Category Archives: Ekurhuleni

The Homes of Two LPM Leaders are Burnt in eTwatwa as the Police Look On

Update on 1 June 2010: There has been another arrest. Click here to read more.

Landless People’s Movement eTwatwa
Emergency Press Statement Sunday 30 May 2010

The Homes of Two LPM Leaders are Burnt in eTwatwa as the Police Look On

Early this morning the shacks of two members of the Landless People’s Movement (LPM) Executive Committee in eTwatwa, Ekurhuleni, were burnt down.

After the police attacked the LPM yesterday, killing one person and seriously injuring another. David Mathontsi, chairperson of the new LPM branch on eTwatwa, went to the Far East Hospital to visit the wounded. While he was away from his home the supporters of the local ward councillor went to his shack looking for him and his wife. They pointed at his children with a gun. David did not return to his shack and managed to get his children out.

At 2:30 this morning David received a call to say that the councillor’s supporters had returned to his shack with the police. David’s younger brother was looking after the shack. He was shot at but managed to escape after which the shack was burnt down by the councillor’s supporters as the police looked on. David and his family have lost everything that they own.

The group, still with police protection, then burnt down the shack of another member of the LPM Executive Committee in eTwatwa. After that they began to go door to door, still with the police, looking for all the Tsonga people and driving them out. What started as an attack on LPM turned into an attack on all the Tsonga people in the settlement. The attack on LPM turned into a kind of xenophobia. The LPM is not an ethnic organisation and its Executive Committee in eTwatwa is very mixed.

The secretary of the LPM in eTwatwa was arrested. She is an old woman. As the police arrested her they hit her in the face with the butts of their guns and with their boots. They also seriously assaulted the LPM youth as they arrested them.

The leadership of the LPM in eTwatwa are all arrested, in hospital, dead or in hiding.

What is happening in eTwatwa has some clear similarities with the attack on Abahlali baseMjondolo in the Kennedy Road settlement in Durban in September last year.

For more information and comment on the ongoing events in eTwatwa please contact David Mathontsi, Chairperson of the eTwatwa Landless People’s Movement on 073 914 9868.

Police Attack the Landless People’s Movement in eTwatwa, Ekurhuleni: One Person is Dead and another Seriously Injured

Update: Sunday 30 May 2010 – Two shacks belonging to LPM leaders in eTwatwa were burnt down early this morning as the police looked on. The attack on LPM is now turning into an ethnic attack on Tsonga people. Click here to read more.

Saturday, 29 May 2010
Landless People’s Movement Press Statement

 


Police Attack the Landless People’s Movement in eTwatwa, Ekurhuleni
One Person is Dead and another Seriously Injured

 

On Sunday 23 May residents of the bond houses in Protea South, Soweto, attacked the Landless People’s Movement (LPM) in the shacks in Protea South. They went around disconnecting us from electricity and beating those who had been connected to electricity. They tried to burn down Maureen Mnisi’s shack and two people were shot. One died on the scene.

Today the police attacked the LPM in eTwatwa, Ekurhuleni using live ammunition. One person has died and another is currently being operated on in hospital.

The background to the police attack on the LPM in eTwatwa is that on Tuesday 24 May we organised a march on the Councillor for Ward 65, Cllr Baleka. The different extensions each had their own demands but at the last point of the memorandum we all united on one demand which is that the Councillor must immediately step down. We indicated that we expected a response to our demands within seven days.

On Thursday 26 May the Provincial Government sent us a fax saying that they would meet us next Wednesday.

The situation in Extension 18 of eTwetwa is very bad. There is no electricity, no sewerage, no roads, not even water – there is nothing. The Councillor did start a project to build toilets but she said that only 717 of the 1 149 people would benefit as the rest of the people would be evicted to make way for a new road to be built by the provincial government. They want to move these people to transit areas. Obviously we cannot accept this. We have stayed in Extension 18 for many years.

We were expecting to attend the meeting with the Provincial Government on Wednesday next week. But yesterday, on Friday, Cllr Buleka, using the car of the Erkuleni Municipality drove around calling us to a meeting to be held today. But we had already suspended her. We no longer recognise her.

So today a meeting was held in the community and it was decided to go the councillor’s office. The councillor’s supporters provoked the protestors and in the end stones were thrown at her office. At 10:00 a.m. the police came and they used their guns. They used live ammunition. We have one of their bullets. They shot one woman dead. Another woman is in hospital right now having an operation.

