“The people are suffering because crime has taken over. We’re crying for help.”
By Nomfundo Xolo and Ashraf Hendricks
22 September 2017 Onlookers watch as residents from Ocean View block Kommetjie Road during a protest on Thursday. All photos: Ashraf Hendricks
Police and about 150 residents of Ocean View in Cape Town’s
south peninsula clashed on Thursday. This was the second consecutive day
of protests. Youths blocked Kommetjie Road with stones, burning wood
and tyres, while police used rubber bullets and teargas to disperse
them. The protests continued throughout the day.
The purpose of the protest, which started peacefully on Thursday
morning, was to demand that police take action to reduce the high
level of crime in the township. Throughout the day discussions took
place between public order police, the local neighbourhood watch,
pastors and community representatives. But there appeared to be no
resolution as barricades continued to burn.
Protesters complained about the lack of arrests following fatal
shootings and other crimes in the community related to gang activity. A
fatal shooting on Tuesday night that apparently left at least one person
dead appears to have set off the demonstrations. (GroundUp had not been
able to confirm this at the time of publication.)
“I was robbed last year in July by young boys who pointed a gun to my
face and took my things. My two boys have also been robbed at gunpoint.
When I reported it to the police they asked me what I was doing on the
streets. We want the murderers and gunmen out of our community,” said
Lee Adams.
Angelique Williams shouted: “We are here to take our streets back.
The police must recognise us and take this matter seriously. The
gangsters shoot even young kids, with deaths every week. When we report
to the police they don’t come. Currently the gate to our local police
station is locked. They’re supposed to protect us.”
Paul Franke, a member of the neighbourhood watch, said that after
numerous discussions with local committees, councillors and the police
about crime in Ocean View, the community had seen no results. “This is
clearly the only way they will hear us. We’re not fighting with them but
we’re fighting for our community to be safe once again. Twelve of my
relatives have been killed through gang-violence,” he said.
Addressing the protesters, Andre Stewart said that the police also
needed to protect those who report cases: “If you talk, you’re dead
tomorrow. The people are suffering because crime has taken over. We’re
crying for help.”
After discussions between various parties, a few police trucks, vans
and metro police entered the township. But after a short while, a police
truck was seen exiting, which angered the protesters. Nevertheless, the
crowd was soon calmed by one of the community leaders.
However, a few boys who had been watching the protest from across the
road began throwing stones at the truck that was moving away. This saw
police retaliating, shooting teargas into the crowd. Shortly after, a
water cannon dispersed the crowd and extinguished the burning tyres.
Chaos then erupted as stones were thrown by protesters, and police released teargas. A resident throws oil onto an Ocean View road sign during Thursday’s protest against inadequate policing. About 150 people joined the protestOcean View resident Andre Stewart tells protesters to remain calm and hold their ground.A dog sits nonchalantly in the middle of the drama.Protesters attempted to roll burning tyres down the street towards police but it continually failed.Police and residents hold a meeting. During the mediation,
police told residents that they would enter Ocean View and
remove firearms.Resident cheer as more tyres are brought to the protest.The barricades became large.A water canon was used to put out the flames. A small group
of residents threw rocks and shot a flare at police causing matters to
escalate.Protesters, a large number of whom were children, bocked the road. Police fired stun grenades to disperse them. The water canon put out the flames and dispersed protesters.Protesters retaliated by throwing rocks which in turn made police fire rubber bullets and tear gas.
By Ciaran Ryan
21 September 2017 Protesters gathered outside the South Gauteng High Court
in support of a R60-billion class action bid to prevent the sale of
re-possessed houses at very low prices. Photo: Ciaran Ryan
An unlikely alliance of white farmers, the SA Communist Party,
trade unions and individuals whose homes have been repossessed by the
four major banks came together outside the South Gauteng High Court on
Friday to call for for a freeze on evictions.
Several hundred people gathered outside the High Court in support of a R60-billion Constitutional Court class action bid
to change legislation to prevent the sale of re-possessed houses at
very low prices. The protesters wanted to attract the attention of the
judges of the High Court, where eviction orders are generally issued.
