOBERMiya, represented by SERI, appears in court on multiple occasions before the High Court finally orders his release on bail on 20 October. By this time, Miya has been in

detention for over a month.42 His criminal case is consolidated with the criminal prosecution of the 13 other residents arrested during the September protest.

40 K Sibanda “ISN action plan for Thembelihle residents after bloody service delivery protests” (9 September 2011). 41 Clark “An Anatomy of Dissent and Repression” (2014) 35-46.42 For more on this case, see http://www.seri-sa.org/index.php/litigation-9/cases/19-litigation/case-entries/95-state-v-bhayi-

bhayi-miya 43 Clark “An Anatomy of Dissent and Repression” (2014) 48.44 SERI “Magistrate strikes Thembelihle case from the roll” press release (11 April 2012). For more on this case, see http://www.

seri-sa.org/index.php/litigation-9/cases/19-litigation/case-entries/106-state-v-nkosi-and-13-others-thembelihle 45 Clark “An Anatomy of Dissent and Repression” (2014) 49.46 ISN is a “bottom-up agglomeration of the settlement-level and national-level organisations of the urban poor” in South Africa.

See http://sasdialliance.org.za/about/isn

11

As a result of the memorandum, the municipality agrees to conduct a new comprehensive geotechnical study of the Thembelihle area and to establish a technical team of geologists and legal representatives

to monitor the study. The municipality also agrees to bear the costs of the study. However, despite these undertakings, the municipality continues to drag its feet in implementing the study.

NOVEMBERLeaders of the TCC participate in the ward committee election and Miya is elected onto the committee.

The South African Bureau of Standards (SABS) publishes the new SANS-1936

standards for the development of dolomite land, which potentially allow more scope for residential development on dolomitic land.47 The TCC attempts to get the municipality to re-engage the dolomite issue in terms of the new standards.

OCTOBER

47 South African Bureau of Standards (SABS) “SANS-1936: Development of dolomite land” (23 November 2012).

12

Over the past decade the TCC has utilised a range of formal and informal tactics to resist relocation, upgrade Thembelihle in situ and engage with the state.48 From attempts to electrify the settlement, “fight evictions, assist local learners to access schools in Lenasia and contest local government elections, to grappling with the burning issue of dolomite and relocation, the TCC has constantly shifted and mixed tactics and strategies according to perceived political realities.”49 The threat of eviction in 2002 played an important role in the mobilisation of the community, and the sustained momentum of the TCC. While the lack of access to electricity services at the settlement was initially the burning issue for the community in 2001, resisting relocation from the settlement cemented the TCC over time.50

03 TCC: Strategies and Tactics

48 Tselapedi and Dugard “Reclaiming Power” (2013) 62-63.49 Ibid 62.50 Ibid 58.

Residents demand electricity at the settlement, 2011 (Phillip de Wet)

13

The TCC has a long history of formal engagement with local and provincial government through more traditional participatory mechanisms – petitions, memoranda, and formal meetings with officials. However, these mechanisms have rarely led to positive change at the settlement. While not always succeeding in their demands, the TCC has over the years consolidated its leadership and established partnerships and networks with like-minded organisations, CBOs and social movements, including the APF and ISN. The TCC has also worked with NGOs to further socio-economic development, for example their work with CALS and Planact, and have partnered with a number of public interest lawyers, including Webber Wentzel Bowens and SERI, when faced with eviction or being caught up in the criminal justice system.

Perhaps most significant is the TCC’s decision to become involved in formal politics, through its affiliation to OKM and the fielding of candidates in the 2006 and 2011 local government elections. This move seems unorthodox for the vast majority of social movements and CBOs, who usually engage government through more informal or extra-institutional means.51 The TCC considered this decision as a new tactical frontier for the struggle and felt the time had come to resist relocation and further socio-economic development from both within and outside local government.52 This move was also partially motivated by a desire to more fully understand the machinery of local government in order to more effectively confront the challenges facing the Thembelihle community.53 Although the TCC, through the OKM, did not initially perform well in the 2006 local government election, the movement gathered strength and was able to win

51 T Madlingozi “Post-Apartheid Social Movements and Legal Mobilisation” in M Langford et al (eds) Socio-Economic Rights in South Africa: Symbols or Substance? (2013) 93.

52 TCC “Focus group interview” (21 July 2012).53 Tselapedi and Dugard “Reclaiming Power” (2013) 60.

Protest at Thembelihle settlement, 2011 (Phillip de Wet)

14

a PR councillor position in the 2011 election and a seat on the ward committee in 2012. This seems to suggest that the TCC is widely respected in the community and that their tactics and strategies resonate.54

When formal participatory mechanisms have proved unsuccessful over the years, the TCC has resorted to informal tactics and more direct means of engaging the state. These informal mechanisms include protests which have often been met with a severe clamp-down by police, especially the week long protest in September 2011. The TCC has made a number of significant gains through their protest action, including engagements with provincial government and undertakings to investigate the feasibility of in situ upgrading at the settlement. However, these gains come at a price. Some of these protests have also been highly disruptive and have included elements of violence. During protests, the community is often subject to severe police repression and occasional brutality. Local activists are often targeted by police and harassed or intimidated through the criminal justice system. Although the community claims to have a generally good relationship with police, it seems that this relationship breaks down during protests, when police are often left to treat the legitimate expression of popular dissent as a series of criminal actions that need to be dealt with. For this reason, the TCC views the police as “instrumental to the widening and narrowing of democratic space”.55

The persecution of TCC activists in the wake of the protest in September 2011 has also illustrated how the state is increasingly employing the criminal justice system in an attempt to silence dissent. In fact, events at Thembelihle raise several concerns about how

54 Ibid 62.55 Clark “An Anatomy of Dissent and Repression” (2014) 26-27.

Shacks and VIP toilets at Thembelihle, 2012 (Nicolette Pingo)

