Skip to content
23 April 2026

Everyone in South Africa has the right to access housing and no-one should be evicted into homelessness

23 April 2026

 Everyone in South Africa has the right to access housing and no-one should be evicted into homelessness

 JOINT STATEMENT BY NDIFUNA UKWAZI, ABAHLALI BASEMJONDOLO, RECLAIM THE CITY, INNER CITY FEDERATION, RENT CONTROL, GENERAL INDUSTRIES WORKERS UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA (GIWUSA), ABAHLALI BASE FREEDOM PARK, SOUTH AFRICAN FEDERATION OF TRADE UNIONS (SAFTU) AND THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC RIGHTS INSTITUTE (SERI) ON THE DRAFT PREVENTION OF ILLEGAL EVICTION FROM AND UNLAWFUL OCCUPATION OF LAND AMENDMENT BILL OF 2026

The above-mentioned organisations and movements note with deep concern the publication of the Draft Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Amendment Bill, 2026. This amendment bill was first introduced in 2023 by the DA and it is now being driven by the ANC in the department of human settlements. This current amendment process unfolds at a moment of profound national housing crisis with more than about 3,7 million families without housing, a number that is growing by 178 000 every year.

South Africa is confronted with deepening inequality, systemic mass unemployment and acute shortage of affordable housing, and the continued reality of landlessness rooted in historical and ongoing dispossession and impoverishment. For millions of people, occupation is not a choice, but a necessity born of exclusion from land and housing markets that remain structurally inaccessible to the poor and working-class of this country.

In this context, the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE Act) is one of the most important legal protections available to poor and working-class people. Section 26(3) of the Constitution guarantees that no one may be evicted from their home without a court order made after considering all relevant circumstances. The PIE Act gives substantive effect to this right by ensuring that evictions are not carried out arbitrarily and that courts are required to weigh the full social, economic, and human context of each case. This includes the rights and needs of children, the elderly, persons with disabilities, and households headed by women. In doing so, the Act affirms that the law must be attentive not only to property relations, but to dignity, equality, and the lived realities of poverty.

Evictions are profoundly disruptive and often devastating events. They fracture families, destabilise livelihoods, interrupt education, and expose already vulnerable households to homelessness. In the midst of a housing crisis, where alternative accommodation is scarce and unaffordable, eviction is not simply a legal remedy; it is frequently a pathway into deeper poverty and exclusion. It is for this reason that the PIE Act has functioned as a critical safeguard and indeed, a lifeline preventing the most severe consequences of a deeply unequal housing system.

The constitutional and legislative framework governing evictions must also be understood against South Africa’s history. Under apartheid, laws such as the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act criminalised occupation and enabled the forced removal of Black and working-class people without regard for their dignity or circumstances.

The democratic constitutional order deliberately rejected this approach. Section 26 and the PIE Act inverted this legal logic by recognising that occupation may arise from necessity and by requiring that occupiers be treated with dignity and respect. The Constitutional Court has cautioned against language that dehumanises occupiers, noting that terms such as “land invaders” are emotive, judgmental, and risk criminalising people who are, in reality, seeking shelter in conditions of structural deprivation.

It is precisely because of this history and this constitutional vision that the current Amendment Bill raises serious concern. While there may be a legitimate need to refine aspects of the PIE Act, several of the proposed changes risk undermining its core protective purpose.

The introduction of offences for those who “incite, arrange, organise or permit” occupation signals an alarming shift toward the criminalisation of landlessness. The breadth of this provision creates a clear and present danger that it will be used to target community organisers, activists, and even occupiers themselves, as well as the organisations of the poor. The threat of jail time and massive fines of up to R2 million rand for people working to organise, support and develop occupational amounts is a direct attack on the organisations of the poor that reintroduces, through the back door, a punitive approach to occupation that the Constitution sought to dismantle. In a society where millions occupy land out of necessity, such criminalisation is both unjust and impractical, and it risks further entrenching marginalisation while burdening an already strained criminal justice system. It is also a direct threat to basic democratic norms.

