Building ban trap: Generations stuck in mud homes
By Vuyisile Hlatshwayo
For nearly four decades, Mbabane’s Fonteyn Location residents have been trapped in a bureaucratic limbo – denied the right to build permanent homes on their land. Cloaked in the language of urban development and enforced under colonial-era law, the building ban remains in place even as government-led projects stall, leaving generations to inherit nothing but crumbling stick and mud houses and broken promises.
“We live like farm dwellers right in town, or rather, in the heart of town. We are no different from the landless people of Gege and Sicunusa who still live a hard life on the farms,” laments 40-year-old Sandile Kunene of Fontein Location. He pours out his mounting frustration and despair caused by the ceaseless building ban on informal settlements imposed by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (MHUD) but enforced by its agency, the Municipal Council of Mbabane (MCM), when he was still at pre-school.
In 2005, the eSwatini Government replicated the Msunduza Urban Development Project (UDP) by launching the Mbabane Upgrading and Financing Project (MUFP) to eradicate slums around the Mbabane City. The MUFP pushes the Cities Alliance Agenda of ‘cities without slums.’ Hence, it aims to change Mbabane to a ‘city without slums. It targets an estimated 7,500 households in the informal settlements of Fonteyn, Mangwaneni, Ntabamhlophe, Bahai, Nkwalini Zone 3, Mahwalala Zone 6, Manzana and Mvakwelitje. Its ultimate beneficiaries are a population of approximately 27,000. MUFP was co-financed by the government, its agencies, the World Bank and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). However, its funding model is based on reinvesting proceeds from land sales in completed areas, according to MHUD Principal Secretary, Dr Simon Zwane.
Kunene is one of the frustrated Fonteyn residents that eSwatini Government has held hostage on their properties for almost four decades, all in the name of urban development. Having inherited the Crown Lands (Temporary Occupation) Act No. 22 of 1964, the MCM enforces the colonial building ban to confine emaSwati in the slums. This colonial-era law precludes the building of permanent housing, premised on all emaSwati being entitled to a rural homestead. The expectation was that those migrating to the urban areas for employment would, on retirement or earlier, return to their rural home. The anachronistic legislation makes provision for the granting of permits allowing the holder to build a temporary building out of stick and mud, mud blocks (sitini seludzaka) and off-cuts.
Building ban trap
This colonially inherited building ban remains an albatross for the Fonteyn low-income residents who have been yearning to upgrade their houses for years. In an interview with Inhlase, Kunene, the self-employed builder, complains about being denied the right to quality housing under the pretext of township development. He claims this remains an unfulfilled promise to his late grandfather and father in the 1990s. He is deeply concerned about the MUFP implementers, seemingly oblivious to the vagaries of life that low-income residents face.
“I’m sure I was still at pre-school when the building ban was imposed on the residents 35 years ago. Now it’s my lastborn at pre-school, and nothing concrete has been done about this inconvenience. One is still denied the vital opportunity to build a better home for his family. This building ban is the biggest problem you can see with your naked eyes,” he points out.
The father of five decries the building ban effects aggravated by the faltering economy, chipping away at the hard-earned savings of many wanting to build homes in the community. He points out that economic downturns have increased building material prices. He notes that a house that one could afford in the 1990s is now unaffordable due to the price hikes of building materials.
“The value of money against the expensive building material makes it hard to build a house nowadays. Imagine if we were allowed to build when the prices of blocks and cement had not increased, we could live in better houses. For a one-room that would cost you E10 000, now you have to part with E80 000. A one-bedroom house slab costs over E50 000, and who has that amount of money at Fonteyn,” he wonders, adding: “I could afford it when I was in my twenties and still working. This ban has made building unaffordable. Over 80 per cent of Fontein people can’t afford to build houses to the set township standards,” he says.
Kunene views the 99-year lease that the government granted the informal settlers not as an enabler to access bank housing finance. He highlights that poverty and unemployment disqualify many residents from getting bank housing finance. He adds that the banks only finance people with sufficient money in their accounts. He points out that many families are poor and unemployed. Worst still, the employed are lowly paid to get a housing loan. According to the Africa Housing Finance Yearbook 2024, affordability in eSwatini remains a significant challenge due to the high unemployment rate of 35.71%, income inequality represented by a Gini coefficient 54.60, and rising living costs.
“Unemployment is high in this community. For example, only one person is employed in my family of ten. I’m self-employed, and my mother is a domestic worker. Only one has a payslip, which the banks require for loan assessment. But he is not earning much as an electrician. Affordability for bank housing finance is zero,” he points out.
Read more: World Bank-funded housing scheme leaves residents worse off
An elderly Fontein resident, Sipho Makhanya, also shares his frustration about the building ban. He recalls that it occurred when his firstborn son was still an infant. He discloses that all five of his children are now adults who have started their own families elsewhere. He laments that the ban denied him a chance to build a decent home for his family while still in gainful employment. Worse still, young people with well-paying jobs cannot improve the living conditions of their parents because of it. They are forced to settle in the suburbs, which are administered differently and without the building ban.
“What is frustrating is that nobody knows how long this building ban will last. We don’t know when we will stop rebuilding these collapsing stick and mud houses due to the heavy rains and storms. This is problematic because we cannot even extend our houses to accommodate the growing number of family members. I’m now an old man, but I don’t have a decent home because I’m trapped in this dilapidated house by the building ban,” Makhanya laments.
