Report on Public Participation Exercises For: “The Elimination and Prevention of Re-emergence of Slums Bill”

Report on Public Participation Exercises For: “The Elimination and Prevention of Re-emergence of Slums Bill”

I. Kennedy Road Public Participation Exercise

4 May, 2007

General Information:

On 4 May, 2007, members of the KwaZulu-Natal provincial legislature attended a public participation exercise at Kennedy Hall located at the Kennedy Road shack settlement to discuss “The Elimination and Prevention of Re-emergence of Slums Bill.” The exercise began at 11am and ended at 1pm. Among the legislators in attendance were Lennox Mabaso (Spokesperson for Housing and Local Government) and Tim Jeebodh (Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Housing). The Kennedy Hall was filled to capacity with approximately 100 to 200 people, many from affiliated-Abahlali baseMjondolo shack settlements and others from nearby ANC-aligned communities.

The meeting began with the legislators reading aloud a summary of the Bill. The Bill was not read in its entirety; it was not distributed before or during the exercise. Following a summary of the Bill, attendees were invited to speak in turn at a microphone. Initial comments by attendees concerned housing and services in particular communities. The legislators said that that too few speakers were addressing the Bill and that any complaint about housing and services must be directed to local government. The legislators then imposed a rule that no one could speak at the microphone unless they first could cite a section of the Bill about which they intended to make a comment. When subsequent speakers could not first cite a section of the Bill, they were asked to refrain from further comment and to be seated.

Abahlali members observed that some attendees, in particular those unaffiliated with Abahlali and brought by local ANC branches, had been misinformed as to the purpose of the exercise. These attendees did not know prior to the exercise that they were expected to talk about a Bill. They said they were told by local ANC branches that houses would be allocated at the exercise. They arrived accordingly with identity documents and other paperwork to be processed for housing allocation.

Members of Abahlali also noted that the legislators did not publicly announce or advertise the exercise in advance, but instead notified S’bu Zikode (President of Abahlali). The one exception is that a member of Abahlali saw a single sign posted at Kennedy Road. The Abahlali leadership encouraged representatives from amongst its members in shack settlements across the Durban metro-area to attend the exercise and voice their concerns about the Bill. They also made use of their own resources (i.e. transport, airtime, meetings) to inform communities about the exercise.

Topics Discussed at the Exercise:

As noted above, some speakers thought the purpose of the exercise was to discuss the allocation of houses. Other speakers, who directly cited the Bill, objected that it did not mention when, where, or how houses would be allocated. Nor, they added, were the procedures for “eliminating” communities outlined in the Bill (i.e. who would be targeted for eviction, who would be selected for upgrades, timetables for evictions, etc.).

In brief, topics of discussion included the following:

* Speakers objected to what they saw as the stated purpose of the Bill, namely to “eliminate” the places that they currently live.
* Objections were also made to the use of the terms “slum,” “elimination,” and “eradication.” Rather, speakers said they lived in “communities” deserving upgrade, that many had been waiting years for this to happen, and they did not want to leave their homes.
* Objections were raised that, if the stated purpose of the Bill is to “eliminate” the places and/or conditions in which they live, it nonetheless does not specify when and where people would be relocated, or when and how communities would be upgraded.
* Objections were made that the Bill empowered landowners and municipalities to evict people. And further that the Bill does not identify who would be evicted or when.
* Objections were raised about use of the term “transit camp.” Speakers wanted to know why some people would have to leave their current place of residence to live in a “camp.” They further wanted to know where those “camps” would be located, who would be moved and when.

Abahlali members noted that the legislators made verbal assurances that no one would be left homeless on account of the Bill. However, they said, the legislators answered the above questions and objections by saying that they were not pertinent to the exercise and moreover were outside the domain of the provincial legislature. The legislators said that such questions and objections – particularly those that touched on when, where and how evictions and upgrades would take place – must be taken up with the local government, once the Bill was passed. Similarly, legislators said comments made on housing and service problems in particular communities were irrelevant to the discussion of the Bill and must be submitted to local government. Finally, to the question of “transit camps,” the legislators said that the “camps” were places where municipalities could more closely monitor services and sanitation. But again, the legislators said, the particulars of these “camps” must be addressed to local government following the ratification of the Bill.

Reactions:

Members of Abahlali said that they found the legislators assurances that the Bill would not lead to homelessness to be unsatisfactory. They were also unconvinced by the prospect of appealing to local government for houses after the Bill was passed. This is not least because local government has illegally evicted people and destroyed shacks in numerous communities in the last year, including Motala Heights and Juba Place. In each instance, Abahlali members add, the evictions left people homeless and happened without a court order.

