Squatting in South Africa - A growing crisis: Fanie Bouwer

Key topics:

• Gauteng faces record informal settlement growth, prompting evictions

• Courts limit municipalities under PIE Act, requiring alternative housing

• Urban planning struggles as land invasions outpace government capacity

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 at 5:30am 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.

By Fanie Bouwer

Speaking at a media briefing in Johannesburg on 3 September, Panyaza Lesufi, the Gauteng Premier, said:

"We come to you to declare that, unfortunately, there are going to be an unprecedented number of evictions and dismantling of informal settlements in our province. The number of informal settlements - more than 400 -  that are mushrooming even in our urban areas and in some areas within our cities, is now reaching disturbing levels, and we have no choice but to fight back.”

In this regard, I wish to refer to a recent statement by Geordin Hill-Lewis, who is the current Mayor of Cape Town, when he recently voiced frustration, bluntly stating: 

“The Cape Town housing crisis is caused by the Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act (PIE), along with socialist/activist lawyers and judges. They have made it impossible to evict defaulting tenants, causing investment and supply to dry up and CBDs to collapse into slums.”

But what did the courts actually say about this phenomenon?

Here is an overview of how South African courts have interpreted the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE) in various cases: all are key legal precedents interpreting the PIE Act. 

* Charnell Commando v City of Cape Town (2024)

The Constitutional Court ruled that the City of Cape Town's emergency housing programme was unconstitutional due to its failure to provide temporary emergency accommodation in the inner city for persons displaced by gentrification. The Court emphasised that municipalities must develop comprehensive policies addressing temporary emergency accommodation in dealing with homelessness crises.  

* Marikana Land Occupation (2017)

In this case, the Western Cape High Court found that the City of Cape Town had infringed on both the landowners' constitutional right to property and the occupiers' constitutional right to housing. The court dismissed the landowners' applications to evict the occupiers and ordered the City to negotiate to purchase the land. If negotiations failed, the City was instructed to consider expropriating the land.  

* Fischer v Unlawful Occupiers, Erf 150, Philippi (2017)

This case involved the unlawful eviction of occupiers from privately owned land in Philippi, Cape Town. The court declared that the City had infringed the occupiers' rights by failing to provide land and ordered the City to negotiate in good faith to purchase the properties. If an agreement could not be reached, the City was required to consider expropriation.  

Read More:

* Residents of Joe Slovo Community v Thubelisha Homes

In this case, the authorities sought the eviction of residents in the Joe Slovo informal settlement under PIE, arguing that the property was needed for the development of affordable housing. The Constitutional Court granted the eviction but ordered that alternative accommodation be provided to the occupiers.  

Migration from the poorly governed Eastern Cape, where voters continue to elect leaders who preside over further decline every five years , to the Western Cape, especially Cape Town and Gauteng, shows no sign of slowing down.

Demographic shifts mean that black South Africans will soon become the majority population in the Western Cape. This province's government, under Mr. Anton Bredell, minister on local government, aware of this trend, has been working on long-term projections spanning the next 20 to 30 years. Plans include setting aside land for future housing, ensuring a sufficient water supply, and so on. 

Yet, these forward-looking strategies are consistently undermined by the illegal occupation of municipal land.

The courts have tied the city’s hands. Municipal land earmarked for housing is often seized by squatters, usually overnight or on weekends. 

When the City of Cape Town, for example, tried to act swiftly, it was constrained by rulings such as one in a recent case where the judge said:

"If a homeless person enters unoccupied municipal land with the intention of staying there, the city may remove them before they erect poles, wires, corrugated iron sheets, or similar structures indicating physical control. But if the city does not act immediately, it must then seek relief from the courts through an interdict or under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE)".

This interpretation puts municipalities in an impossible position. Delayed legal processes not only drag on for months but often come with additional orders that the municipality must provide alternative housing.

It is not difficult to see how this legal quagmire is steadily reshaping South Africa’s cities and towns. In thirty to fifty years or so, their landscapes will be radically different.

Has this problem already become too big?

Despite these declarations, it is doubtful that the Gauteng government will make a real impact. The problem has grown too large. Years of weak or non-existent enforcement have brought predictable consequences: settlements spread faster than the state can contain them, while municipalities are bogged down in legal and political constraints.

South Africa’s urban future is being shaped, not by careful planning, but by land invasions and the inability of the government to respond decisively.