Latest news with #PromotionofAccesstoInformationAct
IOL News
6 days ago
- Politics
- IOL News
Lesufi's government undermines the role of opposition by withholding information
Panyaza Lesufi The Gauteng Premier, Panyaza Lesufi, has refused the request for access to the records requested, says the writer. Image: Oupa Mokoena Independent Newspapers The Democratic Alliance (DA) Gauteng, the official opposition in the province, is committed to safeguarding South Africa's constitutional democracy, the principles and values espoused in the founding document. Nonetheless, our efforts as the opposition to conduct oversight over the elected executive are increasingly thwarted. The growing barriers to effective and meaningful conduct oversight are deliberate withholding and denial of crucial information, procedural delays and protracted legal battles that severely undermine our oversight role. The affected areas are irregular procurement and contract management, unlawful appointments, and the lack of consequence management due to not enforcing recommendations from disciplinary action. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa explicitly highlights the separation of powers among the legislature, executive and judiciary, establishing much-needed mechanisms for effective oversight, a fundamental pillar of good governance. In a healthy democracy, transparency and accountability are important principles. Laws regulating access to information are put in place to ensure that the public has access to the decision-making processes of those in power to hold them accountable for their actions. There has been a growing reluctance or outright refusal by the governing party and those in leadership to provide vital information to enable effective scrutiny. Effective legislative oversight relies heavily on access to accurate, timely and complete information. The legislature's ability to scrutinise government actions, expenditure, and hold public officials accountable centres on this access. When the executive withholds information, be it through vague, sub-par or incomplete responses to questions in the house, dismissing Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) requests, or invoking the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA) to shield data, our capacity as opposition to fulfil this oversight mandate diminishes. This casts a shadow on the executive promise of good governance and fulfilling their mandate. This increase in information withholding has profound implications. Without transparency, there is no way to verify whether departments are acting in the best interests of the public or if resources are being misappropriated. This lack of transparency and accountability becomes a breeding ground for corrupt and unethical conduct, financial mismanagement and misconduct, which ultimately leads to poor service delivery. Through the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA), the DA has since October last year demanded full access to 177 forensic reports dating from 2016 to the present. The Gauteng Premier, Panyaza Lesufi, refused the request for access to the records requested. However, the refusal did not provide adequate reasons based on the provisions of the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) that the Office of the Premier relied on. The DA Gauteng appealed the decision to refuse access to the reports internally in November, but the appeal was dismissed the following month. In January, we approached the Information Regulator, where the pre-investigation report found that 'there is a prima facie case that the complainant met the minimum requirements prescribed in PAIA, in that the request form was duly submitted to the public body.' According to the Information Regulator, the alleged refusal by Lesufi's office to grant access and failure to state adequate reasons for the refusal, including the provisions of PAIA relied on, necessitates an investigation of the complaint to ascertain whether the requester (DA) must be given access to the records. The use of legal provisions such as POPIA to justify withholding information raises concerns about the misuse of privacy laws as shields rather than safeguards. While protecting personal data is essential, these laws must not be weaponised to conceal misconduct and prevent public scrutiny. There must be a balanced approach that respects individual rights without compromising the public's right to know when such disclosure is both lawful and justifiable. Furthermore, any reliance on privacy concerns must be weighed against the public interest in disclosure, particularly in cases where the public interest outweighs any purported confidentiality claims. While POPIA is designed to regulate the lawful processing of personal information, it balances the right to privacy with the right to access information. The Act explicitly provides for instances where disclosure is necessary and lawful. The ruling, therefore, emphasises how difficult it is for the public and government to balance between privacy, transparency, and due process. This is not the first time that our PAIA applications have been unsuccessful in what we increasingly view as the shielding of corrupt officials, politicians, and activities within the Gauteng Provincial Government (GPG). The biennial report of the Gauteng Ethics Advisory Council (GEAC) for 2025 has restated what the DA Gauteng has been exposing about corruption, maladministration, non-compliance with relevant legislation and regulations and ethical violations severely affecting the delivery of services to residents of Gauteng.
