Government has agreed to work with a Zulu royal delegation and civil society representatives on recovering unlawfully occupied state-owned buildings. For local businesses, the question is how that cooperation will translate into usable public assets, with credible budgets and a clear plan for residents.

Justice and Constitutional Development Minister Mmamoloko Kubayi said government had identified affected state buildings by street across all eight metropolitan municipalities and appointed lawyers to support recovery processes. She was briefing the media after talks in Pretoria on 26 October, according to SAnews’s report that day. The delegation was led by iNkosi Malusi Zondi, Chancellor of the Zulu King.

The fresh development is the agreement to collaborate, alongside an update on identification and legal preparation. Monday’s report does not announce completed recoveries, a blanket eviction order or new funding. Kubayi also said government was working with the private sector on repurposing buildings, with identification in secondary cities the next phase.

An existing programme with a funding constraint

The work predates this week’s meeting. On 8 September 2026, SAnews reported that the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Migration Management had prioritised action on about 2 400 non-compliant buildings across the metros. That is a broader category than the state-owned properties discussed on Monday. The figure should not be presented as 2 400 government buildings earmarked for recovery.

In September, Kubayi identified unfunded temporary emergency accommodation as a constraint on executing eviction and remediation orders. The committee’s proposed response included a national accommodation funding model led by Human Settlements, prioritisation of building-related court matters and common definitions and reporting.

The funding issue matters because appointing lawyers and identifying properties do not, by themselves, pay for accommodation or refurbishment. A workable recovery plan needs to connect each legal process to the resources and arrangements required to implement it.

The constitutional safeguard remains important. Section 26(3) of the Constitution requires a court order, following consideration of relevant circumstances, before someone can be evicted from their home. Political agreement to cooperate does not replace that process. Residents’ circumstances cannot be assumed from their nationality or a building’s condition.

What local businesses should watch

The September discussions linked building non-compliance to lost municipal revenue and pressure on water and electricity infrastructure. Mayors also proposed converting underused properties into student accommodation and affordable rentals. Those were proposals, rather than confirmed projects.

From a business perspective, successful reuse could support nearby shops and services by bringing buildings into sustained, managed occupation. Refurbishment could also generate work for contractors and maintenance firms. These are potential benefits, not forecasts of jobs, contracts or investment arising from Monday’s meeting.

Businesses assessing the prospects need more than a list of addresses. Useful project information would include the responsible public owner, the property’s condition, intended use, approved budget and procurement route. For housing conversions, the operating model matters too: who will manage the property, maintain it and collect affordable rents?

There is also a public-accountability test. Reporting should separate buildings identified, cases before courts, properties recovered and premises brought back into use. Combining those stages into one headline total would make it difficult to judge progress or understand where delivery has stalled.

For now, the cooperation agreement gives government another channel for engagement. The stronger economic signal would be a funded, property-by-property programme showing how lawful recovery, residents’ needs and long-term maintenance will be handled together. Until those details emerge, local firms have a policy development to watch, rather than a confirmed pipeline of commercial opportunities.

Related reading: Why building approvals and completed projects tell different stories.

KEEP READING