The claim that a Free State government home cost R3.6 million has prompted an official rejection. But the dispute turns on a question that the headline figure alone cannot answer: are we measuring the cost of building one home, or all the money spent on a stalled development against the homes available so far?
In a statement dated 3 November, the Ministry of Human Settlements rejected reports that individual units had been constructed for R3.6 million each. It nevertheless acknowledged cost increases caused by prolonged delays and confirmed that the projects are under investigation by the Hawks.
The projects concerned are Dark and Silver City’s top and bottom sites in Bloemfontein, and G-Hostel in Welkom.
What the parliamentary reply actually confirms
The original question and reply, NW5324, dated 29 October 2026, make an important distinction possible.
MK MP Thulani Innocent Gamede’s question refers to a R1.2 billion programme and a reported R3.6 million cost per completed unit, compared with an original R233,000 target. Those amounts appear in the question. Human Settlements Minister Thembi Simelane’s reply does not independently confirm them or supply a calculation of the cost of each home.
Her answer instead addresses the investigations. It says the Hawks in Bloemfontein are examining whether criminal conduct occurred in connection with material irregularities identified by the Auditor-General. No final determination of criminal responsibility was available.
The province also reported disciplinary processes under way. It anticipated concluding them during the 2027/28 financial year, with timing dependent on the progress of proceedings. That is an expected period, not a fixed completion date or a finding against any individual.
Where the R3.6 million calculation came from
An earlier Sunday Times investigation, published on 23 August, explained its calculation: a reported R427 million spent on Dark and Silver City’s bottom-site development, divided by 118 flats described as ready for occupation. That produces approximately R3.62 million for each flat counted at that point.
Those are the newspaper’s reported inputs. SBL has not independently inspected the underlying expenditure records or verified the number and condition of units represented by that denominator.
| Measure | What it can tell readers |
|---|---|
| Direct construction cost per home | The cost of building the unit, using a clearly defined scope of work. |
| Project spending divided by homes ready for occupation | How expenditure compares with usable output at a stated date. Spending may also relate to work outside the units counted. |
| Original planned cost per home | A budget benchmark. Comparing it with later spending requires equivalent scope and a consistent unit count. |
A disputed figure leaves the accountability questions open
The ministry’s statement calls for a distinction between total stalled-project costs and the actual cost of individual units. It does not provide a replacement unit-cost figure or a detailed reconciliation of spending and completed homes.
That leaves two separate matters for the public record. First, what does each properly defined cost measure show? Second, who was responsible for the failures being investigated?
A spending-to-output ratio can highlight a serious delivery problem without establishing the direct build price of every home. Equally, rejecting a unit-price interpretation does not explain where the full project budget went or resolve an investigation.
A meaningful reconciliation would show expenditure by project and purpose alongside units planned, built, ready for occupation and occupied, all at the same reporting date. It would also distinguish any remaining work from money spent on homes already available.
For households waiting for accommodation, the most useful next disclosures are therefore concrete: how many homes can be occupied, what work remains, when it will be completed and what the investigations conclude. The latest official response confirms that those accountability processes remain unfinished.
Reporting note: SBL reviewed the ministry’s 3 November statement, PMG’s transcription of question NW5324 and its reply, and the Sunday Times report explaining the earlier calculation. This article does not establish an audited unit cost or a finding of wrongdoing.
Leave a Reply