After the shooting the people became even more angry. Some community members burnt a shack of one of the councillor’s supporters in retaliation to the murder of their comrade. The police attacked the people again and used teargas. Even more community members arrived and between ten and fifteen people were arrested by the police. The police are now hunting all the LPM leaders from extension 18 and extension 10 in eTwatwa. We have all gone into hiding.

The ward councillor must step down. There are no services in eTwatwa and the councillor is oppressing the people, trying to stop us from organising and even supporting the plans to have us evicted to a transit area.

We are calling for Msholozi to come down. He must come down to the people, hear our anger and then act against the councillor and the police. If he refuses to do this then he is clearly the President of the politicians and not the president of the people.

The situation in Protea South is still tense. The police are around. On Thursday we had a meeting with Eskom. Eskom said that they can’t install electricity to the shacks as we are not proclaimed. It is true that the government has never proclaimed the area in which we have built our shacks. But the people have proclaimed it. Anyway, the RDP houses, the Masakhane houses and the bond houses are all on land that has been proclaimed. It is just the shack dwellers that are denied the right to stay in Protea South and denied the right to services. Eskom did say that they will launch a pilot project with one electricity pole for every 82 families. But the total number of shacks is around 6 400. One electricity pole for every 82 families is not a good enough response to our demand for electricity. If the government continues to deny us legal access to electricity we will continue to appropriate electricity for ourselves.

Protea South remains in darkness after the shack dwellers burned the transformer in response to the attempt by the residents of the bond houses, who are calling themselves the Homeowners Association, to violently disconnect us from electricity. Everyone has now been disconnected. If the poor are not allowed to have electricity why should we allow the owners of private houses to enjoy it?

The Homeowners Association continue to say that they don’t want shack dwellers here and that they want us to be removed.

Every time the government says that Operation Khanyisa – community organised electricity connections – are ‘criminal’ they turn poverty into a crime. It is the government’s criminalisation of poverty that has incited the homeowners to attack us.

Bheki Cele is the one that has called on the police to shoot to kill. When as the poor we are turned into criminals we are placed in the line of fire. When we organise to fight against oppressive councillors and for access to services the police are shooting us. But when the poor go to vote then the police are there making sure that we are safe. When we are killed by the police we hold Cele responsible.

Organised shack dwellers have to defend ourselves when we are attacked by the police, the rich or, as it happened in Kennedy Road in Durban, the ANC.

Self defence is no offence.

We are very worried about the World Cup. Billions are wasted on the World Cup, billions that should have gone to meet the most urgent need of the poor. The government tells us that we must ‘feel it’ but in Protea South we don’t even have electricity. Some of us are in hiding from the police. People have been shot and two people have died in recent days.

The government expects us to be silent to everything that has been done to us. We will not be silent.

For more information and comment please contact:

Dan Mofokeng (eTwatwa) 078 679 9435
Edward Leople (eTwatwa) 083 885 5009
Maureen Mnisi (Protea South) 082 337 4514

Sowetan: Squatters sue council – Residents want service

http://www.sowetan.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=1040670

Squatters sue council – Residents want service
Katlego Moeng
28 July 2009

Residents of Harry Gwala informal settlement near Wattville in Benoni have been battling the Ekurhuleni municipality in the South Gauteng high court since December last year to get services in their area.

“On December 12 last year the court ruled that the municipality must instal seven taps in the area and start collecting rubbish,” said Paseka Lihlabi, the chairperson of the Landless People’s Organisation in the settlement.

“But they only installed two taps and since giving us dustbins and a collection calendar just before the elections nothing has materialised.”

He said the community lost a bid to have electricity installed in the area in January at a hearing they were not allowed to attend.

“We have no electricity and Lihlabi said is totally dark at night.

“We have no proper toilets. This place is filthy because there is no rubbish removal. More than 500 households have to share two taps for water.

“Basically we have no services. We have to constantly fight for what government is supposed to be giving us.

“We have been fighting for so long that some people feel like throwing in the towel.

“The government is fighting against us in court.

“It is a shame that we, poor people, are being forced to take the government to court to get what we voted for.

“All these things that we are fighting for now are things they promised us to get our votes,”

Now Moray Hathorn, head of the pro bono practice group at law firm Webber Wentzel, is acting for the informal settlement in the Constitutional Court in a bid to help the community get basic sanitation.

The outcome of the case might set a nationwide precedent about the right to basic sanitation for people living in informal settlements.