The sale of re-possessed houses at sheriffs’ auctions without a minimum
price has resulted in homes being sold for as little as R10, leaving the
home owner to repay the mortgage shortfall.
More than a thousand applicants have joined the class action suit
according to the Lungelo Lethu Human Rights Foundation, the main
architect of the case. The applicants are asking the court to order the
banks to refund an estimated R60 billion in home equity that was
foregone as a result of repossession of homes by the banks over the last
20 years. Home equity is the difference between the market value of a
property and the amount still owing on a mortgage loan. The current High
Court rules allow homes to be sold without a reserve price, meaning
they can be sold at auction for a fraction of their market value, which
represents a potential loss to the home owner. The Constitution
guarantees the right to adequate housing, dignity, and fair
administrative justice, and prohibits arbitrary deprivation of property.
“We are sending a very clear message to the banks, the sheriffs, and
the courts, particularly the masters of the courts, that we will not
tolerate any more evictions of people from their homes,” said Solly
Mapaila, second deputy general secretary of the SA Communist Party
(SACP). “This is just the start of a mass rolling action campaign to
stop fraudulent evictions by the banks.”
Mapaila called on South Africans to stand their ground when faced
with eviction, and urged the police to stop providing support for
evictions that he said were frequent in working class areas.
“In the apartheid years they called it forced removals, when the
government was evicting black people from their homes,” said King
Sibiya, head of the Lungelo Lethu Human Rights Foundation, which
organised the protest. The Foundation provides legal support to
thousands of evictees, mainly in Gauteng. “Now they call it evictions,
but this time we are fighting the banks. We will no longer tolerate
cases where people are evicted from their homes unlawfully – and in most
of the cases we have investigated, these evictions were indeed
unlawful. People like Ernest Mashaba and his family were evicted four
times from their home in Katlehong, despite dutifully paying off their
mortgage bond.”
Representatives from three of the banks were on hand to receive a
memorandum calling for a freeze on evictions. Representatives from the
High Court and the National Prosecuting Authority also received the
memorandum, which describes SA’s property repossession laws as among
among the most abusive in the world.
“Today, bank robbing is not about someone breaking in from outside
the bank, but banks robbing their own clients,” said Sarel van der
Westhuizen, representing several farmers and clients from the
Potchefstroom area.
Sibiya said the Foundation was in possession of evidence of more than
900 cases where homes were bought at auction for less than R100, often
by the lending bank itself. This is made possible by High Court rules
that allow repossessed homes to be sold at sheriffs’ auctions without a
reserve (minimum) price.
“This is more than a fraud,” he says. “It is a gross human rights
abuse. If our Constitution is to have any meaning, these outrageous
abuses must be stopped. We are calling on the government to bring an
immediate halt to all home evictions, and within one year to introduce
new legislation to force repossessed homes to be sold at market value.”
The mass action campaign also calls for:
An end to inconsistent judgments, where essentially the same facts in
a case result in different judgments, thereby making a mockery of the
law
Adherence to human rights-based judgments already handed down by the Constitutional Court such as the Gundwana and Grootboom
cases. The Gundwana judgment theoretically puts an end to the practice
of banks writing their own court orders and having them stamped by the
court registrar, without ever presenting the facts of the case to a
judge. The Grootboom case requires the State to provide accommodation
for people with children living in poverty.
A police investigation and Commission of Inquiry into criminal
syndicates operating between the banks, sheriffs’ offices and property
investors.
An investigation into why credit life insurance policies, which are
supposed to be paid to cover the outstanding bond amount if the borrower
dies or loses his/her job, are — according to the Foundation — not
being honoured.
Marius Marais, CEO for FNB Home Loans, commented: “FNB is aware of
the allegations by Advocate Douglas Shaw and will address them formally
once tabled before a court.”
Standard Bank spokesperson Ross Linstrom said: “We are aware of the
matter. As this is an ongoing matter before the courts we are not in a
position to supply further comment.”