Daily Maverick
15-05-2025
- Business
- Daily Maverick
‘A clear pattern of influence' — how corporate lobbying has delayed SA's climate policies
South Africa's biggest polluting companies have worked behind the scenes for nearly two decades to delay and dilute climate policy, according to a new report by nonprofit shareholder activist organisation Just Share. The Obstruction Playbook: How corporate lobbying threatens South Africa's Just Transition documents how powerful industry actors — including Sasol, Business Unity South Africa (Busa) and the Minerals Council South Africa — have worked persistently, in public and in private, to derail an effective climate policy response by the South African government. A window into closed-door meetings Over the past two decades, major polluters and industry associations have regularly met in private with the Treasury and other government officials to discuss climate legislation — engagements that are largely invisible to the public. While companies made formal submissions during public consultations, much of the real influence happened behind closed doors, through bilateral meetings and direct communication with policymakers. To uncover the extent of industry influence, Just Share spent two years gathering evidence from public records and documents obtained through Promotion of Access to Information Act (Paia) requests. These included Treasury budget papers, policy documents, draft legislation, and submissions to the Davis Tax Committee. Just Share reported that accessing records of private meetings between government officials and major polluters was especially difficult — some responses to Paia requests taking months, and even then the information was often incomplete or vague. 'It's not clear whether the government isn't keeping proper records or is just reluctant to share them — we suspect it's the former,' said Emma Schuster, Just Share's senior climate risk analyst, during a webinar to launch the report on Tuesday. 'Especially when it comes to bilateral meetings between the government and high-emitting companies which remain entirely hidden unless specific Paia requests are made. Even then, we have no idea whether we're getting the full picture.' She noted that despite the length of their report, 'what is striking is how much we can't see — especially bilateral meetings between the government and high-emitting companies, which remain entirely hidden unless someone makes a specific request for that information. 'So, what we offer here is not by any means a comprehensive record of government/business interactions, but even so it demonstrates a clear pattern of influence,' said Schuster. An unregulated landscape Unlike in the US or EU, lobbying in South Africa is unregulated. There are no legal requirements for companies or government officials to disclose private meetings or written communications. 'For the most part, it's not even acknowledged as something that happens,' said Schuster. 'Interactions are framed as 'engagements' or, more concerningly, 'partnerships'. And certainly not as the kind of lobbying we associate with the US or Europe.' The report shows the government often gives in to industry pressure, but this report does not allege corruption — rather, it highlights how an under-resourced state, struggling to deliver on its mandates, often turns to business for support, inadvertently allowing vested interests to take the lead in shaping policy. 'The state's record-keeping is abysmal,' said Schuster. 'This opacity allows corporate influence to flourish unchecked.' The key players The report identifies Sasol — South Africa's largest private emitter — alongside powerful industry associations Busa and Minerals Council SA, as central actors in a coordinated effort to stall climate action. Industry associations play a critical role. 'They allow individual companies to project public commitment to climate action, while the association lobbies on their behalf for weaker regulation,' explained Schuster. Because associations are not subject to customer or shareholder pressure, their lobbying is harder to scrutinise. 'It was particularly striking to us how the positions taken by Busa — which is meant to represent a broad set of corporate interests across multiple sectors — appear to be dominated by the interests of its high emitting members,' she said. She noted that the report doesn't cover Eskom due to its parastatal status, but acknowledged its significance. Three core narratives dominate these lobbying efforts: Positive contribution framing: 'We're essential to jobs and economic growth; don't regulate us.' Developing country framing: 'SA's emissions are small; others should take the lead.' Pace and scale framing: 'We support the transition — but not too fast or ambitiously.' It should be noted that The Presidential Climate Commission's own report, The State of Climate Action in South Africa (2024), challenges fossil fuel companies' narrative that they are indispensable for jobs and economic growth by demonstrating that South Africa's just energy transition (JET) will create significantly more jobs in renewable energy, green hydrogen, and electric vehicles than those lost in coal. Far from harming the economy, the JET is projected to attract more than R1-trillion in investments, boost energy security, and drive sustainable economic growth, positioning South Africa competitively in the global green economy while addressing climate risks Daily Maverick reached out to Sasol, Minerals Council SA and and Busa, who are the three main players, for comment in response to the report's findings. Minerals Council SA described itself as 'the principal advocate for mining in South Africa in engagements with government on policy, taxes and other areas affecting mining', and said it aimed to create 'a conducive policy, legislative and operating environment that facilitates growth and investment to grow the mining industry for the benefit of the economy and all South Africans'. The council noted that it participated in multi-stakeholder workshops and provided data and responses to industry challenges. 