15

government responds to local protests. The state has blurred the line between protests and criminal activity, enabling it to label protests illegal and allowing the police to react with increasing brutality. Miya’s arrest and bail proceedings indicate that local community leaders are specifically targeted for arrest and criminal prosecution. Charges are often brought against protestors on little or no substantiated evidence, and proceedings are unreasonably delayed to prolong detention and intimidate activists. The criminal justice system is not so much used for genuine prosecution of crimes, but for the deterrence and suppression of popular dissent:

The state’s endless foot-dragging in this case is clear evidence that this prosecution was brought, not to punish crime, but to stifle legitimate community protest in Thembelihle. The prosecution, and the way it has pursued, is yet another example of the abuse of the criminal justice system in aid of silencing the real and legitimate grievances of people living in informal settlement communities.56

By the end of 2012, the TCC had become adept at operating in both formal and informal political arenas in order to push its demands and objectives. The TCC’s longstanding struggle for in situ informal settlement upgrading at Thembelihle “can also be seen as a struggle to be considered as equal citizens who are consulted about development in their area”.57 As a result of these protests, the municipality agreed to conduct a new and comprehensive geo-technical study and to establish a multi-party technical team of geologists and lawyers to monitor the study. It also finally agreed to pay the costs of a more comprehensive geo-technical study of Thembelihle. However despite a promising start, as previously, the municipality currently appears to be dragging its feet over the implementation of this process.

56 SERI “Magistrate strikes Thembelihle case from the roll” press release (11 April 2012).57 Tselapedi and Dugard “Reclaiming Power” (2013) 62.

Thembelihle residents demand Miya’s release, 2011 (Phillip de Wet)

16

This community practice note documents the Thembelihle community’s struggle against relocation and for the in situ upgrading of the settlement. It shows how settlement-level community organisation, such as constituted by the TCC, occurs “in a dynamic, flux environment where the struggle to upgrade and improve informal settlements is longstanding and complex, involving multiple strategies and tactics.”58 In this regard the Thembelihle community exemplifies the rising number of informal settlements that are being pressured into relocating due to technical issues such as the presence of dolomite.

The TCC and the Thembelihle community have therefore had to navigate not only political ambivalence but have also had to grapple with the complex, multi-faceted (and contested) technical issues that the municipality has utilised to justify their relocation and inability to upgrade the settlement in situ. This community practice note shows how the state uses technical issues as a way to exclude communities from decision-making processes. The TCC’s engagements underscore how community organisations attempt to understand these technical issues and participate in upgrading initiatives despite the complexity and barriers put in place.

This community practice note further highlights how the TCC has attempted to engage an increasingly unresponsive state over an extended period of time with little success. According to journalist Phillip de Wet, who covered the 2011 protest, “the unifying factor in Themb’elihle is frustration, and the root cause of that frustration is the sense that nobody is listening; memorandums of grievances go unanswered, politicians only arrive once the tyres are burning. The number one criticism of MEC Mmemezi’s failed attempt to calm the situation down on Tuesday was not his failure to comply with any demands, but the fact that he came and went without taking questions.”59 While the week-long protest in 2011 did result in the community’s issues being addressed to an extent, and was extensively covered by the media at the time, it resulted in drawn-out criminal cases for the TCC leaders arrested, illustrating how the criminal justice system is employed to silence legitimate expressions of dissent.

04 Conclusion

58 Ibid 63.59 P de Wet “Five Lessons from Themb’elihle” Daily Maverick (7 September 2011)..

17



APF Anti-Privatisation Forum

CALS Centre for Applied Legal Studies

COHRE Centre for Housing Rights and Evictions


TCC Thembelihle Crisis Committee

MEC Member of Executive Council

MMC Member of the Mayoral Council

OKM Operation Khanyisa Movement

PAJA Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000

PR Proportional Representation

VIP Ventilated Improved Pit latrines

SABS South African Bureau of Standards



18

References

• APF “Charges against Boiketlong and Thembelihle activists dropped” press release (16 August 2007). http://apf.org.za/spip.php?article209

• APF “Gauteng landless communities march against evictions” press release (29 October 2008). http://apf.org.za/spip.php?article314

• CALS “Access to Education for Learners in Thembelihle” (May 2006). http://www.ewisa.co.za/eWISAWaterworks/misc/MunicipalDocuments/NCDisPixley_Ka_Seme/LMThembelihle/02775_thembelihle_02.pdf

• COHRE “Any Room for the Poor? Forced Evictions in Johannesburg, South Africa” (2005). http://www.cohre.org/sites/default/files/south_africa_-_any_room_for_the_poor_-_forced_evictions_in_johannesburg_8_mar_2005.pdf

• City of Johannesburg “Letter to the TCC: Various services delivery issues, J Water, City Power by the people of Thembelihle” (8 March 2011).

• City of Johannesburg “Peace settling in Thembelihle” press release (3 March 2010).

• City of Johannesburg v Occupiers of Thembelihle Informal Settlement, South Gauteng High Court, 03/10106. Answering Affidavit.

• M Clark “An Anatomy of Dissent and Repression: The Criminal Justice System and the 2011 Thembelihle Protest” (2014). http://www.seri-sa.org/images/Thembelihle_FINAL_web.pdf

• P de Wet “Five Lessons from Themb’elihle” Daily Maverick (7 September 2011).

• M Huchzermeyer “The struggle for in situ upgrading of informal settlements: A reflection on cases in Gauteng” Development Southern Africa (2009) 26(1).

• LookLocal “Thembelihle riots continue” (6 September 2011). http://www.looklocal.co.za/looklocal/content/en/lenasia/lenasia-announcements-general?oid=4689370&sn=Detail&pid=1171275&Thembelihle-riots-continue

• M Mabaso “Geotechnical report insufficient to remove residents” LookLocal (29 June 2012). http://www.looklocal.co.za/looklocal/content/en/lenasia/lenasia-news-municipal?oid=5797797&sn=Detail&pid=1171269&Geotechnical-report-insufficient-to-move-residents

• T Madlingozi “Post-Apartheid Social Movements and Legal Mobilisation” in M Langford et al (eds) Socio-Economic Rights in South Africa: Symbols or Substance? (2013)

• T Ngwane and N Vilakazi “Social Movement Responses to Xenophobia: A Case Study of the Soweto Electricity Crisis Committee, the Anti-Privatization Forum and the Coalition against Xenophobia” Centre for Sociological Research (2011). http://www.atlanticphilanthropies.org/sites/all/modules/filemanager/files/7_Soweto_c.pdf

• N Pingo “Institutionalisation of a Social Movement: The Case of Thembelihle, the Thembelihle Crisis Committee and the Operation Khanyisa Movement and the Use of the Brick, the Ballot and the Voice” Research Report submitted for MSc in Development and Planning, University of Witwatersrand (May 2013).

