Dailymaverick logo

South Africa

CONSTRUCTION DISASTER

George building collapse: Tribunal finds engineer who signed off plans guilty on five charges

The week a report on the biggest construction disaster in South Africa was released, the Engineering Council of South Africa revealed it had sanctioned the Paarl engineer who signed off on the plans.
George building collapse: Tribunal finds engineer who signed off plans guilty on five charges An architect’s impression of the apartment blocks that were to be called 75 Victoria that collapsed during construction. (Illustration: Supplied)

The Engineering Council of South Africa (ECSA) announced on Tuesday, 22 July 2025, that “an ECSA-registered person”, implicated in the tragic structural collapse of a building in George on 6 May 2024, had been found guilty of five contraventions of the law.

One of these includes a “misrepresentation of academic qualifications and competency”.

The engineer will be charged with five counts related to failing to comply with relevant legislation governing the industry, including the Engineering Profession Act, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act, the National Environmental Management Act, and the Employment Equity Act.

These charges follow the suspension of the registration of the engineer, who was unnamed in the media statement, in June 2024 and which had been informed by a decision taken by an Engineering Council of South Africa disciplinary tribunal.

Shortly after the collapse of the building, Daily Maverick reported that Paarl-based engineer Athol Mitchell, whose signature appears on George building plans in possession of Daily Maverick, “went missing”. He was later found.

The Pink Ladies Facebook Post.
The Pink Ladies Facebook Post on the missing Athol Mitchell.

Read more: Consulting engineer who signed off plans for collapsed George building reported missing — later found

The council said that it had maintained “active cooperation with law  enforcement authorities” and that “in line with this commitment, the disciplinary ruling,  investigation report and supporting evidence have been referred to the South African  Police Service (SAPS) for further investigation and action in accordance with the  Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977”.

Penalties

The council announced that it had imposed the maximum permissible monetary penalty on “the Respondent”, which had been informed “by the findings of the investigation report into the collapse and the possible improper conduct of any Engineering Council of South Africa-registered persons”. 

On 8 July, Public Works and Infrastructure Minister Dean Macpherson received a report on the collapse of a five-storey residential property development in George, and promised to share this with families.

The report, compiled by the Council for the Built Environment, comes more than a year after the collapse of the residential property development that caused the deaths of 34 people and injured 28.

Read more: Report on ‘entirely preventable’ George building collapse will form part of police probe — Macpherson

Previous complaints

The council said the decision to suspend “the member” came after findings that the George building disaster had been the third complaint that had been lodged against the engineer.

“In 2019, the Engineering Council of South Africa received the first complaint against the Respondent, and upon review by the investigating committee it was concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of a breach of the ECSA’s Code of Conduct,” read the statement.

A subsequent complaint was lodged in December 2023, and an independent investigation by the Engineering Council of South Africa’s governing council determined that there “was prima facie evidence of improper conduct”. 

The formal disciplinary hearing was convened before the tribunal, which found the engineer guilty of contravening Rules 3.1(a) and 3.1(c) of the Code of Conduct. 

Charges

The council said the engineer also faced charges for violations of the Code of Conduct and the Code of Practice for the Performance of Engineering Work.

This included failures “to discharge duties to employers, clients, associates and the public with due care, skill and diligence and to adhere to professional norms when carrying out work” as well as “misrepresentation, or knowingly permitting misrepresentation, of academic or professional qualifications or competency”.

Further charges were “a failure to give due regard to and prioritise the  health, safety and interests of the public as well as a failure to comply with  relevant legislation”.

The defence

The Engineering Council of South Africa revealed that the implicated engineer had sent formal notice to the body via his legal representative that he would not be participating in the hearing, and that it should continue in his absence.

“A plea of not guilty was entered on the Respondent’s behalf. The Tribunal, comprising a duly admitted attorney (Chairperson) and 2 (two) suitably qualified Engineering Council of South Africa-registered persons (Tribunal Members), heard expert evidence presented by the ECSA in support of the  charges, based on the findings of the investigation report,” read the statement.

The tribunal found him guilty of all five charges, and in accordance with Section 32(3)(a) of the act, the Tribunal was empowered to impose one or more permitted sanctions: a maximum permissible fine calculated in terms of the Adjustment of Fines Act and a cancellation of the engineer’s registration and removal from the register.

Read more: Buried alive — 2024, the year one of SA’s biggest construction disasters blighted the landscape

The council said it extended its “deepest sympathies to the families who lost their loved ones, those who were injured and everyone in the George community affected by this devastating tragedy. We are willing to cooperate with any affected people who intend to pursue legal action against the Respondent.” DM

Comments

Shaun Swanby Jul 24, 2025, 12:04 PM

The Engineer is part of a team which includes the Client and Contractor. It appears that all contributed to the collapse. The only people that were not negligent was the H&s practitioner that resigned after warnings were ignored and the scaffolding sub-contractor that also pointed out major concerns.