LGE 2026 Manifestos: Housing, land and title deeds promises, and the council’s share of them

What we did: we took the manifesto data for the twelve parties as at 22 October 2026 and counted every promise that the comparison page places under “Housing, land and title deeds”, by the verdict on each. Sources are listed at the end.

We also keep Integrity Watch, a public register of documents that were corrected, withdrawn, refunded or punished after someone found made-up material in them.

This folio is about a different kind of check. It asks which of the housing, land and title deeds promises in election manifestos sit within a council’s powers, and which another sphere leads.

The 2026 local elections in short #

The vote. South Africans vote in local government elections on 4 November 2026. They choose the councillors who run 257 municipalities: 8 metropolitan (big-city), 44 district and 205 local. The Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC) certified 136,790 candidates for 10,526 council seats. On 15 October 2026 the Constitutional Court directed the IEC to take the steps needed to put 181 ANC candidates on the ballot in six municipalities, so the final count will change. On 16 October 2026 the IEC said 32 other parties in the same position would get the same relief.

How many parties. 732 political parties are registered with the IEC at various levels. The IEC says 546 of them nominated candidates for this election.

What a council does. South Africa has three spheres of government: national, provincial and local. Part B of Schedules 4 and 5 of the Constitution list the matters a municipality may administer. There are 38 in all, among them drinking water and domestic waste-water and sewage systems, electricity and gas reticulation (the local networks), refuse removal, municipal roads and street trading. Jobs, schools, hospitals, welfare, the courts and immigration are not on those lists. A council can still lobby, partner with or press the government that holds the power.

What a manifesto is. A manifesto is a party’s published list of promises, so that voters can read them and decide.

What Ukweli did. Ukweli has analysed twelve party manifestos for this election. It found 2,419 promises and quoted each in the party’s own words, with its page. It checked each promise it could assess against the Constitution’s lists of what a council does. Where a sentence is too short or vague to test, or Ukweli’s checks did not settle it, the card says “Could not be assessed by Ukweli”. Where a sentence promises several things that fall under different powers or spheres of government, the card says “Mixes different powers”. Both labels describe Ukweli’s check, not the party.

Who is in. The twelve parties are shown below. Ukweli analyses any 2026 local government manifesto it can obtain from the party’s own publication. That is a rule about documents, never a judgement about a party. Parties have reported 19 manifesto launches; for the other seven, Ukweli cannot reach a readable document online. Many other parties contest the election, and this folio does not cover them.

Each party’s assessment is one click away.

ACDPRead the assessment →ActionSARead the assessment →AMMRead the assessment →ANCRead the assessment →BOSARead the assessment →DARead the assessment →EFFRead the assessment →FF PlusRead the assessment →GOODRead the assessment →IFPRead the assessment →SACPRead the assessment →UDMRead the assessment →

Each button opens that party’s assessment on ukweli.io in a new tab, so this page stays open. Party logos belong to the parties and are shown for identification only. Ukweli is not affiliated with any party.

What Ukweli does not do. It does not score, grade, rank or endorse any party. It does not say whether a promise will be kept or whether it is affordable. A promise outside a council’s powers is not a false promise.

Figures in this section as at 22 October 2026. They come from the IEC, the Constitution’s schedules and Ukweli’s manifesto pages (sources at the end), and they move when a manifesto is added or the IEC publishes a new figure. Errors: hello@ukweli.io.

Who is responsible for housing, land and title deeds? #

South Africa has three spheres of government: national, provincial and local. Ukweli’s table of powers files housing (“building houses, title deeds, informal settlements”) as a power of national and provincial government, in Part A of Schedule 4 of the Constitution. The same table says what a council’s part is: “A council plans for housing, designates land for it and manages land use. Any council may take part in national housing programmes; only a council accredited by the MEC may administer one.”

In plain words, a council can plan for housing, set land aside for it and manage how land is used. It can take part in a national housing programme. It can run one only if the MEC has accredited it. MEC means a member of a province’s Executive Council.

Two other rows of the table matter for this theme. For social (rental) housing, the table says: “A council facilitates social housing and gives access to land, buildings and services in restructuring zones.” A restructuring zone is an area a municipality identifies for social housing, with the province’s agreement, and the Minister designates in the Gazette for approved projects (Social Housing Act, section 1). For policing and crime, it says: “A council enforces its by-laws and controls public nuisances and traffic. With the MEC’s approval it may run a municipal police service, whose functions include the prevention of crime.” The MEC in this row is not the housing MEC. The Police Service Act has its own definition of the member of the Executive Council, and section 64A also needs the approval of the members responsible for local government, finance, transport and traffic.