• P Ranchod “Service delivery protests in Thembelihle” LookLocal (9 June 2011). http://www.looklocal.co.za/looklocal/content/en/lenasia/lenasia-news-municipal?oid=4474501&sn=Detail&pid=1171269&Service-delivery-protests-in-Thembelihle-

• SERI “Magistrate strikes Thembelihle case from the roll” press release (11 April 2012). http://www.seri-sa.org/images/stories/thembelihle_press_release_final.pdf

19

• K Sibanda “ISN action plan for Thembelihle residents after bloody service delivery protests” (9 September 2011). http://sasdialliance.org.za/isn-action-plan-for-thembelihle-residents-after-bloody-service-delivery-protests/

• P Tau “Arrested man said to be peaceful protester” The Star (15 September 2011). http://www.iol.co.za/the-star/soweto/arrested-man-said-to-be-peaceful-protester-1.1137883

• TCC “Follow up memorandum of grievances and demands from the community of Thembelihle” (August 2011).

• TCC “Ward 08 – Acknowledgement of receipt of petition” press release (30 August 2011).

• T Tselapedi and J Dugard “Reclaiming Power: A Case Study of the Thembelihle Crisis Committee” in Good Governance Learning Network (GGLN) Active Citizenship Matters (2013).

• Webber Wentzel Bowens “Public Interest and Gender Law Department and Corporate Social Responsibility Annual Report” (2006).


Slovo Park: Twenty Years of Broken Promises


4






Slovo Park: Twenty Years of Broken Promises is the fourth community practice note in the series. The other three are: Makause: Resisting Relocation on the East Rand; Rooigrond: Community Struggle in the North West; and Thembelihle: Engaging an Unresponsive State.

Cover photos: Michael Premo, Ingmar Buchner and 1:1 Agency of Engagement.


1

Contents1. About Slovo Park ............................................................................ 2

2. Key Events ........................................................................................ 3


3. SPCDF: Strategies and Tactics ....................................................12

4. Conclusion .......................................................................................16

Slovo Park: Twenty Years of Broken Promises

4



Slovo Park: Twenty Years of Broken Promises is the fourth in SERI’s Informal Settlement Series of community practice notes.

It provides a brief background to the Slovo Park informal settlement; summarises the key events in the struggle to push for upgrading at the settlement; and examines the strategies and tactics of the local community structure, the Slovo Park Community Development Forum (SPCDF).

2

01 About Slovo Park

Slovo Park informal settlement is located next to the Nancefield industrial area, between Eldorado Park and Bushkoppies in the City of Johannesburg. Slovo Park consists of around 3 700 households (approximately 7 000 people) living on more than 1 000 informal stands. The settlement was established in the early 1990s by people who moved to the site in search of land close to their jobs. The settlement is situated on the Remaining Extent of Portion 33 of the Farm Olifantsvlei 316 IQ and covers approximately 47 hectares. Most of the occupied land is publicly-owned, with much of the surrounding land owned by the Gauteng provincial government. The settlement has approximately four communal standpipes per street and 1 050 ventilated improved pit latrines (VIPs) which were installed in 2005 on each stand. There is no electricity at the settlement and residents use candles for lighting and paraffin stoves for cooking, both of which pose significant fire risks. Indeed, shack fires are a frequent occurrence at Slovo Park.

Figure 1: Aerial view of Slovo Park

3

02 Key Events

The following figure summarises the key events in the struggle for upgrading at Slovo Park informal settlement.

Figure 2: Slovo Park summary timeline

1994Slovo Park

residents are earmarked

for inclusion in a housing

project. This doesn’t materialise.

2003The NDOH and GDLGH

hold a meeting at Slovo Park and

undertake to build

950 houses there.

2005The

feasibility report is

published. It states that Slovo Park should be

upgraded to yield 1 150

stands.

2010The SPCDF works with ISN on a water connection project. The City presents a plan to provide

575 stands at Slovo Park, with

the remaining 2500 households to be relocated to Eldorado Park.

2001The City holds

a meeting with Slovo

Park residents promising the

construction of 950 houses in September.

2004The Premier and MMC for Housing

promise Slovo Park residents

that construction will begin in September. iNtatakusa

is appointed to conduct a

feasibility report on Slovo Park.

2006Arcus Gibb

replaces iNtakakusa as project consultant.

2007Geotechnical studies are conducted

at Slovo Park. Nemai is appointed to undertake an

EIA.

The SPCDF is formed.

2009Nemai submits the

EIA report to GDARD, recommending a

layout of 629 to 663 stands at Slovo Park.

Residents protest after the MMC for Housing fails to

attend a meeting about development at the settlement.

2014An application is launched on

behalf of the Slovo Park residents

requesting that the court compel the City to take the

necessary steps to apply for funding to upgrade the

settlement in terms of the UISP

2013The SPCDF continues to

engage the City while working on the court application.

A family of four is killed during a shack fire at

Slovo Park.

2012The City hosts

informal meetings with SPCDF. No concrete,

inclusive plan is put on the table.

The SPCDF informs the City it will proceed

with a High Court application to compel the implementation of

the UISP.

4

TIMELINE OF EVENTS1991-1994

During the early 1990s the burning issue for Slovo Park residents is access to water at the settlement. They have to use two streams in the area or purchase water at inflated prices.1 In 1994 the municipal authority provides a water tank as a temporary measure, assuring residents that pipes and taps will be installed. Communal street taps are eventually installed, which are also only meant to be a temporary measure, to be replaced by individual yard taps. However these remain the only source of water at the settlement until 2010.

