The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) notes the Democratic Alliance’s (DA) proposals aimed at amending the Prevention of Illegal Eviction (PIE) Act, which are clearly an attempt to introduce apartheid era legislative provisions back into democratic South Africa. These proposals were introduced by the DA through a Private Members Bill in Parliament that seeks to reverse some of the hard-won gains of our democracy and criminalise Black people.
The PIE Act was placed into law in 1998 to counteract pre-1994 legislation that governed evictions during apartheid. It appreciates the country’s history of dispossession and forced removals and acknowledges that while private property rights are to be protected, the rights of those who own no land but are in need to housing must also be protected. Prior to 1994, the major piece of legislation governing evictions was the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act 52 of 1951, also known as PISA, which provided for criminal prosecution of those who occupied land unlawfully during apartheid.
Under PISA, simply living on land without permission, regardless of whether one was born there, was treated as a criminal act. Evictions were carried out swiftly through criminal courts, stripping Black people of their dignity, criminalising their existence, and reinforcing white minority control over land. The introduction of the PIE Act in 1998 was, therefore, a progressive departure from this cruel legacy: unlawful occupation was no longer a criminal offence; evictions could now only occur through a court order; and no person could be left homeless simply for lacking permission to exist on land in a country that was stolen from their ancestors.
The DA, however, wants to reverse this history by introducing the following five amendments to the PIE Act. First, they propose to criminalise anyone who incites, arranges, or organises land occupation without consent from the owner. Second, they want to increase the prison sentence for such a conviction from two to five years. Third, they are adding new criteria for courts to consider when deciding on evictions under six months, including the unlawful occupier’s financial status, health, and past living conditions.
Fourth, they seek to make it mandatory for municipalities or organs of state to be joined in eviction proceedings before any court-ordered alternative accommodation is made. Lastly, they demand that before courts can compel municipalities to provide such accommodation, they must consider the intention behind the occupation and the availability of resources.
These proposed amendments make no legal sense as occupation of land in the context of widespread homelessness is done without the consent of the owner. It is for this reason that PIE is there, to regulate the rights of those who occupy the land and the rights of the “owner”. Additionally, no one can “incite” people to occupy the land with the consent of the owner. This is a completely unnecessary addition to the PIE Act, and it seeks to bring back the draconian provisions of PISA mentioned above, by criminalising almost all those involved in the occupation of land.
Similarly, the proposal to increase the sentences of people who may be found guilty of having incited invasion of land speaks of the DA’s yearning for the dark days of PISA, wherein blacks were criminalised just for existing. Furthermore, the DA harps on about the “intention of the occupation,” while they also want the financial position of the occupier to play a role in the consideration of whether eviction would be just and equitable. However, it should be obvious that the intention of land occupation cannot be anything other than a manifestation of the country’s inability to resolve the land questions.
It is also well established in law that municipalities must be joined in eviction proceedings, and no court would proceed with such a case without their involvement or a report from the relevant municipality. This proposed amendment merely restates what is already standard practice and is therefore unnecessary. More concerning is the proposal that courts should still grant eviction orders even if it results in homelessness, simply because a municipality claims it lacks the resources to provide alternative accommodation.
It is very clear that the DA’s priority is to maintain the current conditions where the concentration of land is in the hands is a few, mostly white, and keep Black people as marginalised as possible, and continue to criminalise them. We have seen this in their many cases of illegal evictions in the Western Cape where they continue to flout the law in trying to erase the homeless, while the DA still refuses to provide low cost accommodation in the province.
Therefore, the EFF will fight this Bill so that these amendments never see the light of day. We continue to state that the best thing our country needs is expropriation of land without compensation, and the prioritisation of state custodianship is necessary if we are going to achieve equal distribution of land to all.
Julius Malema serves as the Commander-in-Chief of the EFF.
Silver Cup
One day we will all be writing like this.
Trixie Doodle
Yugoslavia: You have two cows. They die right after giving birth to 20 new cows.