Category Archives: eviction

Pambazuka: Framing the Hangberg Uprising

Leave a reply

http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/73588

Framing the Hangberg Uprising

On 21 and 22 September 2010 South African police forces in collaboration with the Cape Town Metro Police conducted an operation in Hangberg, Hout Bay that amounted to an occupation by hostile forces of enemy territory. Thousands of rounds of rubber bullets were fired indiscriminately into crowds of residents of the area, resulting in four people having their eyes shot out. The entire action was conducted without a court order under the direct orders of Western Cape Premiere Helen Zille and Councillor J.P. Smith of the Democratic Alliance. The ostensible reason for this attack – which was tantamount to a civil war situation – was to evict people from dwellings built in a so-called ‘firebreak’ on the mountainside above the Hangberg community. After the police action, which destroyed all the dwellings, none of the broken dwellings were ever cleared away, and to this day the rubble and ruin of the two-day action constitutes a far greater fire hazard than when those dwellings were the proud homes of hundreds of people.

My colleague film-maker Dylan Valley and I went into Hangberg to piece together the true story of what happened on those two fateful days. We were dissatisfied with the mainstream television, radio and newspaper reports that were entirely circumscribed by the language of the City and Police press releases, defining the people of Hangberg as ‘hooligans’ and claiming that the violence was started by the people and not by the police. The result of our investigation is an 86 minute documentary called ‘The Uprising of Hangberg’ that was first screened in October 2010 in a rough edit and has been used tactically as a means of waking people up to the completely out of control police force in the Western Cape that operates with impunity against the poor, against the disadvantaged and against the landless, serving only the interests of the moneyed classes.

I was interviewed by email in January 2011 by a trade publication called Screen Africa but was really surprised to receive indication from them that my interview had been considerably cut into after a ‘legal person’ had advised the publication that ‘it would be defamatory to keep the Hellen Zille statements in.’ Pambazuka readers can read the entire text of the interview as published by Screen Africa here:

‘Police brutality seen from above’

It is really fascinating to compare what was published there with the complete unexpurgated answers that I sent to the publication, published below. What for me was most salient was question 4, where my answer touched upon the issue of how white power is entirely protected by the machinery of state force in so-called ‘post-apartheid’ South Africa. This answer was tellingly omitted from the published interview, a striking example of how white power always camouflages itself and its workings in its own media.

COMPLETE UNEDITED INTERVIEW BETWEEN KAREN VAN SCHALKWYK AND ARYAN KAGANOF ABOUT THE UPRISING OF HANGBERG

SCREEN AFRICA (1): You mention that you want to communicate to an audience what happened in hangberg 21/22 sep – what was your main reasons in making this doc?

ARYAN KAGANOF: ten years ago i lived for six months next to hangberg and my experiences?with the community there were extremely positive. it’s a very friendly,?tight-knit community of fisherfolk that does not in any way resemble?what i read about in the newspapers on 21 and 22 september – the?so-called “hooligans” who were “out of control”. my colleague film maker?dylan valley and i went into hangberg with young student film maker reza?salie with the intention of finding out for ourselves what was really?going on, and why the police force had shot thousands of rounds of?rubber bullets indiscriminately into this community, causing 75 people?to be injured with 4 people having their eyes shot out.

SCREEN AFRICA (2): you want to give a voice to the voiceless/the community. in what way did the media/broadcaster act unfairly in their reports on hangberg?

ARYAN KAGANOF: the reporting on the atrocities committed by the police in hangberg is?no different really from what passes for “journalism” in south africa?today. so-called journalists simply re-gurgitate official police?statementsf as “news”. there is no culture of interrogation of authority.?when the city of cape town, and in particular councillor jp smith,?issued entirely defamatory statements and photographs attempting to?prove that ikram halim and delon egypt (who both had their left eyes?shot out by trigger-happy thugs called “policemen”) were stone throwers,?the journalists never investigated the accusations, but simply printed?the photographs and accusations as “news”, thereby defaming innocent?victims of police brutality. in fact ikram halim was a hero of the day?as his purpose for being on the battlefield was to help evacuate?schoolchildren from the line of fire. yes, the police were firing into?crowds where schoolchildren were on their way to school. and all of this?under direct orders of the premier of the western cape, helen zille.

SCREEN AFRICA (3): what in instigated the incident at hangberg and what do you think could have been done to prevent the brutality?