Abahlali members also noted that the legislators restricted participation by requiring speakers to first cite a section of the Bill. Among other things, they said, it made speaking a “legal language” prerequisite for voicing questions or concerns; it prevented people from commenting on housing and services as they saw fit; it did not give due consideration to the fact that people had heard a summary of the Bill only moments before they were asked to respond; and it excluded those who were misinformed and had been told that houses were to be allocated at the exercise.

In addition, Abahlali members said that legislators arrived with police officers, who patrolled Kennedy Road during the exercise. Before the arrival of the legislations a police helicopter circled low over the settlement for an hour. Given that Abahlali has been targeted with harassment and brutality by police even within the last year, their presence did not lend itself to open discussion in the exercise.

II. Invited Visit to Parliament

21 June, 2007

General Information:

On 21 June, 2007, members from Abahlali baseMjondolo were invited to attend a session of the KwaZulu-Natal provincial Parliament concerning “The Elimination and Prevention of Re-emergence of Slums Bill.” Three Abahlali members attended: Louisa Motha, Mnikelo Ndabankulu, and Philani Zungu. The session began at 12:30pm. When the Abahlali members arrived at 12:50pm, Members of Parliament were reading submissions made about the Bill by experts and non-governmental organizations (See Additional Information below). The Abahlali members made their own submission – a document that detailed their opposition to the Bill (See “Abahlali Submission on The Elimination and Prevention of the Reemergence of Slums Bill” at www.abahlali.org ). The document was handed to Tim Jeebodh, the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Housing. That document was not read or discussed during the session.

At 1:00pm, the session broke for lunch and the Speaker told the Abahlali members to return at 1:50pm when discussion about the Bill would continue. The Abahlali members returned promptly at 1:50pm, but learned that Michael Mabuyakhulu (MEC for Local Government and Traditional Affairs) had left and that the remaining MPs were no longer discussing the Bill. A journalist, asking for their comment, informed the Abahlali members that the Bill had been passed by Parliament.

Topics Discussed at the Session:

The name of the Bill was under discussion, with at least one submission taking issue with the negative connotations of the term “slum clearance.” MEC Mabuyakhulu defended the term as widely used and acceptable in international circles, citing a conference he attended in Canada. Another submission raised questions about how the province would address homelessness that would result from passing the Bill, which MEC Mabuyakhulu likewise dismissed, arguing that “slum clearance” was to be “progressively enacted” and no one would be left homeless.

The Abahlali members also witnessed the MPs make three changes to the Bill during the session. The first change was to the definition of “slum” (Page 6), to which they added “without security” and “without sanitation.” The second change concerned the prohibition of unlawful occupation and municipal land (Page 8). The third change was that Chapter 5 (Page 13) put unreasonable demands on landowners to prevent unlawful occupation and thus sections A, B, and C were eliminated.

Reactions:

Abahlali members said that their role at the Parliament visit was to observe, not to participate. They could not ask questions or explain their opposition to the Bill, nor was the document they submitted read or discussed. Furthermore, among the submissions and topics discussed by the MPs, none addressed their own most pressing concerns, including the right to know when, where, and how new houses would be built once their communities are “eliminated.”

Abahlali members said that they visited Parliament to oppose the Bill. They further said that legislators depended upon the mobilization of the Abahlali membership to fulfil the requirements of the Public Participation Exercise at Kennedy Road. In both instances, they suggested that their opposition to the Bill was being used by legislators to demonstrate participation without considering its substantive content. In short, it seemed that the more they participated, the more the Bill was validated in spite of their objections.

Additional Information:

According to Abahlali’s records, six submissions by the following were made to the provincial Parliament concerning the Bill:

1. COHRE: Centre On Housing Rights and Evictions
2. LEAP: Legal Entity Assessment Project (Johannesburg)
3. AFRA: Alliance for Rural Advancement
4. Marie Huchzermeyer, Associate Professor, School of Architecture and Planning, University of Witwatersrand
5. CALS: Centre for Applied Legal Studies
6. Kirsty McLean, University of Witwatersrand

III. Two Visits to Motala Heights by Tim Jeebodh

6 May and 23 June, 2007

General Information:

On 6 May, 2007, Tim Jeebodh (Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Housing) met with residents of the shack settlement located in Motala Heights, Pinetown. The meeting began at 10am and ended at 12pm. After Jeebodh spoke with residents of the shack settlement, he met with others who live in tin-roofed houses and “low cost” concrete houses. The meeting had been arranged at the Kennedy Road Public Participation Exercise (See above), after which Jeebodh spoke with Abahlali members who told him that Motala residents were being threatened with eviction.

Jeebodh returned to Motala on 23 June, 2007 from 2:30pm to 4pm. Approximately 200 people attended this meeting in a church, including residents of other nearby communities. The meeting had been arranged by Abahlali members when they attended a session of the provincial Parliament (See above) and informed Jeebodh during the lunch break of further eviction threats in Motala. Jeebodh said that he would attempt to bring the Deputy Mayor and other officials from the Housing Department to Motala, but they have not as yet paid a visit. However, Jeebodh maintains regular telephone contact with Abahlali members in Motala.

