Advert
Advert – scroll down
Displaying the 30 latest comments.
Submitted | first-name | support | concern | top-concern | message |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2026-08-18 16:21:07 +02:00 | Annie | No I do not | Property Rights & Investment Protection | ||
2026-08-18 15:49:54 +02:00 | GEOFF | Yes I do | No concern, I Support the Bill | ||
2026-08-18 13:28:57 +02:00 | Mike | Yes I do | Property Rights & Investment Protection | If someone invades your land or fails to pay rent, they should be summarily evicted without the need of a court order! The landowner needs to be protected. If you don't pay for something, you are stealing. | |
2026-08-18 09:58:56 +02:00 | Roelf | Yes I do | Property Rights & Investment Protection | ||
2026-08-18 09:28:34 +02:00 | Chris | Not fully | Property Rights & Investment Protection | ||
2026-08-18 09:25:56 +02:00 | karen | Yes I do | Property Rights & Investment Protection | ||
2026-08-18 09:13:06 +02:00 | Liesl | Yes I do | Property Rights & Investment Protection | A government that fails to secure citizens' property rights in an illegitimate government and we want recourse against EWC | |
2026-08-18 08:05:17 +02:00 | Bjorn | Yes I do | Broad Criminal Definitions | Dear Minister of Human Settlements, I am writing to submit my comments regarding the draft Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Amendment Bill. I support the objective of reforming the PIE Act to provide stronger protection for property owners and to streamline the eviction process. The current legal framework has made evictions excessively slow, expensive, and complex, often leaving property owners to bear the financial burden of municipal housing shortages and organized property invasions. To ensure this Bill achieves its objective effectively without getting delayed by constitutional challenges or judicial bottlenecks, I submit the following points: Support for Streamlined Evictions: I welcome measures that simplify and accelerate eviction proceedings for lawful property owners, particularly in cases of deliberate land invasions and building hijackings. Property rights (Section 25) must be meaningfully protected. Clarifying the State’s Responsibility: The law must make it explicitly clear that the duty to provide emergency or alternative accommodation rests solely with local government, not private landowners. Private property owners should not be forced into indefinite, uncompensated housing provision while waiting for municipal intervention. Practical, Fast-Track Court Procedures: Rather than adding layers of complex criminal litigation that could clog the magistrate courts, the focus should be on expedited civil remedies, rapid-response interdicts, and swift enforcement by the South African Police Service (SAPS). Enforceable Penalties: While severe fines and criminal sanctions are necessary deterrents against organized syndicates and property hijackers, the provisions must be drafted precisely so that enforcement is practical and targets malicious bad actors directly. I urge the Department to finalize these amendments in a way that decisively restores the rule of law and protects property rights, while maintaining the necessary legal clarity to withstand constitutional scrutiny. Sincerely, | |
2026-08-18 07:16:06 +02:00 | Wendy | Yes I do | Property Rights & Investment Protection | For too long buildings have been hijacked and the system abused and manipulated. | |
2026-08-17 21:10:47 +02:00 | simphiwe | Yes I do | Broad Criminal Definitions | ||
2026-08-17 18:43:37 +02:00 | Nomthandazo | Yes I do | Property Rights & Investment Protection | No investor will invest where his interest is not protected by illegal occupation | |
2026-08-17 17:08:10 +02:00 | Magdel | No I do not | All of the above | Property Rights & Investment Protection | No investor will invest where his investment is not protected from illegal occupants |
2026-08-17 16:43:51 +02:00 | Stephen | Yes I do | All of the above | Property Rights & Investment Protection | |
2026-08-17 16:32:05 +02:00 | Kevin | Yes I do | Broad Criminal Definitions | I broadly support stronger measures against organised illegal occupation of land, but I believe the Bill must also provide clear protection for lawful property owners and occupiers who are confronted by an attempted unlawful occupation. South Africa has a serious violent-crime problem, and an unlawful occupation cannot always be assumed to remain peaceful. A situation that begins as a gathering, protest or attempted occupation can escalate rapidly into intimidation, threats, destruction of property or violence. The law should therefore place a clear duty on the authorities to intervene promptly when an unlawful occupation is developing. A lawful owner or occupier should not be placed in a position where they must simply surrender control of their home, farm or business premises while waiting for a lengthy legal process. At the same time, the Bill should make an important distinction between preventing an unlawful occupation and carrying out an eviction