What the Minister actually said
The Council for the Built Environment investigated four collapses between December 2025 and March 2026 — in Verulam, Soweto, Sea Point and Ormonde. The pattern was the same each time: inconsistent enforcement, weak oversight, and non-compliance with a regulatory framework that already exists on paper. In one case a five-storey building was going up with no approved plans and no construction work permit, and the Department of Employment and Labour had never been told the site was active.
The Minister’s conclusion was blunt. People cannot treat compliance with building legislation as optional simply because breaking the law costs less than obeying it — and, in his words, that balance has to change. He went further on penalties: where professional misconduct costs lives, a fine is not a sufficient deterrent, and the department’s view is that such cases should at the very least be treated as manslaughter.
Where owners, developers, contractors or professionals deliberately ignore statutory requirements, penalties must provide a real deterrent.
The recommendations on the table
The CBE has been directed to share its findings with the affected municipalities and stakeholders, and where the reports point to possible criminal conduct, that information goes to law enforcement.
- Stronger sanctions where owners, developers, contractors or professionals deliberately ignore statutory requirements.
- Far stronger consequences where non-compliance contributes to a death or serious injury.
- Real consequences for ignoring stop-work notices.
- Better information-sharing between municipalities, the Department of Employment and Labour, the NHBRC and the professional councils — so a known risk in one system is visible to the others.
- A review of penalties so low they have become a cost of doing business rather than a deterrent.
Why this matters far beyond a construction site
The collapses were construction failures. But read the findings again and they describe a culture rather than a category: the rules existed, enforcement lagged, and the people responsible weighed the cost of compliance against the cost of being caught. The Minister is now changing that arithmetic — and the Department of Employment and Labour, the same department whose inspectors enforce the Occupational Health and Safety Act in your building, is named in the recommendations.
For anyone who owns, leases or manages an occupied building, this is the clearest signal yet of how safety regulation in South Africa will be enforced from here: fewer warnings, sharper consequences, and regulators talking to each other.
The Physical Agents Regulations are now in force
Two and a half weeks after that announcement, on 6 September 2026, the Physical Agents Regulations came into force under the OHS Act. Emergency escape-route lighting is now an explicit statutory requirement for every qualifying workplace — not good practice, not a recommendation, but law. In practice that means certified luminaires (SANS 1464-22) on every escape route, a design that meets SANS 10114-2, and records that prove both are being tested and maintained.
Inspectors from the Department of Employment and Labour can serve improvement notices, and prohibition notices that close off part of a building, on workplaces that fall short. The two announcements belong together: one says the state is done treating compliance as optional; the other adds emergency lighting to the list of things it will check.
Where the duty of care is heaviest
Every workplace under the OHS Act is covered. But the buildings where emergency lighting matters most are the ones where people cannot simply walk out on their own in the dark:
- Hospitals, clinics, step-down facilities and frail-care homes — patients, night shifts, and corridors that must stay navigable when the mains fail.
- Retirement villages and old-age homes, where mobility and eyesight turn an unlit stairwell into a genuine hazard.
- Schools, colleges and university campuses — high occupancy, constant movement, and a duty of care to minors and young adults.
- Shopping centres, hotels and public venues, where most of the people inside have never seen the escape route before.
- Public-sector buildings, which carry the same OHS Act duties as private ones and are increasingly under the same scrutiny.
What a responsible owner does this month
None of this needs to be dramatic. Compliance can be phased; the duty of care cannot be. A sensible sequence:
- Walk your escape routes with the 9-point check — final exits, stairs, changes of direction, corridor junctions, fire equipment. It takes ten minutes and tells you where you stand.
- Ask for the paperwork: a SANS 1464-22 certificate for every emergency luminaire, and a logbook showing monthly function tests and the annual full-duration test. No certificate and no logbook usually means no compliance.
- Get a gap assessment. A free walkthrough turns a vague worry into a costed list, prioritised by risk.
- Phase the work. Priority routes first — stairwells, final exits, wards and classrooms — then the rest on a roadmap your budget can carry. Conversion kits can bring existing fittings up to standard without a rip-and-replace.
- Keep the evidence. Certificates, the design, the logbook and the roadmap are your answer to an inspector, an insurer, or a board asking what you did and when.
The GELS view: partnership, not penalties
We don’t lead with the stick — and this article isn’t one. The Minister’s words are simply a fact of the environment every building owner now operates in, and our job is to make compliance the easy path: assessment, design, certified product, installation and the logbook to prove it, in one accountable team. If your building falls short today, the most useful thing you can do is start; the second most useful is to tell us where it hurts, so the roadmap fits the budget as well as the regulation.
Sources
See where your building stands.
Run the free 9-point escape-route check, or talk to the compliance team — we advise on the technical and legal detail wherever you need it.