The MR has obtained the creation of a parliamentary inquiry committee into the way social housing was allocated at Foyer Anderlechtois. This decision follows serious suspicions of favouritism surrounding its chairman, the socialist Lotfi Mostefa (PS), revealed by a Pano (VRT) report.
Stop favouritism! Social housing must be allocated according to clear and transparent rules, never on the basis of favouritism or networks of influence.
The MR will go all the way to shed full light on this affair, put an end to favouritism-based practices and restore trust in our public institutions.
Unfortunately, this affair does not seem to be an isolated case. Following new revelations about serious dysfunctions within the social housing agency (SISP) of Saint-Josse-ten-Noode, the MR is calling for the committee to broaden its scope of investigation and for a thorough review of the entire sector to be carried out.
Chronological summary
Foyer Anderlechtois manages around 4,100 social housing units. Like all Public Housing Companies (SISPs), it is subject to oversight by the Brussels-Capital Region Housing Authority (SLRB), responsible for verifying the regularity of housing allocations.
It was precisely on this issue that Foyer Anderlechtois found itself at the centre of controversy following a report by Pano (VRT). It implicates its chairman, the socialist Lotfi Mostefa (PS), also alderman for Housing in Anderlecht, in serious suspicions of favouritism and cronyism.
Given the seriousness of the alleged facts, the Brussels Parliament adopted, on 5 June 2026, the MR-Anders proposal to create a parliamentary inquiry committee.
Here is a brief summary of the events leading to its establishment:
| Period | Events |
| Early 2026 | Anonymous letter sent to the public prosecutor's office. Opening of a judicial investigation into alleged corruption in the allocation of a housing unit. |
| February 2026 | Conflict of interest involving Akremi (Vooruit), chairman of the SLRB, who was renting premises belonging to Foyer that he was responsible for overseeing. Resignation. |
| March 2026 | Revelations about a derogation committee operating without legal basis since 2021, allowing allocations outside the waiting list. |
| 20 May 2026 | Broadcast of the Pano (VRT) investigation after 18 months of research and around twenty testimonies. Suspicions of allocations to relatives of Lotfi Mostefa and use of public funds during the 2024 municipal election campaign. |
| 28 May 2026 | Searches carried out at Foyer Anderlechtois, at the Anderlecht municipal offices, and at the homes of Lotfi Mostefa and Akremi. |
| 5 June 2026 | Plenary vote on the creation of the inquiry committee (MR-Anders text A-296). Report expected by 21 July 2026. |
| 8 June 2026 | Committee summons: appointment of the committee's bureau members and order of proceedings. |
| 9 June 2026 | Extraordinary board meeting of Foyer Anderlechtois. |
Following these revelations, the public prosecutor's office, which had already opened three cases linked to Foyer Anderlechtois, including one under judicial investigation, announced the opening of a fourth investigation.
The parliamentary inquiry committee
An inquiry committee has powers comparable to those of an investigating judge. It can summon witnesses, hear them under oath, demand the production of documents or even lift certain limitations relating to professional secrecy.
This is why the MR requested the creation of such a committee:
- Scope: management and operation of Foyer Anderlechtois, allocation, exemption and transfer procedures, exercise of oversight by the SLRB and any legislative recommendations.
- Deadline: submission of the report by 21 July 2026 at the latest. Meetings are planned at least three times a week.
à This timetable is ambitious, but it reflects the urgency of the situation. The thousands of families waiting for social housing deserve quick and concrete answers. If new elements emerge during the proceedings, the MR will request an extension of the committee.
- Composition: 15 full members with voting rights, one alternate per represented group and 6 members with an advisory vote.
- Bureau: a chair, three vice-chairs and two rapporteurs.
The MR's position
Given the seriousness of the facts, the MR intends to go all the way in the search for the truth.
We are calling for:
- that Lotfi Mostefa (PS), chairman of Foyer Anderlechtois, step aside for the duration of the investigation;
- that the SLRB fully exercises the oversight and coordination duties entrusted to it under the Brussels Housing Code;
- that no political exploitation of social housing be tolerated;
- that the trust of the 60,000 households waiting for social housing be restored;
- that the committee's work be carried out in strict compliance with ongoing judicial proceedings.
à Investigating possible dysfunctions does not mean calling social housing into question. On the contrary, it is about protecting it by guaranteeing equal treatment, transparency of decisions and sound management of public funds.
Extending the inquiry to the social housing agency of Saint-Josse-ten-Noode
Just days after the creation of the parliamentary inquiry committee into irregularities at Foyer Anderlechtois, a damning new audit reveals that the social housing agency (SISP) of Saint-Josse-ten-Noode may have been committing fraud for over twenty years.
One thing is clear: these abuses do not seem to be limited to Anderlecht. They call for a broader review. The MR is therefore calling on the inquiry committee to extend its scope of investigation to the facts uncovered in Saint-Josse-ten-Noode, in order to shed full light on these practices and put an end to them.
Conclusion
Brussels residents who follow the rules have the right to a fair, transparent and impartial system.
Social housing must be allocated on the basis of objective criteria, never at the whim of favouritism or networks of influence.
Enough is enough!
It is time to shed full light on these affairs, to sanction any abuses and to restore trust in our public institutions.
Because there can be no genuine social policy without equal treatment. And there can be no trust without transparency.