Hathorn said proper sanitation was even more important than personal hygiene and water quality in the prevention of gastric illnesses and other diseases.

In other rural settlements in South Africa where sanitation has been provided, anecdotal evidence suggests there has been a dramatic improvement in the health of those in the area as the incidence of gastric illnesses and skin ailments drop.

On Tuesday last week, residents of Thokoza’s Mkhathili informal settlement and nearby hostels on Khumalo Street took to the streets in violent protests against inadequate services.

They said they were tired of waiting for services , vowing to continue with the protests until their grievances are addressed.

Ekurhuleni mayor Ntombi Mekgwe yesterday said the municipality had financial constraints and the courts should bear that in mind in its rulings.

The right to basic services in informal settlements: Notes on Harry Gwala High Court hearing 12 December 2008

The right to basic services in informal settlements: Notes on Harry Gwala High Court hearing 12 December 2008

Harry Gwala is an informal settlement of some 800 households occupying mainly municipal land adjacent to Wattville in Ekurhuleni. Currently it has no refuse removal, no lighting, only inadequate home-made pit latrines as toilets, and only 6 communal taps.

In October 2008, Harry Gwala applied, through the High Court, for installation of basic services. For every household in the settlement to be in a 200m radius of a communal tap, as set out in the Water Services Act, an additional 7 taps are needed in this settlement. The same Act requires one toilet per informal household. This could be ventilated improved pit (VIP) latrines or chemical toilets. Further, refuse collection is required for reasons of health and hygiene, and high mast lighting for basic safety and night-time access for emergency vehicles. Harry Gwala’s legal representatives, Moray Hathorn of Webber Wentzel and Advocate Roshnee Mansingh of Maisels Chambers, argue that the current situation at Harry Gwala is unconstitutional. They set out a three-fold application based on constitutional rights, statutory rights (as set out in the Water Services Act) and policy (Chapters 12 and 13 of the Housing Code).

At the hearing in the Witwatersrand High Court on 12 December 2008, the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality announced that it offered to install the additional taps and provide refuse removal, but did not commit to any particular timeframe. Acting Judge Epstein stated that certainty was needed, and ended the proceedings with an order that refuse collecting and 7 additional taps be provided by 2 January 2009, a definite victory for the Harry Gwala community.

The question of high mast lighting and sanitation were not resolved that easily. Justice Epstein reserved judgement after a lengthy debate that exposed the Municipality’s position on basic service delivery to informal settlement communities.

Regarding high mast lighting, the Municipality argued that it would require approval from Eskom, who in turn would require a formal township approval before giving the go-ahead. No evidence was given of this requirement and it was not considered that high mast lighting had been installed as a safety intervention in other informal settlements.

Technicalities aside, Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality argued that providing sanitation and high mast lighting at Harry Gwala would result in money not well spent, as long as feasibility of upgrading the settlement in situ was in question. The Municipality stated it had been waiting for 2 years for a decision from the Provincial Department of Housing, regarding such feasibility. The Municipality indicated that in November 2006 it had asked for a second feasibility study to be commissioned by the Provincial Department of Housing for upgrading at Harry Gwala. The outcome was still awaited – this being one of 16 feasibility studies currently being awaited.

However, Harry Gwala’s legal representatives showed that under Chapter 13 of the Housing Code, it is the Municipality that has to carry out or commission the feasibility study, before applying for funding from the Province for informal settlement upgrading.

Further, the legal representatives of Harry Gwala showed that basic services provision should not be dependent on feasibility of in situ upgrading. Instead, they pointed to a statutory obligation in terms of the Water Services Act. This requires a safe albeit temporary toilet for each stand, including in informal settlements. In addition, they pointed to Chapters 12 (Emergency Housing) and 13 (Informal Settlement Upgrading) of the Housing Code which provided for funding for interim services. In terms of the minimum core content of socio-economic rights in the Constitution, it was argued that residents at Harry Gwala had a right to basic water and sanitation, refuse collection and lighting. Further, the proximity to the formal township of Watville meant that laying water and installing high mast lights could not amount to large sums of money, and stressed that the current situation presented a threat to the health and safety of the residents.

However, Ekurhuleni Metro argued that because people had lived in Harry Gwala for many years, their condition could not be labeled an emergency, and therefore Chapter 12 of the Housing Code could not be used to fund basic services. An application by the Municipality would be fruitless as it would simply not be approved. Harry Gwala’s legal representatives in turn showed that the kind of emergency experienced in the settlement (living in dangerous conditions) is included in Chapter 12 of the Housing Code.

