DURBAN - AN ACT meant to prevent the re-emergence and spreading of informal settlements in KwaZulu-Natal warns land and building owners to take reasonable steps to prevent the illegal invasion of their properties.
The move partially places the onus to fight the spread of slums in the province on property owners. The KwaZulu-Natal Elimination and Prevention of Re-emergence of Slums Act, 2007 was recently passed in the provincial legislature.
It aims to provide for the progressive elimination of slums in the province.
The bill also outlines measures to prevent the re-emergence of slums and guidance on how existing slums should be controlled and upgraded. The act first came into existence in 2007 but was amended recently following a court challenge by Abahlali baseMjondolo.
Among several complaints, Abahlali was unhappy that the act gave powers to the MEC for Human Settlements to evict those who had illegally occupied private land.
The Constitutional Court, according to members of the legislature, ruled in favour of Abahlali and ordered the provision be removed. MPLs said this paragraph was removed and not replaced, paving the way for the act to be passed.
The act touched on different aspects in addressing the issue of land, building invasion and the emergence of informal settlements, and prescribed the roles that should be played by those affected.
Opposition parties in the legislature said while they supported the act in its current form, it was unable to address the problems. They said addressing the massive housing backlog was the only way to deal decisively with the issue.
The act warns that: “Any person who unlawfully interferes with the reasonable measures adopted by an owner or person in charge of vacant land or building to prevent the unlawful occupation of such vacant land or building commits an offence. Any person convicted of an offence and other offences provided for in this act, is liable to a fine not exceeding R20 000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding five years or to both such fine and imprisonment.
“An owner or person in charge of land or a building that is already occupied by unlawful occupiers must, within the period determined by the responsible MEC by notice in the Gazette, institute proceedings for the eviction of the unlawful occupiers.”
DA MPL and human settlements portfolio committee member Martin Meyer said the act was not strong enough and needed to be reviewed.
“The housing backlog is huge and people are living in informal settlements or in these slum buildings in the city. No one wants to live in such conditions. The only real solution to the matter is that the government must address the housing backlog,” he said.
IFP committee member Thokozile Gumede said they were in full support of the act. “But the main question is how do you do away with informal settlements?
“We have proposed that we should hold a housing indaba to discuss all the issues related to housing. We are proposing that Human Settlements should look closely at what is happening with municipalities in the building of houses and whether the department should take over that function,” she said.
Sbu Zikode, of Abahlali baseMjondolo, said they were not aware that the act had been passed again and would check whether there were any elements that criminalised living in shacks.
“No one wants to live in a shack, but the government cannot talk about elimination of shacks without a clear programme in place of building houses.”
Human Settlements MEC Jomo Sibiya said another aspect of the act that was raised by the court and which had now been addressed was that it did not specify “when we move people from an informal settlement, where are they being moved to, we had to address that”.
“This is a very good bill that forces even the landowners to protect their property, it will help stop the building of shacks anywhere and stop our people from living in dangerous areas,” he said.
THE MERCURY