Intention to amend Evictions Act signals possible crackdown on urban illegal occupations - but has its problems

Under apartheid, illegal occupations of land were criminal offences for which offenders faced jail time. The Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act 1951 (PISA) criminalised the entry onto land or into buildings without the permission of the owner or lawful occupier. Professor Gustav Muller notes that PISA was routinely used by the apartheid government to evict people without regard for their personal circumstances or housing needs.¹ PISA was regularly employed to demolish shacks and other unlawful structures after a nominal notice period.  Muller describes how PISA was used to weaken and erode squatters' rights and how it gave the state and landowners "draconian powers to evict squatters and demolish the buildings or structures they occupied." As such, PISA was instrumental in effecting the apartheid state's policies of racially based spatial segregation.

PISA was repealed in 1998 by the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 1998 (PIE), which aimed to regulate evictions in a fair and dignified manner and to give effect to section 26(3) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right not to be evicted from one’s home without a court order made after considering all relevant circumstances.

PIE, enacted as a corrective to PISA, has fundamentally changed the state's approach to evictions in South Africa. Over the course of the last 25 years, it has been invoked by litigants and interpreted by courts, which have developed (and continue to develop) a rich eviction jurisprudence, giving content and substance to the procedural rights it affords unlawful occupiers. For instance, the courts have held that section 26(3) places an obligation on the state to create a comprehensive and workable national housing programme, which must make housing more accessible to a wider range of people as time progresses;² that municipalities must meaningfully engage with occupiers where an eviction would render them homeless;³ that the state must provide alternative accommodation to occupiers who are rendered homeless, which must be as near as possible to the property from which the occupiers are evicted;⁴ that alternative accommodation provided must respect the dignity of the occupiers;⁵ and that municipalities must ensure that evictions do not entrench existing spatial inequalities.⁶

The issue of unlawful occupations has remained contentious, particularly in urban centres. According to recent estimates, Johannesburg hosts 188 “hijacked” buildings,⁷ although some estimates are significantly higher.⁸ The Usindiso fire is a stark example of how state neglect of such buildings, and the rapidly resulting deterioration of safety conditions, can lead to unspeakable tragedy and loss of life for the most vulnerable.

It is in this context that the Draft Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Amendment Bill (PIE Bill or the Bill)⁹ was introduced in the National Assembly in March 2023, initially as a private member’s bill in terms of section 73(2) of the Constitution. The Bill lapsed in May 2024 but was revived in October 2024. Following briefings and stakeholder engagements during 2025 and early 2026, Minister of Human Settlements, Thembisile Simelane, published the Bill on 16 April 2026 for public comment, which is due in mid-June 2026.

The Bill is intended to strengthen the recourse available to municipalities, state entities and private property owners against unlawful occupations. According to a statement by the Minister, the Bill is intended to "strengthen our ability to address individuals and organised groups who are responsible for orchestrating these invasions".¹⁰

This proposed change comes on the heels of recent statements by the Mayor of Johannesburg, Dada Morero, that the City intends to use the Expropriation Act 2024 to expropriate occupied buildings "for the public good".¹¹ This may suggest a broader state intention to crack down on unlawful occupations in inner cities.

However, the Bill raises concerns regarding the erosion of squatters' rights as developed by the courts, including the potential criminalisation of community activists and organisers.

Impact of the Bill

The most impactful proposed change in the Bill is the new clause 3(1)(b), which makes it a criminal offence for any person to "incite, arrange, organise or permit any person to occupy land without the consent of the owner, organ of state or person in charge"¹² of the land. This clause should be read together with the existing clause 3(1), which criminalises the receipt or solicitation of money or other consideration in exchange for organising or permitting unlawful occupations. In practical terms, the new clause extends the existing offence (of receiving money in exchange for organising occupations) to cover the actual arrangement of unlawful occupations.

At first glance, the new clause appears to target criminal syndicates and individuals posing as landlords of abandoned buildings, who may not be occupiers themselves but present themselves as landowners and collect unlawful rental payments. This phenomenon, and the criminal methods used to enforce it, often including violence, intimidation and extortion, are well documented.¹³

While the intention to equip the state with a mechanism to prosecute such unlawful “landlords” is appropriate, this wording – particularly the terms "arrange" and "organise" – may be sufficiently broad to include ordinary occupiers who assume leadership or mobilisation roles within their communities, potentially exposing them to criminal liability. A reconsideration of this subsection may therefore be necessary to ensure that it clearly targets criminal conduct. The current wording risks interpretations that could result in a regressive erosion of the procedural rights conferred on unlawful occupiers by the Constitution and PIE. Terms such as "induce", "coerce", "instigate" or "orchestrate" may be more appropriate.

A further notable addition is a new definition of "alternativeaccommodation", defined as "temporary accommodation provided by the owner, organ of state or person in charge that prevents persons from being rendered homeless by an eviction order and that is reasonable in the circumstances, taking into account minimum standards [sic] as prescribed in the National Housing Code - 2009, location, and availability of land and resources." Alternative accommodation typically consists of rudimentary tents or shack-like structures. It represents the minimum provision made by municipalities to ensure that occupiers are not rendered homeless as a result of eviction.

While the inclusion of a definition for alternative accommodation is positive, it raises several key issues:

• alternative accommodation is expressly framed as temporary, despite the fact that such “temporary” arrangements often effectively become permanent settlements for relocated occupiers;
• the definition requires compliance with the National Housing Code (NHC). However, the Constitutional Court has, at times, departed from the NHC, holding for instance in Joe Slovo¹⁴, that accommodation must include features such as prepaid electricity meters and tarred roads, which are not required by the NHC; and
• location is recognised as a relevant factor, which is positive and aligned with existing jurisprudence, but the provision could be strengthened by expressly requiring that, within available municipal resources, alternative accommodation should be as close as possible to the eviction site, taking into account the occupiers' economic and social networks and existing spatial inequalities.

Finally, the Bill introduces several additional changes worth noting:

• the forfeiture provisions in section 1 are expanded to include assets acquired using proceeds derived from unlawful occupations;
• the Department of Human Settlements in the relevant province must be cited in every eviction proceeding, which is a positive development likely to improve co-ordination in the provision of alternative accommodation;
• the Bill removes the distinction between short-term occupations and those exceeding six months, requiring all courts in all cases to consider: (i) the circumstances of occupation; (ii) the duration of occupation; (iii) the availability of suitable alternative accommodation or other land; and (iv) the rights and needs of vulnerable groups, including the elderly, children, persons with disabilities and women-led households. This is a positive development;
• courts are granted expanded powers to order compensation for improvements or structures, and evictions may not be executed unless such compensation has been paid;
• courts must consider the pace, scale and frequency of unlawful occupations in urgent eviction applications under section 5, which may make such relief more accessible to municipalities; and
• organs of state may now institute eviction proceedings wherever they administer or control the land.

Unlawful occupations remain a critical issue, particularly in urban centres. As the state continues to grapple with the scope and application of PIE, and as the courts continue to develop its jurisprudential content, lawmakers must ensure that the Bill does not erode the procedural protections afforded to occupiers. Amendments should align with existing jurisprudence, particularly regarding the meaning and standard of alternative accommodation. Failing this, landowners and municipalities relying on PIE are likely to become embroiled in renewed litigation, which is invariably lengthy and costly for all parties involved.