Anthea Jeffery: Will the PIE Amendment Bill solve land invasions?

Across South Africa, a new legal battle is unfolding over land, housing, and the future of property rights. The proposed PIE Amendment Bill seeks to reshape the framework set by the Prevention of Illegal Eviction From and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act of 1998, amid claims it will restore balance to a worsening crisis of land invasions and property hijackings. But as illegal occupations spread from cities to farmland and industrial zones, the stakes for homeowners, municipalities, and investors continue to rise. This analysis explores the government’s promises, the hidden trade-offs, and the unintended consequences that could redefine ownership and enforcement in South Africa..By Dr Anthea Jeffery*.The government claims that an escalating crisis of property hijackings and unlawful land invasions – long encouraged by the PIE Act – will be curtailed by the PIE Amendment Bill, which creates a better “balance.” This claim is false.Illegal land invasions have accelerated over the past five years. Vacant municipal land intended for housing development remains a major target, but suburban properties in Upper Houghton in Johannesburg have now been invaded too. The hijacking of inner-city buildings, long evident in Johannesburg, has spread to Durban and elsewhere. Valuable farmland on the outskirts of towns has been seized and swiftly populated with shacks. The buffer zones that mines are legally required to maintain to protect residential areas from environmental damage have also been invaded, with major shack settlements erected on them overnight..The PIE Act.These large-scale and well-organised land invasions have been facilitated by the Prevention of Illegal Eviction From and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act of 1998 (“the PIE Act”). This prohibits the eviction of unlawful occupiers without prior court orders, which are generally time-consuming and costly to obtain. In addition, the PIE Act commonly bars the courts from ordering evictions unless municipalities or other organs of state provide “suitable alternative accommodation” to those who would otherwise be rendered homeless.Over time, it has become increasingly apparent that criminal syndicates and other organised groups are using the PIE Act to seize land or buildings and pack them full of unlawful occupiers, from whom rent and other payments are then extracted. Often the organisers illegally reconnect seized properties to municipal electricity and water supplies, racking up enormous bills which generally remain unpaid.The minister of human settlements, Thembi Simelane, claims to be countering such abuses via the PIE Amendment Bill of 2026 (“the Bill”), which is open for public comment until 15 June 2026. This Bill has some positive features, which the minister has applauded and played up. However, even these positive amendments have negative aspects. They are also far outweighed by damaging new clauses that further erode the property rights of all South Africans..Positive changes with negative aspects.First, the Bill introduces major fines “not exceeding” R2 million – along with prison terms of up to 2 years – for those convicted of “inciting, arranging or organising” land invasions. These are substantial penalties. They also make it easier to target organisers who incite land invasions but cannot be shown to have received or solicited money or other considerations.On the other hand, the existing Act sets no limit on the fines that could be imposed, whereas the Bill caps these at R2 million. By contrast, various other statutes and pending bills provide for much harsher penalties: up to ten years in jail and/or a maximum fine of 10 percent of annual turnover. This further confirms that the protection of property rights is not a governmental priority.Second, the Bill slightly strengthens existing provisions that seek to remove the profit motive. It does so by stating that, when organisers are convicted, the courts “must” order the forfeiture not only of the money they have received but also of any assets they might have acquired with that money. Money and assets so forfeited “must” be repaid to the unlawful occupiers or, if they cannot be “positively identified,” transferred either to the National Revenue Fund or (in a new provision) to the relevant municipality.Forfeiture of this kind may help identifiable unlawful occupiers recover some of what they have paid to those orchestrating land invasions – which might make it seem a risk-free proposition for them. In practice, however, tracking relevant cash or other assets will often be difficult to achieve. In addition, when property so forfeited is paid into the National Revenue Fund or a municipal bank account, the government effectively benefits from lawlessness it has long encouraged or failed to prevent. By contrast, the owners of hijacked properties are not entitled to any forfeited assets, regardless of how great their losses might be. .Negative changes depicted as positive.First, the Bill defines “alternative accommodation” as “temporary accommodation…that is reasonable in the circumstances.” This suggests that alternative accommodation will always be temporary. Confusingly, however, another clause in the Bill states that municipalities, organs of state and “other landowners” may be ordered to provide alternative accommodation – and that this obligation will be for a temporary period only if the court so specifies.If the court agrees that alternative accommodation may be temporary, it must set out the period for which it is required. This period could be six or 12 months, for example, or significantly longer. Finding temporary accommodation for such periods could be difficult to achieve, given the extent of the housing shortage and the costs involved.The Bill also states that the courts “may choose” to issue eviction orders without requiring the provision of alternative accommodation. However, it limits this