Paarl chemical plant residents wait on Parliament as demolition goes on

Residents living beside a chemical plant on erf 10795 in Paarl have waited more than two decades for someone to answer for what they say is prolonged exposure to hazardous substances. On Wednesday evening they got letters, not answers.

The National Assembly’s Executive Undertakings and Petitions Committee tabled their petition, referred to it by the Speaker on 19 August 2026, in a short sitting that ran through three petitions before turning to the committee’s own annual performance plan. The sitting was broadcast by Parliament of South Africa on YouTube.

The petition, submitted on behalf of the Paarl community, asks Parliament to investigate the plant, to establish the facts, to assess whether regulatory oversight was adequate and to secure remedial action. The petitioners say the facility operated unlawfully and that its activities, including the dismantling now under way, may have created a continuing risk to human health, occupational safety and the surrounding environment.

They say residents have been exposed for more than two decades. They allege that the current demolition is being carried out without adequate containment, independent oversight or enforcement, which they say raises the possibility of contamination, harmful exposure and the loss of evidence relevant to possible regulatory contraventions.

The petition asks Parliament to direct an immediate suspension of all demolition and of any action that could destroy evidence on the site, to secure and contain the site under independent oversight and transparent reporting, to put measures in place to protect workers, residents and children in the affected area, and to establish accountability for whoever permitted the dismantling.

The committee’s researcher recommended written submissions from the national Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, the Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, the Drakenstein Municipality and the relevant provincial health authorities. She also proposed asking health authorities for a proportionate health response plan covering clinical assessment, referral pathways, exposure record keeping and longer-term monitoring, and convening a joint briefing with the authorities, the petitioner and other parties.

The chair of the committee said the first thing to establish is who is doing the demolition, whether it is the private company that owns the plant, the municipality or a department. The researcher confirmed the petition does not state it. The chair asked for more research to find out who owns the plant, and said the letters would go out to the relevant bodies.

The second petition came from 67 concerned fishers and anglers in Mossel Bay, who want Parliament to exercise its oversight over the National Environmental Management Integrated Coastal Management Act 24 of 2008. They complain of prolonged administrative delay, limited implementation and no practical measures to give effect to Parliament’s own commitment to equitable access to coastal public property.

Their concerns include access to fishing spots, fishing permits, recreational fishing rights, launching facilities and harbour areas used by small-scale fishers and recreational anglers. They want a parliamentary investigation into how the Act is being implemented in the Mossel Bay municipal area, reports from the department responsible for coastal management, the Western Cape government, the Mossel Bay municipality and other organs of state, and a coastal access implementation programme with measurable objectives, priority projects, time frames, institutional responsibilities, funding and annual progress reports.

They also want a review of existing and historical public access routes, restoration of traditional routes where that is legally and environmentally feasible, registration of existing access areas as municipal servitudes, better signage, access for elderly people and people with disabilities, and continued participation by coastal communities in planning and monitoring. They ask Parliament to consider whether the problems in Mossel Bay point to wider failures in other coastal municipalities.

The chair said letters would go to the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, the Western Cape environmental authorities, the Garden Route District Municipality and the Mossel Bay Municipality, and that the committee would find out how decisions and licences are handled, including environmental considerations and the risk of overfishing. He suggested the municipality may already have a coastal access programme, which the responses should establish.

The third petition is from residents of Mqwala village in the Eastern Cape, who want the National Assembly to investigate the condition of the local road, the electricity supply, the primary school, and access to health services and housing. They present these as connected failures that affect daily life and need a coordinated government response.

They ask for a parliamentary investigation, clear explanations from the responsible authorities and practical remedial plans with time frames and a way of reporting progress back to the community. The committee’s researcher recommended letters to municipal, provincial and national stakeholders, including Eskom and COGTA, and an oversight visit or hearing with the petitioners, traditional leadership, ward councillors, municipal officials, school leadership, clinic representatives and residents. The petition should stay open until the interventions are delivered or formally included in funded plans.

The chair described the petition as very broad, covering electricity, housing, schools, health care and roads, with a number of entities to write to before any resolution or action plan can be put together. No member proposed anything further, and the letters will go out.

All three petitions remain to be considered.

What the committee could not do on the night was adopt its annual performance plan without a fight. Five members were on the platform and seven are needed to adopt, so the plan and the budget were held over, as they had been the previous week. The chair called the situation annoying and said the committee was three weeks from an election, with members split in many directions.

Members then telephoned colleagues. One member joined, taking the platform to six, and the plan was adopted with the addition of two items: that it reflect the committee’s constitutional mandate and that the committee report in March and September. The MK party recorded an objection to the adoption. The minutes of the 7 October meeting were also adopted.

The chair said the committee still has 21 petitions lodged for processing and 30 executive undertakings, and that the next term will be busy. It has not heard back from the Speaker on its request for her to intervene in what it called a negative response to a request for information from the Deputy President’s office, and it has had no further word since its September committee reports were received.

Asked by a member about the urgency of the Paarl petition, the chair agreed that urgent matters should come to the top, naming the Paarl matter and a school issue in the Eastern Cape. The letters would go out, and the committee would decide once the responses established what is actually happening on the site. He said travel may be possible in the fourth term, which is short and carries crucial votes.

The committee meets once more next Wednesday, the last sitting of this term, before it rises for the election on 21 October. It expects to return to in-person meetings after that.