Topics of Discussion:

“The Elimination and Prevention of Re-emergence of Slums Bill” was not discussed at either meeting. Rather, the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the grievances of Motala residents that were raised at the Kennedy Road Public Participation Exercise. In both meetings, the main topic of discussion was housing. Jeebodh explained that he could not make promises about houses, but he listened, answered questions about the law, and informed people of their rights, in particular with regard to eviction.

Residents told Jeebodh that they were under threat of eviction by Mr. Ricky Govender, who owns the local shops, a pub, a factory, much of the land and some of the buildings in Motala. Govender had issued several eviction notices over the last year, which residents showed to Jeebodh. Jeebodh informed the residents that the eviction notices were not legal, and unless they received a P.I.E. notice, the eviction could not be legally enacted. As of 31 July, 2007, Govender continues to issue these illegal eviction notices, along with threats that bulldozers will arrive to destroy residents’ homes at an arbitrary date.

Residents further told Jeebodh that Govender was dumping and burning waste materials (i.e. broken glass, chemicals, etc.) from his factory onto a ridge that overlooks the shacks, some of which was falling onto the shacks. In several instances, he also had verbally threatened and intimidated residents, particularly those in Abahlali, in person and over the phone. In addition, Govender has members of his family in the local council and influence in the Pinetown courts. Residents also told Jeebodh that Govender had recently organized a petition to evict the shack-dwelling residents, who are predominantly African. He asked those in tin-roofed and “low-cost” concrete houses, who are largely Indian, to put their names on a housing list along with their ID numbers. Only later did the residents find out that their names were not put on a list for housing, but that it was a petition to evict shack-dwellers. Abahlali members said that Govender had been charged with fraud in relation to the building of low-cost housing, and that he was fined 40 000R for the use of illegal electricity, and that he was involved with vehicle theft.

Reactions:

Residents informed Jeebodh that they lived in Motala for a reason; that they wanted to stay there, it was close to their jobs and that their children went to local school. Much appreciative of Jeebodh’s support and the information given to them about their rights, residents also note that it was the first time a politician visited Motala who was not campaigning for a an upcoming election.

IV. Pietermaritzburg Public Participation Exercise

3 May, 2007

General Information:

On 3 May, 2007, members of the KwaZulu-Natal provincial legislature attended a public participation exercise at the Pietermaritzburg City Hall. The exercise was scheduled for 9am, but legislators were not prepared to begin until 10am. Only an estimated ten people attended, nearly all from the communities of Ash Road, Eastwood, and the Willow Gardens Complex. These attendees had been informed by Daniel Bailey from the Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE), not by the provincial legislature. Also in attendance was a reporter from The Mercury newspaper.

The exercise began with a summary of the Bill by a lawyer from the firm Shepstone & Wylie. Nearly all the questions and comments raised by attendees were answered by the lawyer, not the legislators. The exercise ended at approximately 12:00pm.

Topics Discussed at the Exercise:

Attendees note that there was no advertising for the exercise and no one had been properly informed about its date, time or intended purpose – hence, the very low turn out. When attendees conveyed this to the legislators, they admitted that it was problematic and added that even some members of the Housing Portfolio had not be promptly notified about the exercises. Still, the legislators said none of the exercises would be postponed.

Many attendees objected to the use of the term “slum,” as well as the definition of “adequate housing” in the Bill (i.e. areas with adequate services, etc.). Objections also were raised about “transit camps,” which attendees referred to as government approved slums. Attendees had further concerns about programs running parallel to the Bill, specifically the housing program, and how the slow pace of delivery would compound the effects of the Bill.

In response, the Shepstone & Wylie lawyer said that their questions and comments were not pertinent to a discussion of the Bill. He said that the KZN Minister of Housing would ensure that no one would be “worse off” on account of the Bill. The lawyer also maintained that decisions about the Bill would be dependent upon a judgment call by the Minister.

Reactions:

Attendees said that people were not properly notified about the exercise, that their concerns were not taken seriously, and they left with the clear impression that the Bill was going to be passed regardless of their objections or stated opposition to it. They also noted that the exercise started late and broke for lunch early, before they were able to have all their questions addressed.

V. Complete List and Schedule of Public Participation Exercises for “The

Elimination and Prevention of Re-emergence of Slums Bill”

From the Centre for Public Participation (http://www.cpp.org.za)

Date Place Venue Time
02 May 2007 Newcastle Osizweni Community Hall 09h00 am
03 May 2007 Pietermaritzburg City Hall 09h00 am
04 May 2007 Durban Kennedy Road Community Hall 09h00 am
10 May 2007 Portsheptone Marbug Haiven 09h00 am
11 May 2007 Stanger Chief Albert Luthuli Hall 09h00 am