'Our members are supportive of climate action within the national context and are compliant with the relevant laws,' it said. The council also highlighted that the mining sector was 'leading South Africa's energy transition, with about 16,000 MW of embedded renewable energy projects with an investment value of R275-billion', citing Operation Vulindlela data. These investments, it said, were helping to reduce load shedding, lower operational costs, and support national and global decarbonisation goals. Sasol said it had 'noted the release of Just Share's report, and we will study this further'. Business Unity South Africa (Busa) had not responded by the time of publication. The Carbon Tax Act — a case study in delay and dilution First proposed in 2006, South Africa's Carbon Tax was designed to apply the 'polluter pays' principle by putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions to encourage reductions. However, implementation was delayed for more than a decade. The tax only came into effect in June 2019 — and remains one of the weakest carbon pricing mechanisms globally. Although the nominal tax rate has increased over time, generous tax-free allowances of up to 95% mean the effective rate is far below the global average. The Treasury has proposed maintaining many of these allowances until 2030 or 2031. Currently, companies pay just R35.40 ($1.90) per ton of CO₂ for combustion emissions, and R11.80 ($0.63) for process emissions — far below the $75 to $100/tCO₂e recommended by the World Bank to meet climate targets. Sasol, while publicly supporting carbon pricing, has consistently lobbied to retain these allowances. Paia documents show that in Treasury workshops, the company argued that 'higher rates without allowances would harm productivity and job creation', a claim the report calls 'self-serving'. A clear example of interference In November 2024, The Treasury released a long-overdue discussion paper on Phase 2 of the carbon tax. The paper proposed key reforms: raising the tax rate by 2030, gradually reducing tax-free allowances, and applying higher rates for emissions above companies' carbon budgets. 'The carbon tax has been delayed for so long, and these were all proposals that really should have been implemented five or more years ago,' explained executive director of Just Share, Tracey Davies A stakeholder workshop followed in January 2025, attended by industry and civil society groups, where, Davies said,'the Treasury really seemed to be standing firm on this being finally the time to move forward'. But by February, the national Budget review dropped most of the key proposals. The proposals had been dropped, just completely disappeared — and it is really fair to say that we were gobsmacked. We could not understand how this could have happened. So Just Share filed a Paia request to uncover what had changed. The Treasury responded with a list of private meetings it held with Sasol executives in the lead-up to the Budget — three meetings between December 2024 and January 2025, each involving five to seven senior Sasol representatives. 'We don't get the minutes of those meetings — apparently, that is protected by taxpayer confidentiality, even though it's massively in the public interest,' said Davies. 'But the subject of those meetings was the carbon tax discussion paper.' During the webinar's public Q&A, David le Page, an attendee from Fossil Free South Africa, pointed out that, 'some of the world's most democratic countries — Norway, Sweden and Finland — make tax returns public'. Davies added that not long after the budget, both Sasol and Minerals Council SA publicly welcomed the decision to drop or dilute Phase 2 proposals. And then Sasol's chief financial officer confirmed the Phase 2 proposals 'would have had a significant impact on Sasol's free cash flow' and welcomed the Treasury's decision to withdraw them. 'So I think there are very logical conclusions to be drawn from that sequence of events,' said Davies. Climate Change Act The Climate Change Act, passed in 2024 after years of delays, faced similar corporate pushback. The report illustrates how corporates successfully pushed to remove criminal penalties for companies that exceed their carbon budgets. Instead, the government proposed a higher carbon tax for over-emitters — an alternative that still requires new regulations and changes to the Carbon Tax Act, none of which have materialised. Meanwhile, the key sections of the act — those governing corporate carbon budgets — remain dormant. Emitters have also lobbied to align these budgets with the already-weak Carbon Tax Act, effectively making limits more lenient and compliance voluntary. Combating the imbalance The report offers several recommendations to begin addressing the power imbalance: Regulate lobbying: Introduce mandatory disclosure of meetings, submissions and communications between government and private sector actors. Record and publish meetings: Keep accurate records of all engagements — and make them public by default. Strengthen civil society input: Ensure meaningful representation from non-industry voices in all climate policy forums. Reform consultation processes: Prioritise the interests of those most affected by the climate crisis, not just those most able to influence policy. 'This is about more than climate policy — it's about democracy, accountability, and justice,' said Schuster. 'And unless there is action taken to rebalance power in policy making, we risk locking ourselves and future generations into a more dangerous and a less fair world.' DM