In 1994 the Slovo Park community is earmarked for inclusion in the Harrington Valley Housing Project, initiated by a private residential development company called Condev. Instead, a housing development called Devland Extension 27 is built nearby the settlement.2 Allegations of corruption and misappropriation of funds in relation to this project continue to plague Slovo Park residents and have not been resolved.3

After the death of the first Minster of Housing, Joe Slovo, the community names

the settlement Slovo Park in his honour.

1 SPCDF “Interview” (Slovo Park, 30 June 2010).2 Condev “Regional Housing Board (Transvaal) Application for Project-based Subsidy: Harrington Valley, Nancefield” (31 October

1994). 3 In August 1997 the Housing and Land Affairs Standing Committee of the Gauteng Provincial Legislature investigate the project

finding that “the allegations raised by the petitioner are of a serious nature and indicate, if proved true, that serious flaws have emerged regarding the procedures followed in the Devland Extension 27 development.” See Gauteng Provincial Legislature “Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports” No 68 - 1997: Fourth Session, First Legislature (11 September 1997) 251-252.

4 SPCDF “Structure of the historical background of Slovo Park-Nancefield” (undated).

1995

The South African National Civic Organisation (SANCO), an umbrella body of civic organisations aligned with the ANC, organises a public meeting at the settlement. The Gauteng Premier Mbhazima Shilowa promises

Slovo Park residents that they will not be moved and that houses will be built at the settlement.4

1998

The first local government election is held and an ANC ward councillor is elected in the area.

2000DECEMBER

5

The Community Development Forum (CDF) is formed after Slovo Park residents elect individuals to lead the community. Officials from the City of Johannesburg (the

City) erect a large tent at the settlement and a government official states that by September 2001 the construction of 950 new houses at Slovo Park will commence.

5 SPCDF “Letter to President Jacob Zuma” (2 December 2009).6 From 2002 to 2005 iNtatakusa Consulting was part of the regional professional team providing project management services

for the Gauteng Department of Housing. The company was involved in the township establishment and development process from land identification to the transfer of ownership to beneficiaries.

7 iNtatakusa Africa “Johannesburg North Feasibility Report – Project: Slovo Park” (March 2005) 28-29.8 Ibid 29.

2001

The GDLGH, Gauteng Premier and Member of the Mayoral Committee (MMC) for Housing, Strike Ralegoma, erect a large tent at Slovo Park and undertake to ensure the building

of houses by September 2004. The GDLGH appoints iNtatakusa Africa Consulting (iNtatakusa) to conduct a feasibility report on development at Slovo Park.6

2004

Officials from the National Department of Housing (NDOH) and the Gauteng Department of Housing and Local Government (GDLGH) attend a large community meeting at Slovo Park, where several commitments to the community are made, including that Slovo Park will not be relocated, that 950 houses

will be built, and that the settlement will be demarcated into Eldorado Park from Protea South and Lenasia.5

150 shacks are destroyed and two people die in a shack fire at the settlement.

2003JULY

iNtatakusa produces a feasibility report which notes that the formalisation of Slovo Park “is not only feasible but its implementation is also urgently required.”7 The report notes that there are 5 000 households on 1 050 stands at Slovo Park and recommends that the community be restructured into one family per an approximately 300m2 stand, a necessary requirement due to the site being situated on dolomitic land. The feasibility report states that an in situ process can be followed, but that a large amount of de-densification would have

to be carried out and “additional land must be identified to accommodate the surplus families”.8 The report describes how the availability of vacant land for development and the relocation of excess families is a development constraint, and that the vacant land adjacent to Slovo Park should be investigated. The conclusion of the feasibility report is that the remaining community (approximately 3 500 households) will have to be relocated to nearby developments on vacant land.

2005MARCH

6

The CDF sends a letter to the ANC ward councillor requesting him to put in more effort to fast track municipal services at the settlement including electricity, water, sanitation, roads, housing and social amenities. The letter states that: “one sees the importance of these issues as the opposition is gaining support because of lack of services/interaction from our leaders” - a

clear warning from the SPCDF of potential defections from the ANC ranks.9 Following the letter, a meeting is organised between the community, the ward councillor and the MMC for Housing in June. At this meeting, development at Slovo Park is discussed, and the MMC promises to try to fast track the development process.

DECEMBERShortly before the local government election in March 2006 a large meeting is held at Protea South. Slovo Park residents are bussed into the gathering, which is attended by the MMC for Housing, the MEC for Housing and the Mayor. The MEC states that the same

type of housing being built at Protea South will be built at Slovo Park. Further, the Mayor states that he would put money into Slovo Park by March 2006 and “no further questions should be asked by the community about Slovo Park”.10

9 CDF “Letter to Councillor Manack” (23 May 2005).10 SPCDF “Structure of the historical background of Slovo Park-Nancefield” (undated).11 City of Johannesburg “Annual Report 2005/2006 Financial Year” (2006) 161.12 SPCDF “Constitution of Slovo Park Community Development Forum: Draft” (undated).

2006Arcus Gibb, a large engineering consulting firm, replaces iNtakakusa as the consultant on the Slovo Park housing project. Arcus Gibb, on behalf of the GDLGH, commissions Moore Spence Jones to conduct a dolomite stability assessment at Slovo Park.

