News & Press: Announcements

SAIAT : Comment on A4C Petition and Cape Messenger article

Friday, 17 March 2017   (3 Comments)
Posted by: Jacquie Cullis
Share |

Date: 16 March 2017

Dear SAIAT Member


Following the previous correspondence sent to members regarding the above on 03 March 2017:

SAIAT recognizes every individual registered architectural professional’s freedom of speech and association as detailed in the Constitution of South Africa. Such freedom however requires the registered architectural professional to act with dignity and not bring the profession into disrepute by spreading or participating in activities that perpetuate the spread of misleading information.

Quite a few allegations are made in a petition run by “Architects for Change” (A4C) as well as in media reports that we believe to have an ulterior motive.

It is clear from statements made by A4C that the group only recognises “architects” as professionals that should be involved in architecture and hence their call that “architecture must be run by architects”.

Recognition of Prior Learning and the recognition of the other categories of registration are discarded by means of the statement that “board members” do not have relevant “qualifications”. It should be noted that in terms of the Architectural Profession Act it is not “board members” but councilors.

We assure our members that there was indeed “due process” followed in the appointment of the fourth term SACAP councilors. SAIAT was represented on the selection panel at the time. Councilors appointed to the SACAP Council are appointed by the Minister and not SACAP. The Act requires that seven professionals must be appointed to the council of which four must be in active practice and that it should be done on a representative basis. The fourth council since the proclamation of the Architectural Profession Act in 2000 is indeed the first council that meets this requirement.

From the petition and television interview it appears that A4C believes all SACAP staff and council members should be from the architectural profession, including the registrar. This is not stipulated in the Act.

Council is being accused of being “unrepresentative of demographics”. It should be remembered that council is not appointed by SACAP but by the minister after nominations are received from the state, public, voluntary associations and professionals. Nominations received for the current council term were

·         1 × Draughtsperson

·         1 × Technologist

·         4 × Senior Technologists

·         6 × Architects

from which

·         1 × Draughtsperson

·         1 × Technologist

·         2 × Senior Technologists

·         3 × Architects

had to be appointed by the Minister.

The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa is the supreme law to which all other acts and regulations must comply. Second to that is the Competitions Act. The mere fact that the Competitions Commissioner has declared the IDoW’s (policy being the responsibility of the Council for the Build Environment) restrictive and therefore not compliant with the Competition Act and the Fee Structures as uncompetitive, indicate that the requirements for these in all the Build Environment Acts may be unconstitutional.

There are formal ways to enquire about salary structures etc. A mere “calculation” based on financial statements alone can result in incorrect assumptions being made if the context of the reporting mechanism is not understood.

SAIAT believes the group “Architects for Change” are promoting for change in order to revert back to what existed under the previous 1970’s Architects Act and do not support the need for transformation within the architectural profession.

SAIAT do and will continue to support the vision and mission of SACAP in transformation of the architectural profession for ALL categories of registered professionals.

For and on behalf of



Director: Executive President


Gerhard T. Scheepers says...
Posted Friday, 28 July 2017
Before architects were redefined by a new government our fees worked such that if you worked for less than the gazetted fees you were to report such discounting. From that I understood gazetted fees to establish a baseline from which to work and if you charged higher then you entered a different sphere, a step you did not have to report i.e. into the free market where competition functions. The baby got thrown out with the bath water by new brooms acting as feather dusters. Perhaps Misters Dekker and Luckan are aiming for more letters - Minister. I say scrap all CPD points until ministers are forced to obtain them first, given that with their self-administered millions they will pay much more for them. No, just joking really, just scrap ministers because judges are cool, sufficient.
Albertus J. Smuts says...
Posted Wednesday, 29 March 2017
Show us where your salary calculations come from with an explanation then... This is another ridiculous dodging of the actual issues. Insinuating that A4C is trying to promote 1970's style tactics is a straw-man argument that will not hold.
Videshkumar Boodu says...
Posted Friday, 17 March 2017
Thank you SAIAT