IOL News
15-05-2025
- Politics
- IOL News
Why South Africa's leaders should lead by example with lifestyle audits
Integrity activist Devoshum Moodley-Veera says South African leaders must undergo lifestyle audits to restore public trust and combat corruption. Image: Ayanda Ndamane/ Independent Newspapers Suppose South Africa is to turn the tide on fraud and corruption. In that case, the country's political leaders, including President Cyril Ramaphosa, need to lead by example and subject themselves to lifestyle audits and be transparent with the process and findings to the public. This is according to Devoshum Moodley-Veera, an Integrity Activist, PhD Student at the School of Public Leadership and ACCERUS at Stellenbosch University. Lifestyle audits have become topical after a recently released report revealed that 37% of senior Gauteng provincial government officials failed their mandatory lifestyle audits, designed to expose corruption and financial misconduct. On the other hand, the National Home Builders Registration Council (NHBRC), an entity of the Department of Human Settlements, said it has referred more than 150 employees for lifestyle audits. Moodley-Veera describes a lifestyle audit as one of the many tools to combat fraud and corruption in the public sector. It is a detective, preventative, corrective, and monitoring tool. 'Political leaders must have lifestyle audits instituted against them, and be very clear and transparent about their lifestyle audit process. They need to start with the change. If they are calling for lifestyle audits, why are lifestyle audits not done on them as well? 'In the public service, lifestyle audits need to be done throughout. The ministers, deputy ministers, Director-Generals, Members of Parliament, Portfolio Committee Members, Chief Directors, Directors, the deputy directors, the ANC's top six and members of other political parties must also undergo lifestyle audits. Even the president and the deputy president need to go through this,' Moodley-Veera said. She said this would be a step in the right direction for the state towards regaining public trust, because it is necessary to perform lifestyle audits on individuals entrusted with the resources of 'our' country. She added that if the government is trying to be transparent, they need to make sure that the whole report is published, so that it can be discussed and people can understand what exactly the lifestyle audit entails, what the findings were, and the issues raised. 'There also needs to be a media briefing, explaining the number of people subjected to lifestyle audits and those found to be wanting. You need to name a shame at times. You can't use secrecy or privacy as an excuse. 'And I do understand that we need to take into account the two laws that we have, which are the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) and the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA). Where there is public interest, you need to ensure transparency in dealing with lifestyle audits,' she said. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ "Even in my lectures, I always say you need to live by ethics. Be the change you want to see, as Mahatma Gandhi put it. It shouldn't be a passing thing that you want to improve ethics in the country and then start implementing lifestyle audits, whistleblowing, unexplained wealth audits, etc. If you're not being ethical when doing your work, it won't change," Moodley-Veera said. 'Corruption is very high in our country. Certain laws limit lifestyle audits, for example, the POPIA, which limits the processing of personal information. So, for example, if a forensic auditor or a forensic investigator or an internal auditor needs to perform a lifestyle audit, there needs to be a lot of processes to try and get consent to actually institute a lifestyle audit, because people claim privacy and defamation issues. 'So, as someone conducting a lifestyle audit, you end up having a number of legal actions against you. You find that PAIA, on the one hand, promotes access to information. But POPIA says no, you can't process personal information. So there are limitations with these two acts when trying to implement lifestyle audits in terms of legislation,' Moodley-Veera said. She added that public servants generally use these two acts to avoid lifestyle audits in the public service. They say that it is an infringement of their privacy rights. They were not supposed to communicate their income and expenditure and assets, and verification processes. The consequences for failing lifestyle audits in South Africa are inadequate because they depend on whether the leadership (political or organisational) wants to take action or not. It is very secretive on how you really deal with the findings of a lifestyle audit, she said. 'But then you do get situations from a criminal point of view, where, for example, the SIU does have the power to institute criminal charges against an individual that they found to have not lived according to their means. But that is in cases of a very high level, for example, State Capture. The National Prosecuting Authority also has the power to institute legal action. 