Foyer Anderlechtois Inquiry Ends in Discord as Opposition Walks Out
The Brussels parliamentary commission of inquiry into the Foyer Anderlechtois social housing scandal delivered its final recommendations on Tuesday, July 14, but without the support of opposition parties, marking a contentious end to a two-month investigation that exposed deep political divisions in the Belgian capital.
The commission, which conducted approximately 143 hours of hearings and heard 50 witnesses, recommended formally prohibiting any individual intervention by administrators in housing allocation files—including recommending candidates, soliciting priority, or attempting to influence service decisions. However, the opposition, led by Ecolo group leader Zakia Khattabi, walked out of proceedings before the vote.
Context
The scandal erupted in May 2026 when the Flemish public broadcaster VRT’s investigative program Pano reported that Lotfi Mostefa, president of Foyer Anderlechtois and housing alderman of Anderlecht, had allegedly used his position to influence social housing allocations. The report was based on hundreds of voice messages suggesting cronyism and political interference in a system meant to operate on objective criteria and waiting lists.
Foyer Anderlechtois is the second-largest social housing company in the Brussels-Capital Region, managing approximately 4,100 units and housing over 8,000 residents. The scandal unfolded against the backdrop of a severe housing crisis, with some 60,000 households on waiting lists across the region.
Key Developments
According to La Libre Belgique, the commission’s core recommendation targets the core of the scandal: a formal ban on individual intervention by administrators in allocation files, backed by mandatory whistleblower protection and a code of conduct for all social housing companies.
Zakia Khattabi, addressing Groen, her coalition partner, criticized the process in scathing terms: “Since day one, we have denounced a method that tramples on the rights of the opposition, but above all on the rights of Parliament: an untenable timeline, documents transmitted the day before or just hours before hearings organized at breakneck speed… No clear method for drafting the report… And today, the epilogue is a reflection of everything else: improvised, locked down, and profoundly disrespectful.”
The MR (Mouvement Réformateur) pushed for sweeping reforms including depoliticization of social housing allocation, mandatory professionalization of management, anonymized and digitized applications, and stronger whistleblower protection. DHnet reported that the majority parties—MR, PS, and Les Engagés—had reached agreement on a package of reform recommendations.
Loubna Azghoud, MR group leader, stated that the recommendations should lay the foundations for a reform of the entire Brussels social housing sector and constitute “a break that the 60,000 households on the waiting list are waiting for.”
Analysis
The commission’s contentious conclusion reflects deep political tensions in Brussels. The MR and PS, rivals at the local level in Anderlecht, are coalition partners at the regional level under Minister-President Boris Dilliès (MR)—a dynamic that complicated the inquiry from the start. Les Engagés found themselves caught in the middle, with their former rapporteur Marie Cruysmans resigning due to the intense pace of work.
Key figures Lotfi Mostefa and director general Laurent Gabele both testified but declined to answer questions, citing their right to defense in the parallel judicial investigation. The Brussels public prosecutor’s office has opened at least four investigations into Foyer Anderlechtois, with the OCRC (Central Office for the Repression of Corruption) leading the latest probe.
What’s Next
The report and recommendations are scheduled for a vote in the final plenary session before the parliamentary recess on July 17. Minister-President Boris Dilliès is expected to convene ministers in conclave on July 16 to discuss next steps. However, without opposition support, the reforms may face implementation challenges, and questions remain about whether the recommendations will be binding or merely advisory.
The parallel judicial investigations continue without time limit, leaving the fate of those implicated—and the broader reform of Brussels social housing governance—uncertain.