ARYAN KAGANOF: the ostensible reason for the incident was to take down a number of?informal dwellings that were a “fire hazard”. however the city?authorities merely demolished the dwellings and left the piles of wood?and furniture where the homes had been standing – in fact a far greater?fire hazard than before! my personal opinion is that the show of force?was a clear example of the premier of the western cape wanting to punish?the community of hangberg for not playing ball with her designs on the?area. it was clearly an abuse of power, especially since most of the?dwellings that were demolished were not even standing on city owned?land, but in fact on land owned by sa parks board. this abuse of state?power, in a normal functioning democracy, would have resulted in the?immediate resignation and/or dismissal of western cape premier helen?zille from her position. simply as a democratic fact in terms of how?accountability works. perversely in south africa nothing has happened.?is this because the hangberg community are khoisan people? (previously?described as so-called “coloured” in apartheid nomenclature).

SCREEN AFRICA (4): Generally the police and politician have no respect for the citizens – what can this and does it lead to in your opinion?

ARYAN KAGANOF: i cannot agree with this statement. i think that in the south africa we?live in today the police and politicians have the utmost respect for?so-called “white” citizens. if the citizens of hangberg were so-called?“whites” nobody would have been shot at on 21 and 22 september 2010.

SCREEN AFRICA (5): What did you shoot the doc on – camera and edit on – any challenges?

ARYAN KAGANOF: dylan valley and reza salie shot on a combination of sony hdv and canon?7d cameras whilst i shot on my nokia n95 mobile phone camera. we also?used a lot of material shot on a panasonic dv camcorder by greg louw, a?community acitivist who was filming the events leading up to the police?brutality of 21 and 22 september, as well as exhaustively filming both?of those days. furthermore a number of hangberg residents provided us?with mobile phone footage they had taken of the police force’s?violations of human rights and indiscriminate shooting into crowds etc.?we also got some excellent hdv footage from hout bay resident suzette?bell-roberts who was watching the entire event from her house above?hangberg. what is unique about these events is that hangberg is on a?mountain slope and so, inlike in a normal flat township situation when?police brutality generally goes unrecorded, here the actions of the?police could be filmed from above – in some instances very very clearly!?what neither the city, nor the police, nor the western cape premier seem?to have realized is that we live in the media age where everybody has?access to filming media. this is not the time of apartheid where the?state had complete control of all access to media information.

SCREEN AFRICA (6): What were the greatest challenges in making this doc?

ARYAN KAGANOF: it was very important to have this documentary out as soon as possible.?we had the first public screening of an 18min edit of the material in a?cinema in observatory within a week of the events happening. we wanted?the documentary to be used by the people of hangberg to give their side?of the story, to balance out the incorrect version of events that the?city and state media had been propagated. so it was very very tense,?working around the clock for a couple of weeks.

SCREEN AFRICA (7): how did you go about shooting the doc – everyday at the uprising, after the event, interviews, footage etc?

ARYAN KAGANOF: we all took turns going into hangberg and working with the community. we?were greatly helped by young film maker nadine cloete who came in with?us and assisted us with the shoot. in fact it was amazing how many film?makers rallied around to help us. craig matthew loaned us a massive hard?drive to dump all the material onto and llewelyn roderick gave enormous?technical help putting it all together. even damir radovic, a joburg?based film producer who happened to be in hangberg just before the?uprising, made the material he had shot there available to us. so that?was extremely gratifying – to find out that in this cut throat industry?there was still so much generosity of human spirit and willingness to?work together against a clear example of police and state injustice to?weak and vulnerable people.

SCREEN AFRICA (8): How was the doc financed and budget?

ARYAN KAGANOF: there was no finance and budget! dylan and i spent our own money. there?simply was no time to go through the normal film financing channels.

SCREEN AFRICA (9): Where will you distribute – libraries, school and internationally – where internationally? More detail and the feedback so far on the doc.

ARYAN KAGANOF: david forbes has graciously offered to represent the film? internationally and so hopefully it will find an audience out there. we? are currently speaking to dan jawitz of fireworx about national ?distribution. thus far we have organized all screenings ourselves,?including community screenings in kayamandi (in collaboration with domus?at stellenbosch university and the ekhaya trust), the labia cinema in?cape town (thanks to ludi krauss) and one upcoming at idasa on 3 ?february (thanks to andreas spath).

Anti-Eviction communities join the Mitchell’s Plain Backyarders at the High Court

Leave a reply

Anti-Eviction communities join the Mitchell’s Plain Backyarders at the High Court

1 June 2011

Anti-Eviction communities who are facing eviction and whose homes have been flooded by the recent rains (more on this soon), are joining backyarders from Tafelsig who are at the Cape High Court today.

Hundreds of backyarders who have set up a new settlement in an open field in Tafelsig which they have aptly called New Horizons will be at the High Court today. They will be defending themselves against eviction by the City of Cape Town which has decided that the poor shall have no right to security of tenure in the entire Metropole – even though there is plenty of unused and misused land all over the City.

Joining them will be communities from Gugulethu, Newfields Village, Blikkiesdorp, Site B (Khayelitsha), Joe Slovo and others. These communities are demanding land and housing for the poor in the City and an end to evictions.

