Advert
Advert – scroll down
Displaying the 15 latest comments.
Submitted | first-name | support | concern | top-concern | message |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2026-09-09 12:11:22 +02:00 | Clifford Martin | Yes I do | Property Rights & Investment Protection | ||
2026-09-09 10:38:40 +02:00 | Bianca | Not fully | Constitutionality & Homelessness | ||
2026-09-09 09:54:53 +02:00 | Angie | Yes I do | Property Rights & Investment Protection | All land invasions should be addressed by SAPS. No need to provide alternative housing. Protect property rights. Where renters fail to pay rent - evict them. | |
2026-09-09 08:30:04 +02:00 | Steve | Yes I do | Property Rights & Investment Protection | ||
2026-09-09 00:33:45 +02:00 | Moate | Yes I do | Broad Criminal Definitions | Criminals have exploited loopholes in the law, contributing to the growing levels of lawlessness in South Africa. | |
2026-09-08 22:04:48 +02:00 | Juan | Not fully | Other | I support the intention of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Amendment Bill, particularly its aim to address organised land invasions, building hijacking and the exploitation of unlawful occupiers by syndicates. However, I believe the Bill requires important amendments to ensure that it protects both constitutional property rights and the rights of vulnerable people in a fair and proportionate manner. Firstly, I support stronger criminal penalties for people who deliberately organise, arrange, incite or facilitate unlawful land occupations, including where they do not receive payment. Organised land invasions and building hijacking undermine the rule of law and can cause severe financial and personal harm to lawful property owners. However, the wording of these offences should be narrowed so that lawful legal assistance, advocacy, humanitarian support, community representation and assistance provided to people who are already in unlawful occupation cannot unintentionally be treated as organising or facilitating an unlawful occupation. Criminal liability should require clear and intentional participation in establishing, expanding or coordinating an unlawful occupation. Secondly, private property owners should not be forced to carry the State’s housing obligations indefinitely. Where a court has determined that occupation is unlawful, an owner should not be prevented from recovering the use of their property simply because a municipality has failed to provide alternative accommodation. At the same time, courts should retain discretion to consider whether an eviction would result in homelessness, particularly where children, elderly people, persons with disabilities or other vulnerable people are affected. The absence of alternative accommodation should not create an automatic permanent barrier to eviction, but neither should the risk of homelessness be disregarded. The State should remain responsible for meeting its constitutional housing obligations, rather than shifting those obligations onto private property owners. I support replacing the rigid distinction between occupation of less than six months and occupation of more than six months, provided that courts are still required to consider the actual length and circumstances of occupation. A long-standing vulnerable household and a recent organised land invasion should not automatically be treated in the same way. I also support the involvement of municipalities and relevant provincial departments where their input is necessary to determine the availability of alternative accommodation or other relevant services. However, their participation should be subject to clear statutory deadlines. A property owner should not suffer repeated delays or indefinite postponements because a municipality or government department fails to provide reports or respond to court proceedings. Mediation should also remain available where appropriate, particularly where State-owned land is involved or where a practical solution can be reached without lengthy litigation. The legislation should clearly distinguish between organised land invasion, opportunistic unlawful occupation and genuinely vulnerable households. These situations present different legal and social circumstances and should not be treated as though they are identical. In summary, I support measures that strengthen action against organised unlawful occupation and protect lawful property owners, but I request that the Bill be amended to: * narrowly define offences relating to the organisation or facilitation of unlawful occupation; * protect lawful legal, humanitarian and community assistance; * preserve meaningful judicial discretion where homelessness and vulnerability are involved; * ensure that the State, rather than private property owners, carries the primary responsibility for housing obligations; * require municipalities and government departments to comply with clear response deadlines; and * ensure that eviction proceedings remain fair, efficient and proportionate. My position is therefore: Support with amendments. | |