According to the City of Johannesburg’s 2005/2006 Annual Report, the City’s

Department of Housing appointed the Johannesburg Property Company (JPC) to finalise the purchase of privately-owned land to make provision for the establishment of new subsidised housing projects. For the Slovo Park development, “six properties were to be acquired for a 1 055 stand township to be established.”11

MAY

2007The Slovo Park Community Development Forum (SPCDF) is formed out of the existing community structure at Slovo Park. According to the SPCDF’s draft constitution, its primary aim is “to help unite the community behind the Developmental

Agenda given to the SPCDF” from the community. It also has a number of secondary goals and states that it will “collaborate with any interested party willing to assist the community, political or non-political”.12

7

Arcus Gibb informs the Slovo Park community that they are in the advanced stages of the township establishment process, which is due to conclude in early July 2007 after geotechnical studies are conducted. Geostrategies, a consulting firm of geotechnical engineers, environmental

scientists and land surveyors, is appointed to do this work. The community is told that development will proceed by September 2007, but that the number of houses being constructed would be reduced from 950 to 821 because of dolomitic conditions in the area.

JUNESPCDF representatives, together with the PR councillor and a delegation from the local ANC branch, meet with the MMC for Housing

to discuss the fast tracking of development. The MMC states that development will begin in July 2007.

JULYBy July the community has heard nothing about the geotechnical study, the perceived last hurdle to development at Slovo Park, and decide to protest. On 10 July residents blockade the N12 highway. Police officers arrive and arrest a number of protesters.

A dolomite stability assessment for Slovo Park recommends that a minimum stand

size of 350m2 will be necessary, as the site is classified as dolomite risk class 4.13 Nemai Consulting (Nemai), an independent environmental assessment practitioner, is appointed to undertake an environmental impact assessment (EIA) at Slovo Park.

13 Moore Spence Jones “Report to Arcus Gibb PRT and Gauteng Department of Housing on Dolomite Stability Assessment for the Remainder of Portion 33 of the Farm Olifantsvlei 316 IQ (Proposed Slovo Park)” (July 2007).

14 SPCDF “Memorandum” (11 September 2007).

MARCH

AUGUSTArcus Gibb visits the Slovo Park community and says that development will commence in

November, but that only 660 houses will be constructed.

SEPTEMBEROn 11 September community members march to the Union Buildings in Pretoria to “introduce the community to President Mbeki” and to call for electricity, water and sewerage at the settlement. They present a memorandum which includes the following short-term demands: improvement of service delivery,

installation of electricity, installation of permanent taps in individual yards, sanitation flush toilets, and tarred roads and pavements. Long-term demands include: 2 500 five-room houses and recognition of Nancefield Township.14

2008During 2008 the SPCDF engages with various government officials, technical professionals and high level ANC politicians about development at Slovo Park. The latter

include the Office of the Mayor, Office of the Speaker, MMC for Housing, MEC for Housing, the Premier and the ANC Chief Whip.

8

MARCHA public meeting is held at Slovo Park Hall to discuss the EIA process with the community and other interested and affected parties. The

SPCDF, ward councillor and representatives from Arcus Gibb, GDLGH and Nemai are present.15

APRILThe SPCDF organises a protest march to the Office of the Mayor to submit a

memorandum of grievances pertaining to development at Slovo Park.16

15 Nemai “Minutes: Public Meeting” (19 March 2008) in Slovo Park Housing Development: Environmental Impact Assessment Report (June 2009).

16 SPCDF “Memorandum of Accountability: Presented to the Office of the Mayor (18 April 2008).17 ISN is a “bottom-up agglomeration of settlement-level and national-level organisations of the urban poor” in South Africa. See

http://sasdialliance.org.za/about/isn/18 The Legal Resources Centre (LRC) is a public interest human rights law clinic. See http://www.lrc.org.za/19 LRC “Letter to the City of Johannesburg: Slovo Park/Nancefield Settlement-Services Rendered” (17 October 2008).20 Government Gazette “Notice of Application for Establishment of Township: Nancefield Extension 4 Township” Notice 51 of

2009 (7 January 2009).21 K Tissington “Towards a Synthesis of the Political, Social and Technical in Informal Settlement Upgrading in South Africa: A Case

Study of Slovo Park Informal Settlement, Johannesburg” (April 2011) 43-45.

SEPTEMBERThe Informal Settlement Network (ISN) is formed in a number of provinces after a series of informal settlement dialogues

during 2008.17 SPCDF becomes an active member of the ISN.

DECEMBERAn application for the Establishment of Nancefield Township Extension 4 in terms of the Town-Planning and Townships Ordinance

Act 15 of 1986 is received by the City from the GDLGH. The application is for a township with 640 residential stands.20

OCTOBERThe SPCDF, frustrated with failed attempts to engage political channels, approaches the Legal Resources Centre (LRC) for assistance.18

On 17 October, the LRC addresses a letter to the City of Johannesburg about lack of access to services at the settlement.19

During 2009 a number of public meetings are held as part of the EIA public participation process. Slovo Park residents articulate concerns with delays in the development process and the reducing of the number

of houses to be built.21 During 2009 SPCDF also continues to attempt to engage with politicians and government officials around development at Slovo Park.

2009

JANUARYThe notice of the township establishment process is published in the Government Gazette inviting people to inspect the

particulars of the application from January to early-February.

9

Nemai makes the Slovo Park EIA report public for comment. The report states that the dolomite study revealed that a minimum stand size of 350m2 is required at the site, and outlines a number of other possible impacts and proposed mitigations. The report further states that the formalisation of Slovo Park is “strongly recommended from an environmental point of view” as the current settlement has an “uncontrolled impact on the surrounding environment”.22 The report recommends a layout of between 629 and 663 stands at Slovo Park.

The SPCDF sends a letter to local Parliamentary Constituency Offices (PCOs)

and Members of Parliament (MPs) in order “to strategically target the newly elected representatives”. The letter refers to “empty excuses from everyone since 2001” and describes how the Slovo Park community has been trying for over 10 years to get basic services: “electricity, water, sewerage, to prevent more shack fires from the community, hence saving the lives of the poor. We are currently not aware how long we are going to maintain the pressure from the community members. Houses, whenever they arrive, will be a bonus for the community.”23

22 Nemai Slovo Park Housing Development: Environmental Impact Assessment Report (June 2009) 30-31.23 SPCDF “Letter to the Honourable Members of Parliament in Region G (1 June 2009).24 SPCDF “Letter to ANC Luthuli House, Gauteng Provincial Government, City of Johannesburg, Office of the Speaker, Gauteng

Legislature, DPLG and Department of Human Settlements” (5 July 2009).25 See IOL News “Burning tyres used to block roads” (7 December 2009); IOL News “Drivers stoned near Lenasia” (8 December

2009).26 Tissington “A Case Study of Slovo Park” (2011) 50.