The Bill also raises concerns regarding the treatment of judicial discretion. The strength of the PIE Act lies in its insistence that courts consider all relevant circumstances in determining whether an eviction is just and equitable. This open-ended inquiry allows courts to respond to the complexity of each case and to ensure that outcomes are substantively fair. Any move that narrows or rigidifies this discretion, whether through prescriptive criteria or altered procedural frameworks, risks reducing the capacity of courts to do justice in context. There is a danger that occupiers will be subjected to heightened scrutiny of their personal circumstances such as their finances, health, and prior living conditions in ways that reinforce stigma and shift attention away from the structural drivers of occupation.

The provisions relating to alternative accommodation are particularly troubling. The Bill contemplates that courts may limit the duration for which alternative accommodation is provided and, in certain circumstances, may grant eviction orders without requiring that such accommodation be made available at all. In a context where the state has not met its obligations to provide adequate housing, and where emergency accommodation is already under strain, these provisions threaten to hollow out one of the most important protections against homelessness. Limiting alternative accommodation does not resolve the housing crisis; it merely postpones its consequences. Allowing evictions without guaranteed alternative accommodation fundamentally undermines the constitutional commitment that no one should be rendered homeless through eviction.

The Bill further introduces mandatory joinder of municipalities and other organs of state, which may, in principle, enhance accountability. However, it simultaneously creates ambiguity regarding which sphere of government bears responsibility for providing alternative accommodation and under what conditions. Without clear, enforceable obligations, there is a real risk that responsibility will be diffused and that evicted households will be left without recourse. Procedural innovations such as mandatory mediation may hold value if properly implemented, but without adequate resourcing and safeguards, they risk becoming formalities that delay rather than resolve disputes.

These legal concerns cannot be separated from the broader political and socio-economic context. South Africa’s housing crisis is not accidental; it is the product of policy choices, inadequate investment in affordable housing, and the slow pace of land reform. Mechanisms exist within our legal framework including expropriation in the public interest and the release of state land, but they have not been effectively utilised to ensure equitable access to land. As a result, the burden of systemic failure is borne by the poor, who are then stigmatised and, increasingly, threatened with criminal sanction for seeking to meet their basic need for shelter.

In this context, the PIE Act must remain a shield for the vulnerable, not a tool that facilitates their exclusion. The question before us is not whether the law should be made more efficient in securing evictions, but whether it continues to give meaningful effect to the constitutional rights to dignity, equality, and access to housing. Any amendment that weakens protections against eviction into homelessness, that criminalises occupation and activism, or that dilutes the obligations of the state, would be an alarming step backwards from the transformative vision of the Constitution.

We therefore call for an amendment process that is guided by constitutional principles, grounded in the lived realities of affected communities, and committed to strengthening, rather than eroding, existing protections. In fact it should go beyond the existing protections and affirm the need for the courts to explicitly consider the social value of land in their deliberations. Public participation in this process is essential, particularly from those most directly impacted by evictions and housing insecurity. The legitimacy of any reform depends on it.

In a society still marked by deep inequality and impoverishment, the true measure of our legal system lies in how it treats those with the least power. The PIE Act is not just a legal framework, it is the last line of defence in the face of dispossession. At this time of housing crisis, that legal protection must be reaffirmed, not weakened, and serious steps must be taken to address the crisis of urban land and housing, including swift and effective urban land reform at significant scale.

Contact:

  • Zacharia Mashele, Ndifuna Ukwazi Media & Communications officer: 071 714 0200
  • Buhle Booi, Ndifuna Ukwazi Head of Political Organising & Campaigns: 073 435 7580
  • Thapelo Mohapi, Abahlali baseMjondolo General Secretary: 084 576 5117
  • Karen Hendricks, Reclaim the City: 073 586 9241
  • Siya Mahlangu, Inner City Federation General Secretary: 076 624 7113
Abahlali baseMjondolo