Tafelsig is the new Hangberg. The land of the people is being taken by government for ‘development’ which will benefit those who don’t actually need it. And the government takes this land by force destroying people’s property and their lives.

We demand land for the poor in the Western Cape. The poor will build a strong front in the near future. The struggle of the poor will continue until 87% of the land is returned to the majority.

For comment, contact Mncedisi at 0785808646

West Cape News: Cape Town anti-land invasion unit acting illegally, say rights lawyers

http://westcapenews.com/?p=2960

The City of Cape Town’s Anti-Land Invasion Unit established to prevent the illegal occupation of city and provincial land, is acting unlawfully says Lawyers for Human Rights.

 



The Taflesig Land Occupation in Mitchell's Plain, May 2011

 

LHR lawyer Sheldon Magardie said the unit demolished structures without a court order and he was planning to approach the Cape High Court for an interdict to prevent the city from doing so.

“In our view, the city is acting unlawfully, because if someone occupies property, whether it is (an) illegal (occupation), or not, one still has to get a court order or legal authority such as a by-law to do so. And if there is such a by-law which allows them to demolish property without notice or fair procedure, that by-law is unconstitutional,” said Magardie.

He said the LHR had sent a letter to the city asking them which law the city was using to demolish structures without a court order, but had received no response.

The announcement by the LHR comes after violent clashes between backyarders and police last Sunday after over 4 000 backyarders occupied city-owned land in Tafelsig, Mitchell’s Plain on Saturday.

Police used water cannons, teargas and rubber bullets to disperse the backyarders, with reports that police were fired upon with live ammunition.

Sporadic clashes continued until Monday evening as backyarders continued to try to erect structures.

Eighteen suspects were arrested for public violence.

Mitchells Plain Backyarders Deputy Chairperson Shaheed Keet said the residents had come peacefully to squat on the land as people were tired of waiting for houses.

“We did not declare war on the city. All we need are houses. People have been on the waiting list for over 30 years,” he said, claiming the police’s attack was unprovoked.

“We received no warning from them. They did not even speak to us as a committee.”

He said they were trying to ascertain how many people had been injured.

Although an interdict preventing the erection of structures and occupation of the land was only obtained from the High Court on Tuesday – which the backyarders intend to appeal – City of Cape Town media manager Kylie Hatton said the unit acted in terms of the National PIE (Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act of 1998) Act.

“In terms of the PIE Act, the city may only dismantle structures that are unoccupied, as soon as a structure is legitimately occupied the city or a landowner must seek an eviction order from the courts,” she said.

However, Magardie said this was the city’s interpretation of the Act.

“Even if a structure is unoccupied, if someone is in possession of a structure, whether they are using it for living space or storage, one cannot dispossess someone of something that s/he possesses, unless you have legal authority,” he said.

The Anti-Land Invasion Unit, established in 2008, demolishes about 300 illegally erected informal housing structures per month, according to the city.

There are 340 000 applicants on the city’s housing database with about 40 000 migrants moving to Cape Town per year, according to official figures.

A visit to Tafelsig on Thursday revealed a field strewn with rocks, a few pieces of clothing, piles of wood and ashes.

In continuing protest, the backyarders continue to sleep on the open field.

Peter Bantam, his wife, brother in law and a few friends gather around a small fire to keep warm.

“They took everything, our blankets, pots and pans. There was no violence from our side. We were dodging bullets,” he said.

While Hatton said the city recognized the need for housing but “cannot allow people to illegally occupy vacant land or build informal structures”, residents in recognized informal settlements that have been in existence for years have also had their shacks torn down by the Anti-Land Invasion Unit after attempting to renovate them.

An X painted on a shack is often used by the city as a warning that the structure is illegal. In February, Khayelitsha resident, Nokwandisa Shukuma, spent R3000 replacing her old corrugated iron sheeting. She came home one afternoon to find a yellow X on her house. The next day, the Anti-Land Invasion Unit tore her home down.

A lack of communication between the city and the residents was cited as a major problem.

Informal Settlement Network community worker, Vuyani Mnyango said the city failed to inform community leaders of the city’s laws and did not respond to applications to renovate informal structures.

Khayelitsha (RR Section) resident’s committee secretary, Mandisa Selani, said since January this year 70 shacks in Khayelitsha’s RR Section were destroyed. She said that in January, a crèche in the area that was being renovated was destroyed without any warning.

She said the owner had received verbal permission from a city employee to go ahead with planned renovations. – Fadela Slamdien, West Cape News

Sowetan: Midvaal council ‘runs the courts’

Leave a reply

http://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/2011/05/05/midvaal-council-runs-the-courts

Midvaal council ‘runs the courts’

5-May-2011 | Katlego Moeng
Municipality also seems to be ‘running property business’

THE Midvaal municipality has been in the news over the past months after a series of evictions of property owners who have decried both the loss of their houses and land and the manner in which they were left without a roof over their heads.