JULYThe SPCDF sends a letter to the ANC headquarters at Luthuli House, the GDLGH, the Office of the Speaker, Gauteng provincial legislature, Department of Provincial and Local Government (DPLG) and the Department of Human Settlements (DHS).24 In the letter the SPCDF expresses a number of concerns that highlight their mistrust and

concerns at the possibility of a repeat of the failed 1994 project, including a concern that “the Housing Department is only going to start with building 660 houses but others from Protea South have been promised and where will the 5 000 Slovo park residents go?”

JUNE

SEPTEMBERLocal government by-elections are held for a number of wards in Gauteng, including ward 18 (under which Slovo Park falls). SPCDF’s chairperson Mohau Melani contests the

by-election as an ANC candidate, however a DA candidate wins the ward with 59% of the vote.

DECEMBERSlovo Park residents protest after the MMC for Housing fails to attend a meeting about development at the settlement. Community members blockade the N12 highway with burning tyres.25

The following day the new MMC for Housing Ruby Mathang attends a meeting

at the Eldorado Park Civic Centre which is also attended by the local ANC branch chairperson, the DA ward councillor and SPCDF representatives. At this meeting, the MMC allegedly promises that development of the area will begin in March 2010.26

10

The SPCDF sends a letter requesting a meeting with the MEC for Local Government and Housing, Kgaogelo Lekgoro. In the letter the SPCDF states that the meeting is

necessary to “discuss the blockages around the development of the area, and hopefully break the deadlock on the project”.27

AUGUSTThe LRC sends a letter to the City’s Housing Department detailing the Slovo Park housing development process to date and requesting a meeting. The letter states that “the community is deeply hurt and uncertain. They feel, and in our view rightly so, that they have been pushed from pillar to post over

the years. Exacerbating their disappointment is the fact that around them, developments and townships spring up and they watch their friends and colleagues from other communities settle into safe, hygienic and functioning environments.”29

SEPTEMBERA meeting is held at the offices of the GDLGH, attended by SPCDF members, LRC representatives, officials from the GDLGH, as well as Argus Gibb consultants. Arcus Gibb and GDLGH officials explain why the housing project has been delayed, and the numerous

challenges faced. An amended layout plan is presented which provides for 575 stands at the settlement, with the remaining 2 500 households to be relocated to Eldorado Park.30 The SPCDF rejects this layout.

OCTOBER - NOVEMBERThrough the SPCDF’s collaboration with ISN and the Community Organisation Resource Centre (CORC),31 the community partners with the University of Pretoria’s Architecture Department to design and upgrade the community hall, using the skills of various community members (e.g. bricklaying, tiling,

plumbing, welding etc.) and donations from surrounding businesses. In November, the community hall is officially opened.32 Two officials, one from the City and the other from Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality attend the launch as well as senior lecturers from the University of Pretoria.

JULYThe SPCDF’s engagement with the ISN leads to the implementation of a water connection project at the settlement. SPCDF leaders compile a skills audit in the community and identify people with knowledge and experience in plumbing and drainage. It is

agreed that a main pipeline will be installed from existing water standpipes to every street in the settlement so that individual families can make household connections to the main line. 1 050 households are provided with water connections.28

27 SPCDF “Letter to MEC for Local Government and Housing Kgaogelo Lekgoro” (17 May 2010).28 See http://sasdialliance.org.za/projects/slovo-park/ 29 LRC “Letter to City of Johannesburg Housing Department: Slovo Park/Nancefield Settlement” (31 August 2010).30 LRC “Minutes of the meeting held on 30 September 2010” (2010).31 CORC is an NGO that supports the social processes of community-based organisations that want to work for themselves,

by facilitating engagements with formal actors like the state. CORC supports the SDI rituals of savings, enumeration, and community-led development strategies. See http://www.sasdialliance.org.za/corc/

32 For more on this project and the partnership between the University of Pretoria’s Architecture Department and the Slovo Park community see http://slovo-park.blogspot.com/

MAY

2010

11

APRILSERI publishes a working paper based on information provided by the SPCDF. According to an Arcus Gibb project manager, development at Slovo Park is being stalled by unexpected problems with the bulk sewerage connection, which is the responsibility of the City. According to him until the bulk infrastructure issues are

sorted out, the application for township establishment is suspended. He also states that the unsuitability of land adjacent to the settlement for relocation, and the unwillingness of Eldorado Park residents to accommodate Slovo Park residents in the area, has stalled the development.33

33 Argus Gibb project manager “Telephonic interview” (19 April 2011).34 SERI “Letter to Minister of Human Settlements, MEC for Local Government and Housing and the City of Johannesburg:

Upgrading of Slovo Park Informal Settlement” (11 December 2011). 35 SERI “Letter to Zunaid Khan: Upgrading of Slovo Park Informal Settlement” (7 August 2012).

After the SPCDF approaches the Socio-Economic Rights Institute of South Africa (SERI) to investigate the non-implementation of the housing development at Slovo Park,

SERI assists the SPCDF to write up the history of Slovo Park and to investigate the political, social and technical dimensions of the settlement.

JANUARY

2011

MAYOn 18 May the local government election is held. Slovo Park is demarcated into a newly created ward which includes Bushkoppies and Freedom Park. It is no longer in the same ward as Eldorado Park. The SPCDF is pleased with this development, particularly

as Slovo Park is in the same ward as Devland Extension 27. They anticipate being able to raise issues about this housing development and prior corruption. Ward 119 is won by the ANC candidate, Mbuyiselo Dokolwane.

