Mercury: Slum eradication Bill slated

http://www.themercury.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=4255295

The Mercury

Move to prevent evictions

Slum eradication Bill slated
February 15, 2008 Edition 2

Tania Broughton

NEW provincial legislation aimed at slum eradication has come under attack from shack dwellers, who have gone to court to have it scrapped.

The shack dwellers, under the umbrella of the Abahlali baseMjondolo movement, said that the Slums Act – which was only signed into law six months ago – reduced them to “offensive nuisances to be cleared away by force, if necessary”.

The movement – which represents the interests of thousands of shack dwellers living in 17 settlements in Durban and Pietermaritzburg – launched the court application this week against the KwaZulu-Natal premier, the housing MEC and the national ministers of housing and land affairs, and was aimed, ultimately, at having the Act declared unconstitutional.

If Abahlali wins, it will set the tone for how residents of informal settlements throughout South Africa are dealt with, because, it is believed, similar legislation is pending in other provinces.

In an affidavit filed with the Durban High Court, Abahlali president Sibusiso Zikode said the informal settlements represented by the movement had been established because of a lack of adequate housing, and the need for people to be close to jobs and social services.

“We do not want to live in these conditions, but are unable to find formal accommodation that is affordable,” he said.

Zikode said Abahlali had only became aware, by chance, of the proposed KwaZulu-Natal Elimination and Prevention of Re-Emergence of Slums Bill in March last year. He said the Bill compelled owners of land or buildings occupied unlawfully to apply for court orders under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land (Pie) Act to have the occupants evicted.

Failure to do so would result in the municipality making similar applications.

But it was not clear what would happen to the people living there, as the Bill only stated that the municipality “may” make alternative accommodation available.

Zikode said these concerns were raised at a public hearing – but the Slums Act, in substantially the same form as the Bill, was published in August last year.

He said that since then, shacks had been demolished at an informal settlement without a court order. When this was challenged in court, the municipality indicated it was entitled by the Act to demolish shacks erected after October last year.

“We now fear that government officials will seek to rely on the Act to justify actions which violate the provisions of the Pie Act and, indeed, the constitution itself,” he said.

Challenges

Abahlali’s lawyers – from the Centre for Applied Legal Studies and the Wits Law Clinic at the University of Witwatersrand – made several legal challenges against the Act, saying it had been passed unlawfully because it dealt with issues of land use, land tenure and evictions that were not competencies of provincial government.

It was inconsistent with the constitutional right to housing and certain provisions conflicted with the Housing Act (which provides for consultation and, if appropriate, upgrading of settlements) and the Pie Act.

Stuart Wilson, head of litigation at the Centre for Applied Legal Studies, said that eviction was the first resort under the proposed KZN Act.

“This is at odds with national policy, which emphasises consultation and does not approve of, or provide funding for, forced evictions,” he said. “At municipal level, where there are often powerful commercial interests at play, municipalities find it easier to evict.”

The respondents have 10 days to file notices of opposition.