'With SARS, which does lifestyle audits on their taxpayers, what happens is they do freeze the individual's assets, they do recoup the assets, but also it is limited. It's limited in the sense that SARS would do their investigation and then it needs to go through a court process to try and institute criminal proceedings,' she said. South Africa needs to have a single legislation to deal with lifestyle audits, which will be a blanket approach for the public and private sectors. She said the private sector currently does lifestyle audits at its discretion. 'There actually should not be any thresholds, for example, in the legislation, you must not even say that if you are an organisation of more than 50 people, then only you submit or institute lifestyle audits. It needs to be for everyone. For example, your big retailers, small shops, etc, because corruption comes in different forms and ways. So if you are trying to address this, you need to use a balanced approach and be consistent in dealing with this,' Moodley-Veera said. The Guide to Implement Lifestyle Audits in the Public Service, signed by the then Minister of Public Service and Administration, Senzo Mchunu, came into effect on April 1, 2021, and mandates lifestyle audits for National and Provincial Government Departments, in line with the Public Service Regulations of 2016. However, Moodley-Veera said it is not an Act, but a directive that guides public service, public servants to undergo lifestyle audits, and the role players involved. But it is only a directive, not legally binding. The second biennial report recently released by the Gauteng Ethics Advisory Council (GEAC) revealed that nearly 37% of senior Gauteng provincial government officials failed their mandatory lifestyle audits, designed to expose corruption and financial misconduct. Over 150 engaged in illegal business dealings, despite legal prohibitions, in key departments like Education, Sport, Health, and Infrastructure Development. Gauteng Premier Panyaza Lesufi has since welcomed the report and said the provincial government will respond in detail within 14 days after assessing and engaging with the findings. Opposition parties have also demanded that action be taken. Alec Moemi, Director-General for the Department of Human Settlements, this week told the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Human Settlements that over 150 employees at the NHBRC have been referred for lifestyle audits, requiring them to explain their financial income. He said the audit started in 2024 after a directive by former minister Mmamoloko Kubayi across the department's entities. The SIU has completed the audit at the Community Schemes Ombud Service. The audits were not finalised and were not ready for presentation to the portfolio committee. Phases one and two of the audits of 82 executives and management personnel were completed at NHBRC. Phase 2 of the audit involves 152 employees being interviewed to provide explanations, he said.
IOL News
10-05-2025
- Business
- IOL News
How to handle spam calls claiming to have your financial data
Discover how to protect yourself from spam calls claiming to have your financial information, and learn about the legal frameworks in place to safeguard consumer rights. The phone rings, and it's some sort of telemarketer on the other end. It's hard to tell because the line isn't the best. After checking that they have their victim, they say: 'I have your information in front of me, and you are paying too much interest.' Of course, when probed, they vacillate and claim to have misunderstood what they said. There seems to be very little someone can do about this, given that the company is essentially anonymous. This is all illegal. Yet, the only thing I can think of doing is to report the number and then block it through TrueCaller. However, there are other avenues that, although time-consuming, should benefit everyone in the long run. The Direct Marketing Association of South Africa, a voluntary body for companies that want to ensure they have a good reputation as telemarketers, received about 200 consumer complaints a month. 'We have not observed any notable spike specifically related to financial sales,' says CEO David Dickens. Yet, Benita da Silva, executive of risk, compliance, and legal at ASI Group, said that, while there are no definitive stats, 'Truecaller data shows a significant number of spam calls are still being received in South Africa'. If someone tries unsuccessfully to call the number back to determine the company name, Dickens said it indicates it's likely that this is an outgoing line. In these instances, he suggests complaining to the telecoms companies as well as the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa. 'Each phone number should be clearly registered to an identifiable owner, as required by the Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-related Information Act, which is intended to ensure accountability for the use of mobile numbers,' Dickens said. Da Silva said that, when it comes to spam callers pretending to have financial information, it's important for consumers to ask exactly what information a marketer has about them, how they obtained it, and ask that it be amended or deleted. There 'are indeed instances where business practices contravene the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA),' said Dickens. 