2026-09-08 21:00:34 +02:00 | Lynn | Not fully | Loss of Long-Term Occupier Protection | ||
2026-09-08 13:33:23 +02:00 | Edrick | No I do not | Property Rights & Investment Protection | ||
2026-09-08 11:59:59 +02:00 | Mari | Yes I do | Property Rights & Investment Protection | ||
2026-09-08 09:42:57 +02:00 | S | Yes I do | No concern, I Support the Bill | ||
2026-09-08 07:00:25 +02:00 | Assa | No I do not | All of the above | Constitutionality & Homelessness | |
2026-09-07 23:04:43 +02:00 | Jaime | Yes I do | All of the above | Property Rights & Investment Protection | Land invasions and hijacked buildings are not housing policy. They are organised crime that steals from owners, banks, cities and the very poor who later pay rent to shack lords. The current PIE Act has turned private property into a waiting room for the state’s failures. This amendment restores a basic rule: you cannot take someone else’s land and then demand they house you forever. Swift, lawful eviction, real penalties for those who organise invasions, and an end to endless municipal liability will protect investment, keep cities functioning, and force government to deliver housing through law, not lawlessness. Compassion without property rights just produces more slums. |
2026-09-07 17:24:27 +02:00 | kay | Yes I do | No concern, I Support the Bill | ||
2026-09-07 16:31:43 +02:00 | Gerda | No I do not | All of the above | Property Rights & Investment Protection | Ongelukkig is dit meestal onwettige buitelanders wat geboue kaap. Immigrasie moet strenger optree en mense moet teruggestuur word na hul plek van herkoms. |
2026-09-07 14:27:03 +02:00 | Paul | Yes I do | Property Rights & Investment Protection | There should be absolutely no Unlawful Occupation in the first place. Property rights must be protected and upheld. We also need drastic action to control population growth. |
Private Owners Cannot Carry the State’s Housing Burden:
Supporters argue that under the current 1998 PIE Act, private landowners and developers are practically forced to accommodate unlawful occupiers for years. This happens because heavily burdened municipalities lack alternative shelter, draining the financial resources of law-abiding owners.
Dismantling Organized Crime and Syndicates:
Proponents point out that land invasions and high-rise building hijackings are rarely organic acts of desperation; they are increasingly run by highly organized criminal syndicates (“shack lords”) who unlawfully extract rent from the poor. Extreme penalties—like the R2 million fine, asset forfeiture, and prison sentences—are necessary to break these syndicates.
Relieving Municipal Financial Stress:
Forcing local governments to provide emergency shelter indefinitely is financially breaking South African cities. Giving courts the power to issue eviction orders without mandatory alternative housing, and placing strict expiration dates on emergency shelters, will safeguard municipal budgets for basic service delivery.
Managing Equally Regardless of Time:
Scrapping the 6-month rule closes a loophole where occupiers intentionally try to delay legal actions just long enough to secure enhanced legal protections, allowing landowners to act efficiently to recover their property.
A Direct Violation of the Constitution:
Opponents argue that Section 4(14) of the Bill—which allows evictions to occur without requiring alternative housing—directly violates Section 26(3) of the South African Constitution, which explicitly protects citizens against evictions that result in immediate homelessness.
Spur a Massive Humanitarian and Homelessness Crisis:
Human rights organizations warn that removing the obligation to provide alternative shelter and putting “timers” on emergency accommodation will not solve the housing shortage. Instead, it will simply displace thousands of vulnerable families, leading to a catastrophic spike in street homelessness.
Criminalizing Human Rights and Poverty Support:
Critics flag that the text defining “incitement” and “organizing” is dangerously broad. There is serious concern that an NGO worker, community leader, or human rights lawyer offering basic legal advice or emergency relief to an informal settlement could be accused of “permitting” or “arranging” an invasion, exposing them to ruinous fines.
Stripping Protections From Established Communities:
Deleting the distinction between short-term and long-term occupiers strips historic protections from long-standing informal settlements. Established, multigenerational communities could find themselves procedurally fast-tracked for eviction in the exact same manner as a fresh land invasion.