Broken promises
Another Fonteyn resident, Tanele Dludlu (50), echoes the serious concerns about the building ban. She remembers that it was declared when she was still at primary school in the 1990s. Raised in an extended family compound, her late grandmother regaled her with the benefits of the much-anticipated urban development initiative. She told her about the resultant building ban on new houses. She was excited that they would have title deeds and urban services like clean water and street lights. However, she must be turning in her grave as the ban has become a generational albatross.
Reality hit when MCM could not grant Dludlu, a former teacher, permission to build herself a decent two-room house in the family compound after selling her car. The municipality ordered her to make a one-room house on the slab of a toppled one-room house that belonged to her late grandmother. After quitting teaching, her mother had to shelter her back home without a house. She terminated the lease agreement of her tenants to accommodate her while she built her house.
“When I quit teaching and returned home, I had enough money raised from selling my car. I had planned to spend it on building a one or two-room house with a bathroom. But the municipality refused, so I ended up building a one-room house on the slabs of a collapsed house. This building ban is problematic because I’ve a boy and a girl child. I needed a bigger house to accommodate the boy, who cannot share the same bedroom with us,” she explains.
Worse still, according to her, MCM bans residents from fencing off their homes. The municipality rangers demand to see the old fence poles before allowing fencing off the yard to prevent livestock and people from entering it. She complains about livestock entering the yard and eating her veggies in the backyard garden. This exposes her to danger as unknown people walk through the unfenced yard at night.
“One night, I was awoken by the noise of quarrelling young men chasing each other in the yard. I wanted to go out and check, but restrained the urge to go out and check in fear for my life. What if one of them was carrying a gun and would shoot me when I came out to check? One time, I was stopped by the Ward 10 Councillor who saw me carrying an old fence for fencing off my garden. He thought I was going to fence off my home, yet it did not have old fence poles,” she says.
Dludlu also mentions the climate change challenges to the residents’ safety in stick and mud houses. She points out that many homes built of stick and mud or mud blocks cannot withstand climate-related events. She uses the example of her big aunt’s stick and mud house tumbling down during the recent heavy rainfalls. She laments that their hands are tied because the building ban prevents them from building durable structures. As a result, they live in perpetual fear that their stick and mud walls will topple during the downpours.
Damage control
Reached for comment, MHUD PS Dr. Zwane explains that Mbabane City consists of a mixture of legally subdivided land parcels, allocated or sold per national legislation, and undivided parcels owned by the government or private individuals. He points out that some undivided government-owned parcels have historically been occupied informally due to labour migration patterns and urbanisation pressures. In response to these informal developments, he says, local authorities permitted the erection of temporary structures to accommodate the workforce in areas pending formal planning.
“It’s critical to understand that these temporary permissions do not equate to legal tenure or development rights. In line with urban development legislation and national planning standards, the government has undertaken a phased programme to upgrade informal settlements into legally recognised townships. This involves the provision of critical urban infrastructure—roads, drainage, sanitation, water, and electricity—before land can be legally allocated and permanent structures approved. Until the formalisation process, including title deed issuance, is completed, the building ban remains in force to prevent uncontrolled development and to protect both residents and the environment,” he points out, avoiding giving the specific lifting date of the building ban.
Commenting on the snail-paced MUFP progress, Dr Zwane states that MUFP has delivered tangible results where infrastructure upgrades have been completed. He adds that its funding model is based on reinvesting proceeds from land sales in completed areas. He points out that the delayed payments by some beneficiaries have slowed the flow of revenue and hindered timely expansion to additional project sites.
“Despite this, the Ministry and Council remain committed to progressing the project. We’ve continued to engage stakeholders to improve repayment compliance and facilitate site rollout,” he says.
He acknowledges the frustration felt by residents awaiting full development rights. He reiterates that housing is not merely the erection of a structure but encompasses access to comprehensive services such as water, sanitation, stormwater management, and road networks. He emphasises that these services require significant investment and careful coordination in brownfield sites where existing informal structures exist.
“The current building restrictions are not meant to punish residents, but rather to safeguard them and ensure that future development is sustainable, safe, and legally compliant,” Dr Zwane says.
In response, Lucky Tsabedze, MCM spokesperson, denies that MCM is holding the residents hostage. He explains that MCM is implementing the upgrading project, adding that it follows a defined land tenure process (defined by law) requiring layout designs to be drawn, plots to be demarcated, and allocations. He discloses that the Council had completed Fonteyn’s land surveying and environmental assessment.
“Residents are then required to construct permanent structures once land allocations have been made. Council has completed the land surveying and environmental assessment for Fonteyn, and the residents will get their land allocations once all the processes have been finalised,” he points out, not stating a date.
Tsabedze clarifies that the building ban is not indefinite, but it depends on the availability of funds for upgrading settlements. He points out that residents are continually engaged through community meetings. He mentions that elected Ward Councillors and Local Community Committees share project updates, including each phase and activity.
It is high time that the MHUD and MCM fast-tracked the MUFP to ensure that the low-cost houses in informal settlements can withstand climate-related events fuelled by climate change.
Fonteyn Ward 10 Councillor Percy Roacher, also MCM deputy mayor, had not responded to a WhatsApp questionnaire or calls at the time of publication.