“Municipal planning” and “Building regulations” are items in Part B of Schedule 4 of the Constitution. Land reform is a different case. The table says land reform is set nationally, and that neither municipal schedule lists it.

That does not mean a council can do nothing about housing or land. A council may do what is reasonably necessary to carry out its functions, as Folio 08 explains. What Ukweli’s data says a council’s part is, promise by promise, is set out in the section “Led by another sphere, council has a role” below.

What the housing, land and title deeds promises are #

We counted every promise in the twelve manifestos that the comparison page files under “Housing, land and title deeds”, one of its ten themes. We found 158, from all twelve manifestos. Some sentences hold more than one promise, and we count each separately. Each promise sits under one theme only. A text search for housing words, such as house, housing, title deed and informal settlement, finds 43 promises under other themes. Most are under “Roads, transport and other infrastructure” (12), “Jobs, local economy and small business” (9) and “Running the council” (9). They are not counted here.

The IFP has one promise filed here. That is a count of filing, not of what the booklet says. A promise is filed under one theme only. A search of all 68 IFP promises in Ukweli’s data for housing words finds that one and no other. It reads: “Housing and dignity: IFP municipalities will identify suitable land and improve municipal planning to continue rolling out housing programmes, to address housing backlogs, support the redevelopment of hostels, and the formalisation of informal settlements, thereby providing much-needed support for quality housing, improved living conditions and restored dignity.” (page 12). It is one of the 23 that mix different powers, so it carries no verdict. This is a search of Ukweli’s data, not of the booklet itself. On 21 October, a test of every sentence in the IFP booklet found no promise missing from Ukweli’s data.

The theme is wider than houses. 78 of the 158 contain none of the housing words searched, and 46 of those 78 contain the word “land”.

Of the 106 promises Ukweli could assess, 59 are led by another sphere. That is more than the other three assessed groups put together (15, 12 and 20 make 47). The table shows each group.

Party by party #

Some parties have many promises filed under housing, land and title deeds and some have few. The counts below say how many promises are filed under this theme for each party, and nothing about how good they are or how much of a manifesto is about the subject. All twelve parties have at least one promise filed here. Ten of the twelve have at least one in the group led by another sphere. The FF Plus has six promises filed here and the IFP has one, and neither has one in that group.

GOOD’s document is its plan for the City of Cape Town.

Inside a council’s own powers #

15 of the 106 assessed promises (14.2%) are on a matter the Constitution lists for a municipality. Across all 1,865 assessed promises from the 12 manifestos combined, on every topic, 392 (21.0%) are within a council’s own powers. That says nothing about money or capacity. A promise can cite more than one item of the table.

13 of the 15 rest on one item, “Municipal planning”. Across the 15, the other items cited are “Building regulations” (4), “Public places” (4), “Control of public nuisances” (2), “Trading regulations” (1) and “Local amenities” (1). “Trading regulations” is also in Part B of Schedule 4, and “Public places”, “Control of public nuisances” and “Local amenities” are items in Part B of Schedule 5. Most of the 15 are about planning and land use, for example “Mayibuye will reduce unnecessary delays in lawful land-use and development applications through transparent administrative systems.” (AMM, page 37) and “Responsible land-use management.” (UDM, page 10).

None of the 15 rests on the housing, social housing or policing rows. Those three rows are behind the next section.

The 15 are not all the same kind of promise. Ukweli records what kind of act each sentence commits to:

• Deliverable (7): the sentence commits to making something exist or providing something, and a reader could later check whether it happened.
• Aspiration (5): the sentence states a result the party wants but names no act that would produce it.
• Process (1): the sentence commits to how the work is organised, paid for or overseen, rather than to the result itself.
• Type not settled (2): no kind is shown, because Ukweli’s data records the kind as not checked.

An aspiration is not a worse promise than a deliverable. The kind says only whether the sentence names an act that could be checked.

Led by another sphere, council has a role #

59 of the 106 assessed promises (55.7%) are here. That is more than the other three assessed groups put together. Across all 1,865 assessed promises from the 12 manifestos combined, on every topic, 189 (10.1%) are led by another sphere. So 59 of those 189 (31.2%) are filed under this theme. Ten of the twelve parties have at least one here.