option – and the substantial benefits it will bring – to municipalities and other organs of state. No such advantage will apply to other landowners.In addition, under the current PIE Act, the obligation to provide alternative accommodation kicks in only where an unlawful occupation has lasted for six months or more. This time limit will be repealed by the Bill. This will allow illegal occupants to claim alternative accommodation as soon as they have set up homes on invaded property. Second, the Bill empowers the courts, in ordering evictions, to instruct owners to provide compensation to unlawful occupiers for structures they have erected or standing crops they have planted. Moreover, the authorised eviction may not proceed until the specified compensation has been paid. That owners who have suffered major losses because of land invasions may also have to compensate unlawful occupiers for structures erected without their consent and which have no value to them will add insult to injury. Third, it will become more difficult to obtain urgent interim court orders for the eviction of unlawful occupiers pending final judgments. Again, the changes made by the Bill are mixed. On the one hand, the Bill empowers the courts to consider a new factor – the “pace, scale and frequency” of unlawful occupations – which could facilitate urgent interim evictions. On the other hand, an owner seeking a speedy interim order will be obliged to join the relevant municipality in the court proceedings. In practice, municipalities joined in this way will demand the postponement of urgent court hearings for two to three weeks so they can collect relevant information.The main effect of this amendment will be to give unlawful occupiers the time they need to turn their structures into homes. Once this shift has occurred, urgent evictions will no longer be available. Instead, owners will have to wait for court dates in the normal way and then meet all the onerous requirements set out in the PIE Act and the Bill. Fourth, the Bill compels municipalities that own or control invaded land to “attempt to mediate and settle any dispute.” Effectively, this will prevent them from resorting to counter-spoliation.Counter-spoliation is a common law remedy which allows people to take back their property while the process of dispossessing them is still under way. However, as the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) stressed in a 2024 judgment, a municipality seeking to invoke this right “must do so instanter within a narrow window period, during which counter-spoliation is legally permissible. The window closes and the recovery is no longer instanter when the despoiler’s possession of the land is perfected.” This perfection occurs as soon as structures are erected in whole or part, even if they have not yet been occupied. Once this stage in a land invasion has been reached, the SCA adds, any attempt to remove building materials infringes the constitutional guarantee of privacy, which includes people’s right “not to have…their possessions seized.”This SCA judgment made counter-spoliation a far less effective remedy against land invasions, but did not exclude it altogether. Now, however, the Bill seeks to bar it indirectly by requiring mandatory mediation. The time needed for this process will prevent municipalities from acting instanter (immediately) and before unlawful occupiers have been able to start building structures..Further eroding property rights.The minister has hailed the Bill as a major step forward in “restoring balance” to the PIE Act. It is “about protecting property rights, supporting municipalities, safeguarding vulnerable communities, and strengthening public confidence in our legal system,” Ms Simelane claims.In fact, however, the Bill ignores the constitutional guarantee of property rights and brushes away the “supremacy of the rule of law” as a founding value of South Africa’s democracy. It also gives short shrift to the 11.8 million families (almost all of them black) that own formal houses, as well as the many more households with informal title to customary plots.Yet the great majority of these individuals cannot afford costly court cases to obtain eviction orders under the PIE Act. The Bill curtails their options and is likely to leave most of them with no remedy at all against the organised land invasions its provisions will further encourage.Under this severely unbalanced Bill, land and housing could increasingly pass to those most willing to use force against existing owners and lawful occupiers. The poor will suffer the most from the even more lopsided provisions being proposed – and the further descent into lawlessness these clauses will promote.The incremental erosion of property rights in South Africa is already a key factor in rising joblessness and attendant poverty. Without secure property rights, the country cannot attract direct investment, speed up growth, or expand employment..*Dr Anthea Jeffery holds law degrees from Wits, Cambridge and London universities, and is the Head of Policy Research at the IRR..*This article was originally published by Daily Friend and has been republished with permission..Sign up for your early morning brew of the BizNews Insider to keep you up to speed with the content that matters. The newsletter will land in your inbox every morning on weekdays. Register here.Support South Africa's bastion of independent journalism, offering balanced insights on investments, business, and the political economy, by joining BizNews Premium. Register here.If you prefer WhatsApp for updates, sign up to the BizNews channel here.

Anthea Jeffery: Will the PIE Amendment Bill solve land invasions?

Related Stories

Swimming SA suspensions raise hard questions about McKenzie's oversight

Boardroom Talk: US announces visa restrictions on SA citizens relating to racism concerns

How world sees SA: DA's court challenge to EWC could test SA's GNU

Kallie Kriel: AfriForum’s legal eagles to swoop on “Land Grab” Malema