Midvaal resident Sonti Maseko, who has lived in the area since 1992, witnessed her home being demolished in November last year.

Despite not having a place to stay, she has refused to leave and has instead chosen to pitch a tent next to the rubble that was once her home. Her husband John Zeefal and daughter Thandeka are with her.

Maseko’s home was demolished after a default judgment in the Vereeniging magistrate’s court.

As a result of her experience and the fact that she has been helping scores of other property owners in a similar predicament, the PAC has drafted her as candidate for the coming municipal elections.

This is Maseko’s story in her own words:

I have lived in a tent in Midvaal since November, including on Christmas and New Year. Now that it is winter we have as as a family altered our sleeping arrangements so as to protect my six-year-old child.

I have kept the tent there for a reason: to communicate to the Midvaal municipality and its agents that the piece of land is still and always will be mine and that I have not abandoned the fight to get it back. I have no other place to go to and no means of acquiring new land and property elsewhere.

The cold snap has not made things easy. To make my situation bearable I remind myself every day that the tent stands as a monument to my harrowing experience.

Many who have supported us through the hard months and have witnessed the whole saga and were themselves traumatised by the demolition of my house, spur us to fight on.

My story is simply this: I lost ownership of my property in 2004 after the municipality’s debt collectors, attorneys Odendaal and Summerton – Odendaal being the chairman of the DA in Midvaal – claimed I owed the council R2700.

For that, in a default judgement, they asked for my property to be declared especially executable, meaning the municipality was not interested in recovering the amount by attaching my car, household goods or anything else. My house was attached as a result.

I only became aware of this in June 2007 when I was notified that my house would be put up for auction in a month’s time.

Despite having a job and a salary that could easily clear the debt, the municipal attorneys said they would not accept my money and instead gave away my property to a third party, thereby forcing me into a lengthy and costly legal battle.

In July 2007, when my property was allegedly sold, I was informed by the very municipality, some two months earlier, that my property was valued at R245000 by municipal standards, which I am told are conservative estimates for tax purposes.

I have since been advised that my property, along the main road constituted prime land and would have been at least worth four times more in market rates as it had business rights. To me the property was just my home, a one-hectare happy space to make a home for my only child.

This was the second time they had gone after my property, having first tried in 1999 by selling it to a company owned by then councillor Steve du Toit and his son Henk for R550, ostensibly to recover a debt of about R1600. How was this possible? Was it legal?

This scenario is possible and has indeed come about because the Midvaal municipality practically runs the Meyerton magistrate’s courts.

The staff in that court routinely stamp piles of documents of default judgements against residents on a daily basis from council attorneys.

In our experience as residents of Midvaal, properties, once attached by the municipality, are sold “at auction”, where the buyers always seem to be the same people.

These individuals and entities then begin eviction processes at the Vereeniging magistrate’s courts, where the proceedings also leave much to be desired.

The property business being run from Midvaal and paid for by Africans is a very lucrative enterprise. This is particularly so when properties – land and house – being auctioned are disposed of for as little as R100 to the buyers, who can then resell them at market rates for a minimum of R300000.

So lucrative is this business that it has spin-offs that trickle down to even the security companies driving around the wards in bakkies advertising eviction and “counter land invasion” services.

Syndicate members have been known in many instances to sell one property to various parties at the same time, pocketing the money and just walking away.

In some cases black residents occupy properties they have paid for but have never been transferred to their names despite their having paid the transfer costs.

As a result they remain vulnerable to legal proceedings to evict them for arrears and for water.

The water charges and rates and taxes are Midvaal’s weapon of choice. It is not unheard of for residents to be charged exorbitant amounts, often as high as between R17000 and R30000.

When reporting to the attorneys to discuss their accounts and make arrangements, residents have reported being humiliated, with one elderly woman having had cigarette smoke blown in her face and told that she must get a boyfriend to help her pay her account.

Others have reported being told if they cannot afford to pay, then they must go and live in the neighbouring (black) townships where they can be “packed like sardines”.

D Section community to mobilise and return old lady to her rightful home

http://antieviction.org.za/2011/04/20/d-section-community-to-mobilise-and-return-old-lady-to-her-rightful-home/#more-4516

20 April 2011
Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign Press Statement

On the 20th of July 2010, right in the middle of the FIFA World Cup, Sheila Jacobs, a pensioner, was evicted from her home at D233 Khumbula Street in D Section, Khayelitsha. Phumla Maqasha arrived with the Sheriff of the Court and a contingent of police from Lingelethu SAPS, while she was watching a soccer match on TV.

Continue reading →