What the label means for these promises

The label comes from Ukweli’s table of powers. For each of the 59, the table row behind the verdict names a main power held by another sphere. The same row also names a part for the council. Three rows account for all 59. Here is each one in the table’s own words.

The rows add to 61 because two promises cite both the housing row and the social housing row.

So the data gives the council a defined part in every one of the 59. It does not give the council the lead. For housing, the table puts the lead with national and provincial government. The council plans, sets land aside, manages how land is used, and may take part in a national programme. Whether it can run one itself depends on accreditation.

Why so many promises are here

Three things in the data explain the size of this group.

1. The group follows the table row, not the way a party wrote the sentence. Every promise in this theme that rests on one of the three rows is in this group, 59 of 59. None of the 15 within a council’s powers, the 12 about how the council runs itself or the 20 outside rests on any of them.
2. Most of this group rests on the housing row. 54 of the 59 do, and the table files housing as a national and provincial power.
3. Two more rows sit outside the municipal lists. 4 promises rest on the social housing row, where the table gives the main power to a national framework. 3 rest on the policing row, where the main power is national. All 3 are about land invasions, land grabs or illegal occupation (ACDP, page 11; DA, page 48; UDM, page 8).

What these promises ask for

We counted words in the 59 sentences. This is the folio’s own word search, not Ukweli’s finding. 5 mention title deeds, 4 mention informal settlements, 8 mention allocation or waiting lists, 3 mention serviced sites, and 18 contain the word “land”. By kind, 32 are deliverables, 12 are aspirations, 6 are process promises and 9 have no kind settled. Some examples:

• “Delivering title deeds for previously built and new state-subsidised housing, ensuring legal ownership and supporting the housing market.” (DA, page 47). Housing row.
• “Develop and allocate serviced sites to qualifying households as a quick response to the housing crisis, while ongoing efforts for long-term housing solutions are in progress.” (EFF, page 47). Housing row.
• “Eradicate informal settlements by prioritising permanent and modern housing solutions over temporary shacks;” (ACDP, page 8). Housing row.
• “Mayibuye will establish social housing companies in all municipalities.” (AMM, page 34). Social housing row.
• “Putting in place programmes to prevent illegal land grabs and occupations by capacitating municipal police to respond promptly against any parties who intend to proceed with land grabs.” (DA, page 48). Policing row.

The check the table attaches

For 57 of the 59, the table attaches a check on a fact that differs from council to council.

The table carries the question and the place to check. It does not record the answer for any council. None of the 2,419 promise sentences, in this theme or any other, mentions MEC accreditation of a council. So for these promises the table itself says the answer can differ from one council to the next. We did not check which councils the MEC has accredited.

What the sentences say about other spheres

Of the 59 sentences, 4 contain the words province, provincial, national or department. This is a word count. It says nothing about what any party plans. Two examples:

• “Working across government: Where housing programmes or funding fall under provincial or national government, municipalities will actively work with those spheres to accelerate delivery rather than treating divided responsibilities as an excuse for inaction.” (ActionSA, page 56)
• “Housing development planned with national and provincial departments, close to jobs, schools, transport, clinics, infrastructure and economic opportunity.” (UDM, page 8)

What the label does not say

The label does not say a promise is false. It does not say a council can do nothing, because the table names a part for the council in every case. It says the lead sits with another sphere, and it shows what the council’s part is.

How the council runs itself #

The 12 promises here (11.3%) are about the council’s own machinery: how it keeps lists of its land and buildings, audits them, communicates about housing and screens who benefits. 7 of the 12 contain the word “land”. ActionSA, AMM and the ANC have two or three each, and BOSA, the DA, the FF Plus, GOOD and the UDM have one each. One example (ANC, page 14): “Within a hundred days, every ANC-led municipality publishes a complete list of the land and buildings it owns, ward by ward, marking what public amenities are in use and their functionality, stands empty, what is leased, what is derelict and what is available.” The 12 promises here rest on the Constitution’s rules for how a council governs itself and how public administration is run, in sections 151(3), 152(1), 156(5), 195(1), 215(1) and 217(1). They sit apart from the promises above because they are about how the council works, not what it provides.

Outside a council’s powers #

20 promises (18.9%) are outside a council’s powers, as Ukweli placed them. Ukweli names a subject for each. 16 are about land reform and land ownership. The other four are in the table below. Across the 12 manifestos combined, 327 assessed promises on every topic are outside a council’s powers.