'A common example is when a business cannot provide proof of opt-in consent, indicating that the individual did not explicitly agree to be contacted,' he noted. Likewise, some provisions of the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) are often disregarded, especially when businesses fail to disclose what personal information they hold about a data subject or refuse to remove such information when asked to. 'When it comes to the sale of debt-related products and financial instruments or services, there are still grey areas in the interpretation and enforcement of regulations,' said Dickens, noting that there is a need for additional guidance from other government agencies, such as those that deal with financial matters. There are several laws that apply to telemarketing, said Dickens. He explained that this includes POPIA, which applies to all activities where personal information is processed, including collecting, storing, sharing, and deleting it. 'POPIA trumps all other legislation on the topic of personal information protection. This means that it overrides all other laws and regulations that address direct marketing. However, if another law provides greater protection to data subjects, marketers must follow those provisions in addition to the requirements in POPIA,' Dickens explained. There are also industry codes of conduct that fall under POPIA and have been approved by the Information Regulator, the umbrella body in charge of enforcement. Companies that don't comply with POPIA can face an administrative fine of up to R10 million, imprisonment of up to 10 years, and the company can be sued by the 'data subject' – the person whose information has been breached. Dickens added that companies that are members of the Credit Bureau Association and the Banking Association of South Africa are also subject to approved codes of conduct. In addition, he said, if the 'data subject' is a consumer, a marketer must comply with the Consumer Protection Act (NCA) to the extent that it provides more protection to data subjects than provided for in POPIA. Then there is the National Credit Act, which requires credit providers to also comply with its direct marketing provisions. 'If the NCA provides more protection for personal information than POPIA, credit providers must also comply with those requirements,' Dickens explained. What is important, said Dickens, is to lobby the government and to respond to requests for comment when they issue these, such as with the Department of Trade, Industry, and Competition's (DTIC's) recent request for comment on improved regulations to the CPA. Da Silva added, 'Hopefully, when the DTIC fully implements a new registry system, the problem will be solved'. There needs to be a balanced approach, one that supports open market participation and consumer protection while also fostering compliance, explained Dickens. 'It's equally important to consider the employment implications in this sector, which often engages vulnerable, unemployed youth who are given aggressive sales scripts by businesses that sidestep regulatory compliance and avoid aligning with professional bodies,' he said. Dickens added that better collaboration between the public and private sectors would 'go a long way in addressing systemic challenges'. In the meantime, Da Silva adds that consumers must be mindful of the terms and conditions they agree to when completing competitions, surveys, and forms on the internet and what information they make available about themselves online. The DTIC did not respond to requests for comment. PERSONAL FINANCE
Daily Maverick
09-05-2025
- Business
- Daily Maverick
R11bn unfinished Montrose Mega City Development housing ghost town
As Gauteng battles a worsening housing crisis, incomplete housing units near Randfontein in the West Rand remain vandalised and unoccupied. Daily Maverick photographer Felix Dlangamandla went to the ghost town on 7 May 2025. The Montrose Mega City Development, which was once touted as a large-scale solution to the province's housing backlog, has been inactive since January 2024. According to the Gauteng Department of Human Settlements (GDHS), the project was halted following the termination of its contract with SCM Developments, the appointed turnkey developer. The department cited 'financial difficulties leading to its liquidity'. The government planned to build 5,600 housing units during the project's first phase. When Daily Maverick asked about the total amount spent on both phases of the development to date, GDHS spokesperson Terry-Ann van Eck, speaking on behalf of MEC Tasneem Motara, declined to provide figures, although reports suggest R11-billion was spent. 'As the development was in its first phase at the time of termination, detailed financial information on expenditure cannot be disclosed without a formal application under the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA).' In response to further queries from Daily Maverick about whether there are any plans to repair or complete the housing units, the department said: 'The Department is actively engaged in negotiations with the landowner to purchase the land outright. This acquisition will enable the Department to take over and continue the development. Upon successful acquisition, a procurement process will be initiated to appoint a new developer to resume and complete the project as originally intended.' It added that it had received 'guidance from the Provincial Treasury on securing the site. A professional security company has now been appointed on the property to prevent further illegal activities, including vandalism and unauthorised access,' said Van Eck.
