Recently an amaBhungane investigation caused quite a stir, revealing that the Ekurhuleni metro apparently spent R1.9- billion on chemical toilets over three financial years from 2017 to 2019.
it also claimed toilets had been sourced from 16 small suppliers, and it was an apparent get-richquick scheme for some underperforming contractors that left many beneficiaries with dirty and broken toilets.
In response, the metro in its first defence made it clear that the tender had been awarded in 2016, prior to mayor Mzwandile Masina assuming office.
Nothing new here, as passing the buck is a favourite pastime of government. No one can deny that informal settlements need chemical toilets.
The existence of the bucket system has been a prevailing problem in informal settlements, with the chemical toilets deemed to bring relief to many. The metro was also quick to defend its supply chain management processes while pointing to the pro-poor agenda, which is aimed at ensuring, among other things, that our people’s dignity is restored.
The knee-jerk reaction from the metro as soon as the story broke reminds one of a boxer who is caught in the corner and about to get clobbered.
The only things the boxer can do is to defend himself while trying to cushion the blows. The metro in its first defence, however, never confirmed whether R1.9-b had been spent on toilets.
They never explained if all that money was even used, or where all those toilets are. Consider that if you buy a fancy portable chemical toilet, it could cost around R6 000 (rough estimate).
So if you spend R1.9-b, this equates to 316 666 toilets. The metro also said they are pushing for at least one toilet per five structures. So at 316 666 toilets you are looking at roughly 1 583 330 (yes, million) informal structures in Ekurhuleni. Does this sound right? A week later, the metro came out firing in a second defence, with Masina rubbishing allegations that his administration had bungled the tender to install chemical toilets.
This time, Masina said 39 000 new toilets were received and R872-million had been paid for them. Let us just stop the bus right here, because the wheels are coming off quickly. Granted, R872-m is not as much as R1.9-b, yet if you work it out, a toilet therefore costs the metro roughly R22 000.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, something stinks to high heaven. The Advertiser also has the latest drone footage available regarding Angelo informal settlement, and you can clearly see where the chemical toilets are situated. And guess what? The objective of one toilet per five structures has certainly not been met.
So where are all these fancy toilets that cost an arm and a leg? As we pause in shock and horror, why on earth is the metro splashing out almost R1-b on toilets? Really?
If you build a nice-looking house for half a million, the metro could have built roughly 1.6 billion homes for that money. And yes, homes with toilets! The real problem in Ekurhuleni and South Africa is housing.
Provide housing and you will get rid of shacks and address informal settlements, thus dispensing of the need for chemical toilets. Yet instead of spending the money on building homes, we rather spent a ridiculous amount on toilets, which does not make sense at all.
The chemical-toilet saga is one of a list of growing question marks around tenders and funds management within the metro. This includes the stagnant new EMPD precinct in Boksburg. Or how about the metro years ago building a park in Windmill Park in the middle of a dump site?
Not to mention the millions it cost to upgrade the recreational grounds around the lake even though the water still has not been remediated, or the hospital that keeps falling apart or the failing infrastructure.
But despite all these challenges, including rising unemployment, apparently R872-m could be set aside for toilets.
It all stinks, and the stench is even worse than the one emanating from the Boksburg Lake.
