Key Takeaways:
- The mayor of Tswelopele, Kenalemang Phukuntsi, is accused of unlawfully occupying a provincial government house in Hoopstad, Free State.
- The property, Erf 355, 4 Cooper Street, is registered in the name of the provincial department of public works and transport.
- The DA has intensified pressure on the mayor, threatening to take the matter to the public protector and the Hawks for investigation.
- The department of public works and transport claims that the mayor moved into the house during a period of civil unrest when her life was allegedly under threat.
- The DA has rejected the department’s explanation, arguing that it lacks logical and legal basis.
Introduction to the Controversy
The department of public works and transport has confirmed that the mayor of Tswelopele, Kenalemang Phukuntsi, moved into a provincial government house during a period of civil unrest when her life was allegedly under threat. However, the Democratic Alliance (DA) has intensified pressure on the mayor, accusing her of unlawfully occupying the property and threatening to take the matter to the public protector and the Hawks for investigation. The property in question, Erf 355, 4 Cooper Street in Hoopstad, is registered in the name of the provincial department of public works and transport. Despite this, the mayor has allegedly occupied the property for several years and carried out renovations, sparking accusations of the abuse of state assets.
The Property and Its Ownership
At the centre of the controversy is the property, Erf 355, 4 Cooper Street in Hoopstad, which is registered in the name of the provincial department of public works and transport. The department has confirmed that the property remains provincially owned and acknowledged that it was among several houses earmarked for disposal through open tender in 2014. However, officials later discovered that all the "vacant" houses, including the one occupied by Phukuntsi, were already inhabited. The department claims that Phukuntsi moved into the house during a period of civil unrest when her life was allegedly under threat and renovated the dilapidated structure at her own cost.
The DA’s Rejection of the Department’s Explanation
The DA has rejected the department’s explanation, arguing that it lacks logical and legal basis. According to Igor Scheurkogel, a member of the National Council of Provinces in the Free State, no statute authorises the occupation or disposal of provincial property in this manner, particularly when constitutional and financial management laws require fairness, transparency, and competitive processes. Scheurkogel has demanded clarity on the statutory authority used to permit the occupation, details of the proposed disposal committee, and timelines for verifying and disposing of provincial properties in compliance with the constitution, the Public Finance Management Act, and the Municipal Finance Management Act.
The Political Fallout
The dispute comes after the African National Congress (ANC) blocked a DA motion in the Tswelopele council to investigate the matter, sparking accusations of political protection and a lack of accountability in a municipality already grappling with service delivery failures. The scandal was first exposed in August when the DA, through a Promotion of Access to Information Act request, obtained documents from the department of public works confirming the property’s provincial ownership. At the time, DA councillor Louise Verwey exposed Phukuntsi’s occupation of the property, stating that it was done without proof of a legal transaction.
The Implications of the Scandal
The scandal has significant implications for the people of the Free State, who are already struggling with severe housing shortages. As Scheurkogel pointed out, "given the serious housing shortages in the Free State, millions of citizens have waited years for land or a home." The appearance that politically connected individuals can occupy and later acquire provincial property outside the legislated processes undermines public trust and perpetuates the perception that those in power are above the law. The DA has warned that failure to provide clear legislative justification for the occupation of the property will leave them with "no option" but to refer the matter to the public protector and the Hawks for possible breaches of financial and asset management laws.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the controversy surrounding the mayor of Tswelopele’s occupation of a provincial government house has significant implications for the people of the Free State and the rule of law in South Africa. The DA’s rejection of the department’s explanation and their threat to take the matter to the public protector and the Hawks for investigation highlights the need for transparency and accountability in the use of state assets. As the matter unfolds, it remains to be seen whether the mayor will be held accountable for her actions and whether the people of the Free State will finally receive the housing they so desperately need.