Published originally on
GroundUp
.
Mayor holds “stakeholder” meeting at country club while residents protest at community hall
By Joseph Chirume
21 September 2017 Protesters burnt tyres on the road near Shuku Shukuma informal settlement. Photo supplied
There have been ongoing protests in KwaNomzamo township in
Humansdorp, Eastern Cape, since last Thursday. Residents are demanding
houses and better services. A police constable was injured, vehicles
stoned and municipal buildings damaged. Roads have been barricaded.
Police spokesperson Sergeant Majola Nkohli said a police constable
sustained head injuries after she was hit by a stone. She was treated at
the Humansdorp Hospital. He said a kilometre of the R330 near Shuku
Shukuma informal settlement was damaged by burning tyres.
On Thursday morning, calm had been restored and the road to St
Francis Bay reopened. The South African Police Service (SAPS) and Public
Order Policing Unit (POP) continue to monitor the situation.
Councillor for ward 6, Velile Vumazonke (ANC), said: “Residents are
fed up with the arrogance of the municipality. There was a list of
proposed housing beneficiaries compiled by the previous ANC government.
When the current [DA] mayor took over the reigns she promised to fulfil
the obligations of handing out houses to the deserving beneficiaries. We
are surprised that nothing is happening.”
Vumazonke also said residents want recreational facilities and the
vandalised community hall to be refurbished. He said an amount of R5.5
million had been set aside for its reconstruction. He wanted to know
what had happened to those funds.
Kouga municipality spokesperson Laura-Leigh Randall said, “The last
time we had an exact count of the people on the housing waiting list it
was approximately 13,000 names. The issue of the R5.5 million meant for
the refurbishment of the hall in KwaNomzamo was that a tender was
floated out by the municipality and unfortunately there was no positive
response from individuals and companies to do the job.”
She said the mayor is willing to address the residents.
Vumazonke said residents waited all day for the mayor at the old
community hall. He blamed the police for the protest turning violent on
Wednesday, saying people were singing and dancing peacefully when
teargas and rubber bullets were unleashed on them.
Kouga’s mayor, Elza van Lingen, said, “We arranged to meet them
[residents] at the Humansdorp Country Club … All stakeholders were there
to listen and respond to the grievances. However, the protesters chose
not to attend the meeting.”
Van Lingen said, “We remain committed to resolving the conflict and
are working closely with the ward councillor to address the grievances.”
Published originally on
GroundUp
.
As far as corporate accountability goes, the recent announcement that the CEO and seven senior executives at auditing and consultancy firm KMPG in South Africa have resigned is a welcome development.
By resigning, the KPMG executives reinforced the principle of executive responsibility. This is a matter not taken seriously in South African culture, particularly when it comes to the public sector. The usual pattern when misdemeanours are uncovered is for government ministers and other senior executives to blame their staff – or someone else – when things go wrong.
At this level the action of the KPMG executives is to be respected. The hope must be that this behaviour becomes an example for others.
KPMG executives have set a new South African benchmark: executives assuming responsibility for wrongdoing in their organisations. South Africans should thank the firm for setting a new standard with this decisive action. Its executives have taken oversight responsibility for the action of others.
The role that companies such as KPMG plays is particularly crucial because auditor firms and consultancies are meant to hold companies and state entities to account by ensuring transparency and honesty. The fact that a firm of KPMG’s standing should be embroiled in a matter as murky as compiling false reports to serve the political ends of particular politicians highlights the degree of corruption that has taken hold in South Africa.
In light of this, are KPMG’s actions enough? I believe not. To pull South Africa back from the brink, the auditing firm should opt for full disclosure of all its involvement with the Gupta family as well as the companies they own. This should, inter alia, include all working papers, correspondence and audit findings. This would allow public scrutiny of the work it claims to have done under the banner of professionalism and provide the opportunity for a deeper understanding of the Gupta network. Nothing short of this will clear KPMG’s name.
From state capture to country capture
There is no doubt that KPMG’s report on a rogue unit completed for the South African Revenue Service has damaged South Africa’s image. But it has done more than that and raises the question whether South Africa suffers only state capture, or whether the rot is growing into economic capture of the whole country, what I term “country capture”.
The basis for asking this question is that the South African economy – and as a result its citizens – are paying a heavy cost for the mismanagement of the country’s resources. This has been through a combination of bad and neglectful management and out-and-out corruption. All this for the account of South African taxpayers.
South Africa’s fiscal position is precarious, with a revenue shortfall of more than R50 billion expected in the fiscal year to 31 March 2018. This growing shortfall is driven by subdued economic performance and will continue until the domestic economic growth recovers.
The shortfall is directly linked to low economic growth and recessionary conditions. These in turn have been caused by state capture. The private sector is reluctant to invest in the midst of corruption. This means that there is no new economic activity being started, a particularly bad situation given that industries such as mining are shrinking. This week Implats announced it was in negotiations with unions to lay off 2 500 workers. Unemployment is already at 27.7%.
Individual South African taxpayers are therefore being forced to bail out the government as it faces fiscal difficulties, placing the country on the slippery slope of country capture. This is reflected in the fact that government’s final consumption expenditure as percentage of GDP currently exceeds 20%.
What next?
Having ended up in this precarious position, it’s necessary to consider the way forward for KPMG and for South Africa.
KPMG clearly wants to save itself as a company and South Africa wants to rid itself of state/country capture. In redeeming itself, the firm can render a great service to South Africa in the quest to break the stranglehold. KPMG should disclose all dealings, findings, work papers, interactions and the like with the Gupta family businesses. This would achieve two objectives.
Firstly, it would show who is implicated and who is not. KPMG stated that there was no wrongdoing on its side in audits it did on companies owned by the Guptas. But this can only be settled through full disclosure.
Secondly, such a disclosure would help to reveal the full scope of state/country capture in South Africa.
Naturally KPMG’s dealings with the Gupta companies and Gupta family are subject to client confidentiality agreements. KPMG should therefore inform the Gupta family of its intention to publish within seven days. If the Guptas object in writing KPMG should approach the courts with a request to issue a clarification order to authorise disclosure.
This is the only way in which KPMG can salvage what’s left of its reputation in South Africa. KPMG should stand for: “Keep Pushing Mighty Guptas”.
At the same time South Africans would be able to use the disclosures as the basis for beginning to understand the full extent of state/country capture and the remedial steps necessary to turn this around.
Here is a small opportunity to make progress towards some light at the end of a very long and dark tunnel. The opportunity rests in the hands of KPMG. South Africa waits.
South Africa’s finance minister, Malusi Gigaba, has had to look towards selling off state owned assets to plug a fiscal hole. REUTERS/Rogan Ward
State owned enterprises are vital to many economies, but are particularly vital to those seeking economic development.
This is true in South Africa too. Which makes it odd that the South African government – and much of the policy debate – never sees any value in trying to work out what role they should play in growth and development.
Finance Minister Malusi Gigaba’s interest in selling off government shares in telecommunications group Telkom, to bail out South African Airways is the latest example of a trend in which state owned enterprises are seen as useful pawns in government plans but not as national assets whose use should be thought through carefully.
The importance of South African state owned enterprises was spelled out in a 2015 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development policy brief. It estimated that their revenues correspond to 8.7% of the country’s gross domestic product. They also, it found, play a vital role in providing services:
The population’s access to water, electricity, sanitation and transportation is almost entirely dependent on the state, operating through corporate vehicles. They are concentrated in strategic sectors – infrastructure, transport, energy and water – and are “among the main sources of employment” in cities.
The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development might also have mentioned that State owned enterprises are also a key source of racial change. According to the 2016/17 report of the Commission for Employment Equity, black people occupy just under 75% of top management jobs in state owned enterprises – black Africans 57%. In the private sector, the figure is 24.5 % - only 10.8% are black African.
