by Lushika Mooloo -Concerned Community Forum
The Concerned Community Forum (CCF), in solidarity with the lawful stallholders of the historic Marabastad Retail Market, issues this response to the misleading, inconsistent, and strategically framed statement released by the Executive Mayor of the ANC led Tshwane Council, Dr Nasiphi Moya.
While the Mayor (together with members of the ANC and other smaller parties in Council, who sanctioned her actions) seeks to portray the closure of the Marabastad Market as part of a broader campaign to reclaim the inner city and enforce by-laws, a closer examination reveals a deliberate abuse of municipal power, failure of due process, and a thinly veiled attempt to dispossess lawful traders in favour of speculative property interests linked to the City’s upcoming Property Investment Summit.
- “Prior to the by-law operation… Mayor Moya and her team held stakeholder engagements… and told them they were coming to clean Marabastad.”
Rebuttal:
This statement is fundamentally dishonest. The so-called stakeholder engagement was nothing more than a surface-level visit, during which the Mayor and her delegation gave no indication of their intent to shut down the legal operations inside the Marabastad Market. Stallholders were under the impression that the clean-up would target:
– Illegal dumping
– Criminal syndicates
– Unregulated street vendors operating outside the market boundaries Instead, the clean-up became a de facto eviction operation, with no notice, no written communication, and no opportunity to comply. This violates Section 3 of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA), which requires that affected parties be informed and consulted before adverse administrative actions are taken.
- “These regular by-law operations form part of the new administration’s overall strategy to reclaim the inner city and revitalize the economy…”
Rebuttal:
We reject this generalisation as a justification for selective and prejudicial enforcement. The Marabastad Market:
– Is a City-owned property, not a hijacked building.
– Houses legal tenants with valid lease agreements.
– Has been subject to routine compliance inspections in the past, without incident.
– Is not derelict, nor contributing to urban decay.
There is no rational connection between “revitalising the economy” and evicting compliant traders who pay rent and follow the rules. If the City genuinely sought revitalisation, it would invest in upgrading infrastructure, improving waste collection, and clamping down on unregulated activity — not punishing the very people who have sustained the site for decades.
- “Thirty-two disgruntled traders… approached the North Gauteng High Court…”
Rebuttal:
The traders were not “disgruntled” — they were denied access to their lawful place of business without notice, resulting in substantial financial losses, including the spoilage of perishable goods. Their urgent interdict was not political, but legal, and was granted on its merits. The North Gauteng High Court ruling on 31 July 2025 affirmed the traders’ legal standing and ordered the City to permit trade to resume, subject to submission of remaining documentation (primarily trading licences) within 8 days. This confirms that the stallholders were not lawless occupants, (as described by the Mayor, who initially claimed that a main lessee for the market was illegally sub letting to the stallholders). The stallholders were legal tenants exercising their right to due process. This despite the Mayor, on the day of the closure of the market.
- “The closure… is not ‘an attack on the Indian legacy’… but part of reclaiming the inner city.”
Rebuttal:
The City cannot claim neutrality while simultaneously erasing one of the few remaining economic spaces tied to the Indian community’s historical identity in Pretoria. The Marabastad Market: Is a cultural institution, established by Indian traders forcibly relocated under apartheid’s Group Areas Act. Remains one of the last remnants of the
historic Asiatic Bazaar, which was systematically dismantled by the apartheid regime.
Is now being excluded from Municipal heritage preservation and economic development planning.
If the closure was not an attack on the Indian legacy, then why:
– Were lawful Indian stallholders not consulted about the City’s plans?
– Was there no cultural or heritage impact assessment conducted prior to closure?
– Has the City refused to engage the community in the planning of the site’s redevelopment?
This is not reclamation — it is erasure through exclusion.
- “Strategic city-owned properties have been identified… and are being prepared for the Property Investment Summit in September 2025.”
Rebuttal
The real motive behind the closure of the Marabastad Retail Market is not compliance or urban renewal — it is strategic land clearance ahead of the September 2025 Property Investment Summit. Its inclusion in the Bad Buildings Portfolio, led by MMC Kholofelo Morodi, is both factually incorrect and procedurally flawed.
– The “Bad Building” Label: A Misuse of Authority
– A “bad building” is typically defined as one that is:
– Structurally unsound or condemned,
– Illegally occupied or hijacked,
– A health, safety, or criminal risk.
The Marabastad Market meets none of these criteria. It is:
– Structurally intact and actively used.
– Lawfully leased by longstanding tenants
– Compliant with fire, health, and trading regulations.
No structural report, notice of condemnation, or lawful process supports this classification. The timing — just weeks before the Investment Summit — makes the motive clear: this is economic displacement disguised as by-law enforcement. Using the “bad building” label in this context is a deliberate misuse of municipal authority, aimed at removing lawful tenants from a strategically located, high-value public asset. This is a textbook case of economic displacement, where heritage and livelihoods are sacrificed for commercial optics. The community was not consulted, nor were the traders offered inclusion in any future vision. This is not urban renewal — this is economic displacement in disguise.
- “It is alleged that the market’s parking lot has been hijacked… and rented out to informal traders.”
Rebuttal:
If the Mayor and her administration were aware of these hijackings — including the Maputo asylum seeker managing the parking lot and the Nigerian national controlling the Old Bus Stop — then:
– Why were these areas not the primary focus of the by-law operation?
– Why was the enforcement directed at compliant stallholders inside a regulated market?
– Why has no legal action been taken against the known syndicates?
The Mayor’s failure to act on confirmed cases of hijacking while shutting down a lawful market exposes a glaring contradiction. Selective enforcement undermines the City’s credibility and raises questions about the real interests being protected.
- “Residents are encouraged to report suspicious or fraudulent behaviour to the City.”
Rebuttal:
The City is not short of reports — it is short of action in the right places.
CONCLUSION:
The Executive Mayor’s statement seeks to position the City as a force for good governance and urban revitalisation. In reality, it reveals a troubling pattern of:
– Disregard for lawful tenants.
– Exploitation of compliance processes for political or commercial ends.
– Selective enforcement that leaves actual lawlessness untouched.
– Heritage erasure disguised as economic progress.
We call on the City of Tshwane to: Immediately reverse the classification of the Marabastad Market as a “bad building.” Investigate and act against the actual hijacked sites and those profiting from them. Involve lawful stallholders in all future planning around the site — including any redevelopment processes tied to the
Property Investment Summit.
Until then, no amount of media spin by the Mayor, the ANC-led Tshwane Council
or Ward 61 ANC Councillor, Naeem Patel, will erase the reality: the closure of the Marabastad Market was not about the law — it was about clearing the way for capital at the expense of community