JOHANNESBURG, Gauteng — The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) has formally submitted its comments on the proposed Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land (PIE) Amendment Bill, cautioning that certain provisions could inadvertently weaken protections against homelessness. While the commission supports the broader legislative efforts to address building hijackings, unlawful occupations, and uncertainties in eviction procedures, it warns that the bill must carefully account for the harsh realities of poverty, severe housing shortages, and land insecurity.
The debate over the amendment bill unfolds amid ongoing tensions between property rights, municipal service delivery pressures, and the constitutional right to access adequate housing. Recent court rulings involving informal settlements have further highlighted the complex balance required to enforce the law while protecting vulnerable communities.
Providing historical context, SAHRC Commissioner Philile Ntuli (also referred to as Commissioner Billy during the broadcast) noted that the commission recently hosted a constitutional dialogue on June 19 to reflect on the legacy of the 1913 Native Land Act. Ntuli emphasized that more than a century later, structural inequalities in land, housing, and economic opportunities persist. Therefore, any discourse on evictions and property rights must be rooted in South Africa’s constitutional commitments to dignity, equality, and transformation.
Balancing Enforcement and the Realities of Poverty
Addressing the core concerns of the amendments, the commission acknowledged the warnings raised by activist groups regarding the potential criminalization of poverty. The SAHRC recognizes that South Africa faces a profound housing crisis rather than a mere enforcement challenge, with many individuals occupying land simply because they lack viable alternatives.
However, the commission also pointed out that some occupations are organized for profit or involve criminal exploitation. The critical challenge for lawmakers, according to Ntuli, is to draft legislation with sufficient constitutional safeguards that distinguish between vulnerable people seeking shelter and those deliberately exploiting unlawful occupations for personal gain. The commission’s submission is designed to bring awareness to areas requiring attention to ensure the bill passes constitutional muster without criminalizing citizens due to poverty.
The Demand for Meaningful Public Participation
A major focal point of the SAHRC’s submission is the necessity of meaningful public participation. The commission argues that without affording the public a genuine opportunity to comment, citizens are deprived of their role as active participants in shaping the country’s legislative framework.
Ntuli stressed that the consultation process must be substantive rather than merely procedural. Marginalized communities most affected by evictions frequently face significant barriers to participation, including digital exclusion, language differences, transport costs, and limited access to legal information. Consequently, the commission has urged lawmakers to halt any further progression of the bill until all affected South Africans have a meaningful opportunity to voice their concerns and influence the policy.
Addressing Root Causes and Urban Migration
Looking at the broader picture, the SAHRC maintains that unlawful occupation cannot be viewed in isolation from South Africa’s systemic challenges, including spatial injustice, inequality, and the broader land reform project. While eviction legislation can effectively regulate processes, it cannot independently resolve the underlying drivers that push people into informal settlements.
Ntuli emphasized that the PIE Amendment Act must be integrated within the wider framework of land restitution, redistribution, and security of tenure. Furthermore, the commissioner highlighted the rapid migration of rural citizens into urban areas. This demographic shift places immense pressure on local governments to provide adequate housing, underscoring the critical need for a balanced, comprehensive approach to the proposed legislation that addresses both immediate enforcement and long-term spatial justice.