It was then debated whether the sum for basic services available under Chapter 12 and Chapter 13 of the Housing Code was sufficient. Ekurhuleni Metro argued that the time lapsed since 2004 when the amounts in these programmes were set, meant that they were no longer sufficient today. That of course puts these two policy instruments in question.

Ekurhuleni Metro further argued that their budget had already been allocated to projects that had proven feasibility, and for people living in similar or worse conditions. The Municipality was providing 13 000 stands in approved township areas in this financial year at the cost of R210 million (the entire Municipality has 130 000 informal structures requiring stands). It therefore found it could not redirect funding for the basic servicing of Harry Gwala, where feasibility of upgrading was still in question.

The Municipality further predicted that if budgets were redirected for this purpose, any other informal settlement community could demand the same, and it would become very difficult to provide housing in a structured and planned manner.

The judge would have liked evidence on actual costs of the requested services, which the Municipality was not able to present, other than to state that providing a toilet for each household in Harry Gwala would amount to R1 800 000. The judge would also have liked to have seen the entire budget of the Municipality, asking on what basis funding was not available from the Municipality’s general budget. In its absence, he questioned on what basis the Municipality was able to re-arrange its budget to offer or tender provision of the additional taps and the refuse removal.

However, the Municipality gave a further reason as to why it was not willing to re-allocate its budget for basic services provision in Harry Gwala – the households had been given the option to relocate to a serviced area called Chief Albert Luthuli. Those currently remaining in Harry Gwala had refused this offer. Here the judge stated that there may or may not have been good reasons for these households to refuse the relocation offer, and did not wish to go into this discussion. However, the Municipality insisted in arguing that it should be taken in to account that the Harry Gwala households had chosen to stay in an area without access to water.

As their legal representatives pointed out, apart from concerns over livelihoods and schooling, the Harry Gwala residents had refused to relocate as the Municipality had not proven the non-feasibility of in situ upgrading, as required under Chapter 13 of the Housing Code and the ‘Breaking New Ground’ housing policy, which specifically refers to relocation as a last resort. In particular, a geo-technical study was required to show whether upgrading is feasible or not. The households’ refusal to relocate therefore was appropriate and in accordance with policy.

In essence, the Municipality was unwilling to engage with Chapter 13 of the Housing Code and was treating the basic services issue in isolation to access to schooling and livelihoods, a silo approach. Extending this approach, the Municipality presented a purely financial interpretation of the term ‘sustainability’. Citing Section 152 – 1b- of the Constitution, it argued that it would be ‘unsustainable’ to provide basic services in Harry Gwala. Harry Gwala’s legal representatives in turn argued that, by not applying for funding under Chapters 12 and 13 of the Housing Code, the Municipality had actually failed altogether to plan, an approach that could also not be considered sustainable.

Several Constitutional Court judgements were cited in the course of the proceedings. Harry Gwala’s representatives referred to (a) municipalities’ obligation to take complex socio-economic conditions into account and to improve access to housing (and by implication basic services) to all in the Municipality (the PE Municipality case), (b) the role of the courts to affect socio-economic rights (the Modderklip case), and (c) the need for the court at times to enquire into and re-arrange budgets (the Rooikop case).

Taking the opposite position on socio-economic rights, the Municipality cited the country’s first socio-economic rights case in the Constitutional Court (the Subramany case) in which the applicant’s claim for dialysis was turned down. Harry Gwala’s representatives strongly disputed the applicability of this case, tragic as it was, in which one individual had requested substantial expenditure by government to save his life – in the Harry Gwala case an entire community was requesting only very minimal expenditure for rudimentary services.

The extreme diversion of views and interpretations between the Municipality and the legal representatives of the Harry Gwala community require a clear judgement. It suggests that this case, if not resolved in the High Court, is relevant for a deliberation by the Constitutional Court.

Marie Huchzermeyer

Pogroms: A Crisis of Citizenship

Bu makaleyi Türkçe okumak için buraya tiklayin.

A Crisis of Citizenship

The industrial and mining towns on the Eastern outskirts of Johannesburg are unlovely places. They’re set on flat windswept plains amidst the dumps of sterile sand left over from old mines. In winter the wind bites, the sky is a very pale blue and it seems to be all coal braziers, starved dogs, faded strip malls, gun shops and rusting factories and mine headgear. All that seems new are the police cars and, round the corner from the Harry Gwala shack settlement, a double story facebrick strip club. Continue reading →