The 16 on land reform and land ownership. For this subject, Ukweli’s table says: “Land reform is set nationally. The Constitution requires the state to take reasonable measures to enable citizens to gain access to land on an equitable basis (section 25(5)), and tenure and restitution redress are owed 'to the extent provided by an Act of Parliament' (section 25(6) and (7)). Neither municipal schedule lists land reform; a municipality can plan land use (Municipal planning).” The 16 come from six parties: ACDP 3, DA 3, EFF 6, FF Plus 2, SACP 1 and UDM 1. By a word search of the 16, 5 speak of property rights or owners’ interests, 2 mention redistribution, 2 mention expropriation, and 3 are about evictions, land invasions or unlawful occupation. Promises to protect property rights and promises to redistribute land are both among them. Examples:

• “Oppose the expropriation of land without compensation and advance land reform and development;” (ACDP, page 9)
• “PROTECT PROPERTY RIGHTS AND RESPECT PROPERTY OWNERS’ LAWFUL INTERESTS.” (FF Plus, page 16)
• “We must transform land ownership and redistribute land to redress the historical and continuing consequences of racial and gender discrimination.” (SACP, page 8)
• “Reserve between 5% and 10% of redistributed land specifically for persons living with disabilities, prioritising accessible agricultural support and equipment.” (EFF, page 18)
• “Standing firmly behind the DA’s Private Members Bill to amend the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 (PIE Act) to protect constitutionally entrenched property rights, curb orchestrated land invasions, and ensure that outdated legal loopholes no longer shield unlawful occupation.” (DA, page 48), which names a national law

The other four.

A promise outside a council’s powers is not a false one. A candidate can still say where they stand on it, and what they will ask national government to do. The 16 on land reform each name a matter the municipal lists do not give a council. On a second reading by two AI readers, both placed 13 of these 20 outside, one placed 1 outside and neither placed 6 outside (see Limits).

The promises with no verdict #

52 of the 158 (32.9%) carry no verdict. Across all 2,419 promises the share is 22.9%, so housing, land and title deeds is higher. The reasons:

By a word search for housing words, 30 of the 52 contain one and 22 do not. 15 of those 22 contain the word “land”. On a second reading by two AI readers, both said within on 11 of the 29 not assessed, and the readers split on 12 (see Limits).

Take “Complete a municipal land audit in order to release suitable land for serviced stands to encourage public participation in housing and stimulate economic activity;” (ACDP, page 8). Ukweli’s checks agreed that the sentence mixes matters that fall under different powers. The IFP’s one promise, quoted above (page 12), is another. It names municipal planning, which Ukweli’s table treats as a municipal matter, and housing programmes, which the table files as a national and provincial power. One verdict would be wrong for part of it. We do not guess. The card says so.

Our view #

This is the folio’s own view. It is kept apart from the counts above.

In Ukweli’s table, housing is led by national and provincial government, and a council has a defined part. That is why more than half of the assessed promises in this theme are in the group led by another sphere. A sentence such as “delivering title deeds” can hold two promises: what the council will do itself, and what it will ask the province or national government to do. A voter can ask any candidate to say which part is the council’s and which part another sphere’s. Land reform is different. The table puts it outside the municipal lists: it names a matter the lists do not give a council. A candidate can say where they stand on it.

Questions to put to any candidate #

What will the council do itself?

1. Is your council accredited by the MEC to run national housing programmes? If not, will you apply, and what will it take?
2. Which council land and buildings will you release for housing, in which year, and will you publish the list?
3. How long do land-use and building applications take now, and what time will you commit to?

What will you ask the province or national government to do?

4. Which housing projects, subsidies or title deeds need provincial or national action, and when will you ask for each?
5. If the province or national government does not act, what will the council do instead, and what will you tell residents?
6. On land reform, expropriation and property rights: what do you want national government to do, and what can the council do in the meantime?
7. What will you publish each year so residents can see which of these promises were kept, and which were left to another sphere?

Promises counted in two folios #

No housing, land or title deeds promise is also counted under another theme. So none is in Folio 10 (safety), Folio 11 (water), Folio 12 (electricity) or Folio 13 (waste). The 3 promises on the policing row are counted here and not in Folio 10.

A search of the 158 for immigration and border words finds one piece. It is an ANC sentence about responding to population growth, climate change and migration. Folio 09 records that passage as a statement with no immigration action, not as one of its 16 immigration promises. All 106 assessed promises are among the 1,649 promises about council business that Folio 08 counts across every topic. Each folio stands alone.