DECEMBERThe SERI Law Clinic, on behalf of the Slovo Park residents, addresses a legal letter to the MEC for Local Government and Housing, the Executive Mayor and the Executive Director of Housing for the City, setting out the various undertakings made to Slovo Park residents over the years about development

at the settlement. The letter states that the residents “require a coherent, inclusive and comprehensive plan for the upgrading of Slovo Park” and that the obvious instrument for developing such a plan is the UISP.34 No response from the MEC or the City is received.

The City hosts two informal meetings with SPCDF, the newly-elected ward councillor and SERI representatives. The City notes that the layout approved by the GDLGH will only accommodate 475 households, as the minimum stand size is 350m2 due to the presence of dolomite. The City states that it would have to challenge this process as it

is unable to build such large stands and has a policy to increase densification. The City discusses an alternative model whereby all households would relocate to a piece of state-owned land and the community would establish a cooperative; however the proposal is vague and there is no firm commitment from the City.35

APRIL - JUNE

2012

12

NOVEMBERThe South African Bureau of Standards (SABS) publishes the new SANS-1936 standards for the development of dolomite

land, which potentially allow more scope for residential development on dolomitic land.37

SERI writes a letter to the City on behalf of the SPCDF stating that its instructions are to proceed with the High Court application

to set aside the plan to implement a 575 stand development, and to compel the implementation of the UISP.36

AUGUST

During 2013 the SPCDF continues to engage with the City, technical professionals and lawyers about upgrading the settlement. The community embarks on a process of resurveying their stands and negotiating

with each other to shift boundaries so that all stands are at least 350m2, as per the EIA recommendations and the new SANS-1936 regulations pertaining to dolomite.

SEPTEMBEROn 19 September SPCDF representatives meet with City officials to discuss ideas for the upgrading of Slovo Park. The City requests that the SPCDF produce a more concrete plan, and expresses concerns that the whole community is not behind the initiative. At the same time, the SPCDF

together with SERI works on building a case to compel the City to apply for the UISP to be implemented, if engagement proves unsuccessful.

A family of four is killed during a shack fire at Slovo Park.38

An application is launched in the South Gauteng High Court on behalf of the Slovo Park residents. It requests that the court compel the City to take the necessary steps to apply for funding to upgrade the Slovo Park informal settlement in terms of the UISP. Included as respondents in the application are

the City of Johannesburg, Executive Mayor Parks Tau, MMC for Housing Daniel Bovu, Executive Director of the City’s Housing Department Thabo Maisela, the MEC for Local Government and Housing, and the Minister of Human Settlements. The MEC and the Minister do not oppose the application.

JANUARY

2014

2013

The City responds to the application by launching an application disputing the lawfulness of the power of attorney authorising SERI to institute proceedings.

JUNE

36 Ibid.37 South African Bureau of Standards (SABS) “SANS-1936: Development of dolomite land” (23 November 2012).38 N Mtshali “Family of four killed in shack fire” IOL News (2 September 2013).

13

For almost 20 years the Slovo Park community has been promised access to formal services and housing at the settlement. Since 1995, politicians and government officials at all levels of the state have visited Slovo Park, met with community leaders, and reassured them that development is imminent. Feasibility studies have been conducted, layout plans have been developed, EIAs have been written, steps have been taken to declare a township, funding has been earmarked. However, to date nothing has happened.

In 2007 the SPCDF was formed out of the existing community structure, with a focus on pushing for development at the settlement. Over the years it has engaged in formal political channels to apply pressure on the government to make good on the numerous undertakings to develop the settlement, while at the same time it has participated in processes initiated by technical consultants appointed to undertake various studies at the settlement. Frustration with the perceived duplication of efforts over the years, the constantly changing number of houses to be built at the settlement and the dominant role of consultants has led to the SPCDF and community members resorting to a combination of closed door political meetings, protest, self-help and litigation.

03 SPCDF: Strategies and Tactics

Slovo Park informal settlement, 2010 (1:1 Agency of Engagement)

14

A letter addressed to the Speaker and to the ANC Chief Whip in June 2008 highlights the way that the SPCDF has critically engaged within ANC channels and using party discourse. The letter states that the community structure is writing the letter:

not because we want to become difficult, not because we are antigovernment, not because we are power-mongers but for one particular reason – to mobilise our community behind the ruling party in preparation for the upcoming elections ... we appeal to you to provide us with the political direction as we have been preaching that one day something will actually happen to residents of Slovo Park right here where we are. We have prepared the soil ... for the next National Elections, but it is going to be a fruitless exercise if we do not motivate our people with implementables.39

Another letter written in July 2009 - to ANC politicians, national government departments and the City - describes how “we [SPCDF] elected you and are deeply disappointed that no development has taken place. It is disappointing and dangerous to members of the community to elect people based on promises and delays indefinitely, when people do not know what the problems are and no one is articulating them.”40

The SPCDF has attempted to engage with high level politicians in government at the local, provincial and national level, as well as with various ANC structures around fast-tracking development at the settlement, and the negative effect of 15 years of “promises after promises”. For many years the SPCDF’s preferred route of engagement was party

39 SPCDF “Letter to the Speaker of Council at City of Johannesburg (24 June 2008); SPCDF “Letter to ANC Chief Whip of Council Bafana Sithole (26 June 2008).

40 SPCDF “Letter to ANC Luthuli House, Gauteng Provincial Government, City of Johannesburg, Office of the Speaker, Gauteng Legislature, DPLG and Department of Human Settlements” (5 July 2009).

Brick house at Slovo Park, 2011 (Michael Premo)

15

political and it used ‘political scare tactics’ as a mechanism to push government into fast-tracking development at the settlement. These ‘scare tactics’ were sometimes subtle and sometimes overt. To date, however, these engagements and scare tactics have not yielded many tangible results for the community. Between 2007 and 2010 this engagement shifted from the political terrain to the more technical - with planning and environmental consultants appointed by the GDLGH engaging with the community over the proposed housing development. The outbursts of anger and frustration by Slovo Park community members in 2007 and 2009, which manifested in protest and the blockading of the N12 highway, clearly highlight the link between broken political promises and protest, as a last resort to draw attention to problems faced by communities.

