World Cities Day — Holding the line on eviction protections for the vulnerable
The proposed amendments to the Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act could erode constitutional protections against homelessness and unfairly criminalise community leaders acting in good faith.
World Cities Day has brought attention to the need for eviction protections for the vulnerable in South Africa. The Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE Act) currently provides constitutional protections against homelessness and safeguards against unfair criminalization of community leaders acting in good faith. However, proposed amendments to the PIE Act could undermine these protections and erode constitutional rights to housing.
Key aspects of the current PIE Act include court oversight in eviction proceedings and consideration of the needs of vulnerable groups such as minor children, female-headed households, elderly or disabled persons. The state is also obligated to provide temporary emergency accommodation if an eviction leads to homelessness.
Two particularly harmful amendments have been proposed. The first limits the duration of temporary emergency accommodation, with courts determining the length of stay. This could effectively defer evictions into homelessness, as people often lack alternatives. The second amendment introduces new criminal offenses for inciting, arranging, organizing, or permitting land occupations, with fines up to R2-million or two years in prison.
This proposed amendment would criminalize people acting in good faith, such as community leaders helping families after a fire, or neighbors pooling resources for utilities.
Critics argue that the amendments focus on "syndicates" and bad actors, rather than addressing poverty. They also criticize the Department of Human Settlements' claims that unlawful occupations place a financial and administrative burden on the government, stating that the state should plan and budget for temporary emergency accommodation.
The Khampepe Commission of Inquiry found that only 5.74% of inspected properties had allegations of rent collection by unauthorized persons, suggesting that many occupants are driven by poverty.
The courts have emphasized the principle of non-retrogression, meaning that protections once established should not be weakened or rolled back by the government. This principle was applied in the Tafelberg case in July 2026, where Ndifuna Ukwazi and Reclaim the City challenged the Western Cape government's plan to sell public land in Sea Point. The Constitutional Court upheld the protections against unlawful evictions, ensuring that human rights are not compromised.
Written by urgent.news from Daily Maverick's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
