POLITICS

Cape Town Makhaza toilets report an indictment - SJC

Gavin Silber says City failed to consult, or adhere to norms and standards

SJC Respond's to City's Internal Investigation into Makhaza Toilets

Investigation Shows City Failed to Consult and Adhere to Norms & Standards

"Community accepted the offer of a "loo with a view" as they had made use of the "bucket system" for the past twenty years and they were concerned that should they not agree with the "loo with a view" they would be left with the "bucket system".

The community was given a Hobson's Choice"

1. The Social Justice Coalition (SJC) is a community organisation campaigning for safety and security for all, through active citizenship and accountable governance. With approximately 1000 members across Khayelitsha, the organisation has for the past year focused on calling for safe, clean, secure and private toilets for all people living in informal settlements based on the immediate dangers associated with inadequate water and sanitation services. Residents are routinely assaulted, raped, robbed and murdered using a toilet.

2. The SJC learned on 24 August 2010 that an internal investigation had been launched by the City of Cape Town to assess the legality of toilets constructed without walls and roofs in Makhaza. The SJC contacted the City Manager's Office on 27 September, seeking clarification on when the report would be made public.

Acting City Manager Mike Richardson responded on 6 October, and stated that the City had "no intention or requirement to make this report public". The SJC were therefore left with no choice but to submit a Promotion of Access to Information (PAIA) Application to the City of Cape Town requiring the release of the findings of the investigation. This was followed by a protest by the SJC outside the Civic Centre on Wednesday 19 October. On 26 October the City released the investigation's report to the SJC.

3. The investigation's findings (see here) are an indictment of the City's failure to adequately consult with community members or adhere to the norms and standards outlined in the Water Services Act and National Housing Code; as well as the rights to administrative justice, health, safety and dignity enshrined in the Constitution.

We address here some of the most important findings, and will provide a more comprehensive response once we have consulted with our members and legal counsel.

4. A significant portion of the investigation focused on a decisive meeting that took place on 27 November 2007 on a field in SST Section, after a sanitation development plan in Silvertown (incorporating SST, Makhaza, and Town 2) failed to deliver toilets at a ratio of 1 toilet per 5 households (only 62% were completed). The meeting, which allegedly focussed on a number of issues ranging from waste management to electricity, included various stakeholders - the identities of whom the City has chosen to withhold.

The report notes a conflict of information as to which political office bearers were in attendance (whether "political office bearer 1" or "political office bearer 2"). Also present was "contractor 1", "Council Employee 3", and "community leaders". It is not stated that any community members were present, or which "leaders" were representing them.

The City's written appeal against the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) ruling does however note that the "Makhaza community representative" was Community Liaison officer Andile Lili, whose credibility the City have by their own admission routinely criticised. This brings into serious doubt their ability to claim that adequate consultation was facilitated.

5. Shockingly, the City's investigation reveals that there are no minutes from this meeting, which results in there being no formal record of the discussion, attendees, or outcomes. This is in contravention of Annexure D in the National Housing Code, which stipulates that all minutes of meetings must be well recorded.

This is particularly disturbing given the gravity of the resolution that would be adopted - the decision to build 1316 toilets on a basis of 1 toilet per household, the enclosures of which community members would have to provide. The City repeatedly refers to toilets emanating from this arrangement - toilets without walls -- as "loos with views". We find this term deeply offensive.

6. The investigation also focused on the obligation of residents to sign so-called "happy letters", once their "loo with a view" had been constructed. The investigation found that these letters did not make clear how residents were required to air grievances about the situation. This supports the SJC's claims earlier this year that many residents had no idea what they were signing, both with regards to the "happy letters" and other documentation.

Furthermore, we found that residents often felt too scared and intimidated to decline the toilet under onerous conditions, for fear of getting no toilet whatsoever. This is supported in one of the report's most damning findings - that the City in effect gave residents a "Hobson's choice" (a choice between something utterly inadequate or nothing at all) when opting to accept a "loo with a view". The investigation found, after interviews with community members, that "the community had made use of the bucket system for the past twenty years, and they were concerned that should they not agree, they would be left with the bucket system of sanitation."

7. The report concludes by stating that one of the minimum standards of basic sanitation as outlined in the Water Services Act is that a toilet must be enclosed. The City has routinely ignored this provision, choosing instead to focus solely on the 5:1 ratio. In this regard, the investigation found that the "provisions of the regulations to the Act were not complied with". The City must take ultimate responsibility for this, as it is very plausible, given the above findings and statements from Makhaza residents, that members of the community were either unaware of the arrangement, or were too scared to decline despite their inability to afford and construct enclosures.

8. This investigation is vital in illustrating how meaningful engagement and consultation with communities often fails to materialise. We hope that it can be used to prevent future instances where the decisions taken by a few result in the violation of the most basic and fundamental constitutional rights of many.

9. It is true that elements in the ANCYL must be held to account for the demolition of the enclosures (a move the SJC and many Makhaza residents strongly condemned), but the City is wrong to collectively punish residents for the actions of a few. It is unacceptable that the Mayor has again refused in his cover letter to the SJC to discuss returning the amenities until there is a commitment to non-violence by the Youth League - an organisation that is not a public institution or representative of the community.

This shows a gross failure of leadership and derelict of duty to the community. We again call on the Mayor to accept The Most Revered Archbishop Thabo Makgoba's offer to mediate in the matter. We further call on the City to acknowledge the shortcoming illustrated in this report, and commit to adjusting its response to sanitation in line with national norms and standards and the rights enshrined our Constitution, in Makhaza and elsewhere.

Statement issued by Gavin Silber, Social Justice Coalition, October 27 2010

Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter