summary

view the campaign

Campaign report

coming soon

Public comments as delivered

Download [6.86 MB]

from BusinessTech

The bill, if enacted, will fully repeal the Trespass Act, No. 6 of 1959 and establish new laws prohibiting unlawful entry on premises in South Africa.

According to the department, the Trespass Act was identified as a piece of colonial/apartheid-era legislation, originally designed to combat trespass, publications and conduct engendering hostility between certain population groups.

“The Trespass Act has therefore lost its relevance in our constitutional democracy,” it said.

The new bill aims to replace these old laws and reintroduce regulations prohibiting unlawful entry to premises, and provide for matters connected to that.

Among other things, it provides for the offence of unlawful entry and the penalties to be imposed if a person is found to be guilty of the offence; the duty to inform an intruder of unlawful entry; the powers of the police and defences against the offence of unlawful entry.

Broadly, the new laws lay out the offence as follows:

  • If someone unlawfully gains entry to an enclosed property without permission from the property owner or lawful occupier they are guilty of an offence;
  • Property owners need to put up clear signage – or give an oral warning to the perpetrator – that indicates that entry is prohibited;
  • Owners or lawful occupiers can call the police to apprehend trespassers;
  • Trespassers can defend against the charge if there is a reasonable belief that they have title or interest on the premises that entitles them to enter the property;

It’s presumed that access to the door of the property is not prohibited if you’ve provided the means to access it.

If someone is found guilty of trespassing, they could face a fine, up to two years in prison, or both.

Articles of interest

Notice

Download [110.88 KB]

Draft Bill

Download [86.30 KB]

Trespass Act, No. 6 of 1959

Download [329.75 KB]

Promote participation with this QR code poster/flyer – distribute or place at the office

Download [215.51 KB]

STATEMENTS FROM OTHER ORGANISATIONS

Click on a logo to view.
Want to display your organisation’s statement? Click here. 

en English
af Afrikaansen Englishst Sesothoxh Xhosazu Zulufr Frenchpt Portuguese
Close

Cape Independence Advocacy Group

Dear Speaker,

I am writing to you on behalf of the Cape Independence Advocacy Group (CIAG) and the seventy thousand South Africans who actively follow our work.

We wish to comment on the ‘Electoral Commissions Amendment Act, 2021’, which is proposed by the Democratic Alliance (DA) and was published in the Government Gazette on 21 June 2021.

Given our mandate, our comments are made in the context of the Western Cape, although we appreciate and respect that the constitutional rights enacted through this bill will rightfully apply to all provinces.

This bill is essential to restoring some degree of functional democracy to the voters of the Western Cape and we therefore unreservedly and wholeheartedly endorse it.

Through their voting behaviour, Western Cape voters have made it abundantly clear that they do not endorse many of the policy and ideological positions of the South African national government, but are left utterly powerless to resist them because the voters in other South African provinces, who greatly outnumber them, hold starkly different ideological and political opinions.

In terms of seeing their democratic will enacted, for the majority of Western Cape voters, the democratic era has not offered much of an improvement over the apartheid era. It is a statistical fact that, since 1994, the majority of Western Cape voters have never been governed by the political party they voted for, and they have no foreseeable prospect of ever being governed by the party they vote for. As such, they cannot be said to have functional democracy.

One of the few glimmers of democratic hope Western Cape voters do have, is the provision of Clause 127(2)(f) of the national constitution, and 37(2)(f) of the Western Cape constitution, which allows them, at the discretion of the premier who they elected, to have their voices heard on matters which are important to them, without being drowned out by a national majority who fundamentally hold different views.

To deny Western Cape voters this constitutional right would be a very serious infringement of their political rights and freedoms, and would be a clear indication that parliament and the national government are not interested in the constitutional rights and democratic wishes of Western Cape voters.

We therefore call upon parliament to pass this bill at the earliest opportunity, and without objection.

Yours Faithfully

Phil Craig
(On behalf of the Cape Independence Advocacy Group)