Most recently, as a result of frustration with a lack of development and a desire to put pressure on those in power, the SPCDF has sought the assistance of public interest lawyers, including the LRC and SERI. The structure has been very proactive in soliciting support and assistance from various organisations and institutions, including CORC, ISN and the University of Pretoria’s Architecture Department. These partnerships have led to a community hall being built, household water connections installed, and plans and proposals being developed for upgrading the settlement. At the same time, the SPCDF has partnered with the ANC ward councillor to continue to put pressure on elected politicians and government officials to implement an upgrading project. The High Court application launched in 2014 is yet another attempt by the SPCDF to see real progress and ensure development at the settlement, not least because of pressures on them by the community to perform on their mandate.

Students and community members discussing the Slovo Park hall, 2010 (1:1 Agency of Engagement)

16

This community practice note documents the Slovo Park informal settlement community’s struggle for development over 20 years. The complex Slovo Park story highlights the serious planning gaps and deficits in official processes which, in turn, raise serious questions about the ability of even mobilised and politically-connected communities to bring about development in informal settlements. Tensions between political promises made (and broken) and technical engagement around planning and environmental processes are clearly evident.

This community practice note brings into stark focus the importance of participation in informal settlement upgrading, but also the difficulties faced by communities and their representative structures to make this a reality, despite the clear possibilities that multi-stakeholder partnerships hold for upgrading informal settlements.

04 Conclusion

17




CORC Community Organisation Resource Centre

DA Democratic Alliance

DHS Department of Human Settlements

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

GDARD Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

GDLGH Gauteng Department of Local Government and Housing


JPC Johannesburg Property Company

LRC Legal Resources Centre


MEC Member of the Executive Committee

MP Member of Parliament

NDOH National Department of Housing

PCO Parliamentary Constituency Office

SANCO South African National Civics Organisation

SABS South African Bureau of Standards



SPCDF Slovo Park Community Development Forum

UISP Upgrading of Informal Settlements Programme

18

References• CDF “Letter to Councillor Manack” (23 May 2005).

• City of Johannesburg “Annual Report 2005/2006 Financial Year” (2006). http://www.joburg-archive.co.za/2007/pdfs/annual_report20056.pdf

• Condev “Regional Housing Board (Transvaal) Application for Project-based Subsidy: Harrington Valley, Nancefield” (31 October 1994).

• Gauteng Provincial Legislature “Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports” No 68 - 1997: Fourth Session, First Legislature (11 September 1997).

• Government Gazette “Notice of Application for Establishment of Township: Nancefield Extension 4 Township” Notice 51 of 2009 (7 January 2009). http://www.greengazette.co.za/notices/town-planning-and-townships-ordinance-15-1986-establishment-of-township-nancefield-extension-4_20090107-GAU-00001-00051.pdf

• iNtatakusa Africa “Johannesburg North Feasibility Report – Project: Slovo Park” (March 2005).

• IOL News “Burning tyres used to block roads” (7 December 2009). http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/burning-tyres-used-to-block-roads-1.466937#.U7xPmkD_rIU

• IOL News “Drivers stoned near Lenasia” (8 December 2009). http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/drivers-stoned-near-lenasia-1.467155#.U7xPv0D_rIU

• LRC “Letter to the City of Johannesburg: Slovo Park/Nancefield Settlement-Services Rendered” (17 October 2008).

• LRC “Minutes of the meeting held on 30 September 2010” (2010).

• LRC “Letter to the City of Johannesburg Housing Department: Slovo Park/Nancefield Settlement” (31 August 2010).

• Moore Spence Jones “Report to Arcus Gibb PRT and Gauteng Department of Housing on Dolomite Stability Assessment for the Remainder of Portion 33 of the Farm Olifantsvlei 316 IQ (Proposed Slovo Park)” (July 2007).

• N Mtshali “Family of four killed in shack fire” IOL News (2 September 2013). http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/gauteng/family-of-four-killed-in-shack-fire-1.1571628#.U7_XykCZPTo

• Nemai Slovo Park Housing Development: Environmental Impact Assessment Report (June 2009).

• Nemai “Minutes: Public Meeting” (19 March 2008) in Slovo Park Housing Development: Environmental Impact Assessment Report (June 2009).

• SABS “SANS-1936: Development of dolomite land” (23 November 2012).

• SERI “Letter to Zunaid Khan: Upgrading of Slovo Park Informal Settlement” (7 August 2012).

• SERI “Letter to Minister of Human Settlements, MEC for Local Government and Housing and the City of Johannesburg: Upgrading of Slovo Park Informal Settlement” (11 December 2011).

• SPCDF “Constitution of Slovo Park Community Development Forum: Draft” (undated).

• SPCDF “Letter to ANC Chief Whip of Council Bafana Sithole (26 June 2008).

• SPCDF “Letter to ANC Luthuli House, Gauteng Provincial Government, City of Johannesburg, Office of the Speaker, Gauteng Legislature, DPLG and Department of Human Settlements” (5 July 2009).

• SPCDF “Letter to MEC for Local Government and Housing Kgaogelo Lekgoro” (17 May 2010).

• SPCDF “Letter to President Jacob Zuma” (2 December 2009).

• SPCDF “Letter to the Honourable Members of Parliament in Region G (1 June 2009).

19

• SPCDF “Letter to the Speaker of Council at City of Johannesburg (24 June 2008).

• SPCDF “Memorandum of Accountability: Presented to the Office of the Mayor (18 April 2008).

• SPCDF “Memorandum” (11 September 2007).

• SPCDF “Structure of the historical background of Slovo Park-Nancefield” (undated).

• K Tissington “Towards a Synthesis of the Political, Social and Technical in Informal Settlement Upgrading in South Africa: A Case Study of Slovo Park Informal Settlement, Johannesburg” (April 2011). http://seri-sa.org/images/stories/slovoparkworkingpaper_april11.pdf

Community Practice Notes: Informal Settlement Series

Documents

Transcript of Community Practice Notes: Informal Settlement Series