after occupation has already become established. A person who is lawfully present on their property should retain the ordinary legal right to protect themselves, their family and other occupants from violence or an imminent unlawful attack. The legislation should not inadvertently criminalise reasonable defensive action simply because it occurs in the context of an attempted land occupation. This is particularly important in rural areas, where police response times may be longer and owners, workers and their families may be geographically isolated. However, any protection must remain tied to necessity and proportionality. It should not create a general licence to use violence against people merely because they are trespassing or protesting. The distinction should be clear: protection should apply where there is an imminent threat to persons or a genuinely developing unlawful occupation, and any force used must remain within South Africa's existing law of private defence. I therefore support the Bill's intention to deter and prosecute those who deliberately incite, organise or facilitate illegal occupations, but I believe it should go further by ensuring: * rapid intervention by SAPS and municipalities when unlawful occupation is attempted; * clear protection for lawful owners and occupants defending themselves against violence or imminent attack; * protection against liability where reasonable action is taken to prevent an unlawful occupation before it becomes established; * strong penalties for organisers who deliberately use intimidation or violence to facilitate occupation; and * safeguards ensuring that lawful protest and peaceful political expression remain protected. Property rights, housing rights and the right to protest can all be recognised without requiring a lawful property owner to become defenceless when an illegal occupation turns threatening or violent. The law should deter illegal occupation at the earliest possible stage and ensure that the State, rather than individual citizens, carries the primary responsibility for preventing these situations from escalating. | |
2026-08-17 14:56:47 +02:00 | Isabel | No I do not | All of the above | Loss of Long-Term Occupier Protection | |
2026-08-17 14:43:03 +02:00 | Regan | Not fully | Constitutionality & Homelessness | ||
2026-08-17 14:09:06 +02:00 | Pieter | Yes I do | No concern, I Support the Bill | The bill is a step in the right direction. However it can be strengthened further. For example, there should be scenarios in which evictions are allowed on prima facie evidence - i.e. if a person invades or lives on land that they do not own, don't have a lease agreement for, or they have missed a set number of rental payments, the land owner should be able to evict without a court order. It should then be up to the invader / illegal occupier to appeal through the courts. | |
2026-08-17 11:34:29 +02:00 | Gm | Yes I do | No concern, I Support the Bill | ||
2026-08-17 11:25:01 +02:00 | Heinu | Yes I do | No concern, I Support the Bill | A good start, but private property must be protected even more. No one is free if their belonings can be seized by another. | |
2026-08-17 10:58:26 +02:00 | Claudette | Yes I do | No concern, I Support the Bill | I fully support the bill, however, I believe the bill can still be strengthened by adding a few more concerning issues which must still be addressed. | |
2026-08-17 10:56:55 +02:00 | Kim | Yes I do | No concern, I Support the Bill | ||
2026-08-17 10:46:41 +02:00 | Jaco | Yes I do | No concern, I Support the Bill | Restore the law - illegal occupation is not a solution. | |
2026-08-17 10:43:25 +02:00 | Schalk | No I do not | Property Rights & Investment Protection | ||
2026-08-17 10:29:56 +02:00 | marina | Yes I do | No concern, I Support the Bill | ||
2026-08-17 08:51:34 +02:00 | Katherine | Yes I do | No concern, I Support the Bill | There needs to be stronger protections for legitimate landlords who act within the law and by good faith. There should be dedicated FREE eviction courts for landlords under a massive threshhold for commercial property, and a reasonable threshhold for residential property. | |
2026-08-17 08:36:55 +02:00 | Rigard | Yes I do | No concern, I Support the Bill | ||
2026-08-17 07:57:21 +02:00 | Riana | Yes I do | Property Rights & Investment Protection | ||
2026-08-17 07:56:50 +02:00 | Marius | No I do not | All of the above | Property Rights & Investment Protection | The govermentlook only after themselfs. As soon as a high rising goverment building are illegeal occupied then it is unlawfull. Let a private individual property be illegally be invaded and occupied then it is not a problem. So the same law they approved just for the sake of we will show the broader public we will do what ever we want. Is now backfiring on them selfs |
2026-08-17 06:57:59 +02:00 | Alan | Yes I do | All of the above | Broad Criminal Definitions | |
2026-08-17 06:23:26 +02:00 | Leonelle | Yes I do | No concern, I Support the Bill |
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.