Given this, one might expect that the government would make it a priority to work out what the most appropriate role for parastatals is in the economy’s development. But it isn’t a priority – nor has it ever been.
Rule of short termism
State owned enterprises have been seen as a route to private investment, enrichment for the connected or a site for political battles but never as a key element in the development mix.
In fairness, private interests have shown no great interest in debating the role of state owned enterprises either. They have preferred taking sweeping positions for or against privatisation. But, given state owned enterprise’s role in governance, government should take the lead in thinking through what State owned enterprises should do.
The reality is different. Gigaba’s interest in selling off government holdings in state owned enterprises has much more to do with pressures for patronage than placing privatisation back on the agenda some 15 years after president Thabo Mbeki was forced to ditch it. It would be a strange turn if appeasing demands for public money revives a market friendly option which Mbeki had to abandon. And it certainly would not suggest a government committed to finding a development role for state owned enterprises.
It seems that the Mbeki government wanted to sell off shares in state owned enterprises not because it had a considered view that this would achieve the goals parastatals were designed to serve. The motive, rather, seemed to be to enhance private investor confidence and state revenues. Many might support these goals. But neither has to do with a long-term view on the contribution these enterprises could make to the economy.
A balancing act
Nor has Gigaba revived privatisation because he and his advisors have thought through the role for state owned enterprises which his predecessors ignored. He is, rather, trying to balance the two pressures he has faced since he became minister earlier this year.
On the one hand, he does not want to become the latest finance minister to face pressure for not giving a state owned enterprise what it needs. On the other, he does not want to preside over a second round of rating downgrades because he spent money the government did not have. The only way to square the circle is to sell off shares in one state owned enterprise (Telkom) to pay for the bailout in another, South African Airways. The government’s stake in Telkom is over 39%.
It’s hard to see how this strategy is sustainable. The South African Airways bailout request will not be the last. And it’s clearly not workable to keep on selling off national assets whenever state owned enterprises want cash injections.
Nor is this likely to protect the minister from political flak. There is sure to be principled opposition to the strategy and patronage politicians will also notice that the prospective piggy bank is being sold off and will rebel.
But even if Gigaba does manage to bring off the trick, it’s obvious that this move has everything to do with balancing political pressures and nothing to do with a development strategy.
Between Mbeki’s strategic retreat and Gigaba’s strategic balancing act, state owned enterprises have not been quiet backwaters. They have been, and still are, key battlegrounds in the war between the ruling party factions as officials and politicians in its patronage group try to turn them into vehicles for making deals and accumulating goodies while their opponents try to stop them.
Lately, this battle has been played out in parliament – first over the South African Broadcasting Corporation, now over state owned power utility Eskom. South African Airways has been a battleground throughout and other state owned enterprises have been quieter sites of conflict.
Economy pays the price
This trench warfare, in which both factions seeking control of the ANC make gains after pitched battles but neither ever wins the war, may shape the future of the ANC and government’s role in the economy. But again, the issue here is a political fight for power, not considered positions on the role of state owned enterprises.
The economy pays an obvious price for this failure to care about their development role – missed opportunities for growth and the exclusion of many who go without wages and salaries. But, given the factionalised nature of politics, which is likely to continue, it is unrealistic to expect serious thinking from the politicians on the role that state owned enterprises can play in growth and inclusion.
This makes it urgent that private interests take this issue much more seriously, replacing the stereotyped debate with considered proposals for change. State owned enterprises are too important to be relegated to pieces on a chessboard. But nothing is likely to change until everyone with an interest in the economy’s future develops ideas on how state owned enterprises fit in and presses politicians to take notice.
Here is a small opportunity to make progress towards some light at the end of a very long and dark tunnel. The opportunity rests in the hands of KPMG. South Africa waits.
This makes it urgent that private interests take this issue much more seriously, replacing the stereotyped debate with considered proposals for change. State owned enterprises are too important to be relegated to pieces on a chessboard. But nothing is likely to change until everyone with an interest in the economy’s future develops ideas on how state owned enterprises fit in and presses politicians to take notice.