According to the Freedom Charter of 1955, “all people [of South Africa] shall have the right to live where they choose, be decently housed, and to bring their families up in comfort and security.” Similarly, the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act of 1998 (PIELA) aims to eradicate persistent post-Apartheid residential segregation by preventing the unlawful persecution of mostly black, impoverished renters and tenants who occupy land claimed by mostly white, wealthier landlords. Yet, upon examining its imperfect performance, one notes that it has failed to deliver on such a promise. Its sluggish redress of white-dominated land ownership makes unrealistic the hopes for an egalitarian state where people of color
…show more content…
In 1951, the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act (PISA) preceded the PIELA and collectively labeled black township and informal settlement residents as squatters. PISA enforced the removal of non-white residents from their homes into townships such as Cape Town’s District Six, which is the eviction-centered residential segregation that the PIELA aims to reverse. Today, the PIELA attempts to counteract this discriminatory precedent by prohibiting illegal evictions, especially evictions of black residents by white landowners. To ensure due process to residents of color, the law mandates that court officials assess the so-called relevant circumstances under which impoverished people of color might be occupying land. Yet, the act does not prevent private agribusiness, corporate, and other landowning interests from prosecuting occupants occupying those interests’ land if private interests procure an accredited attorney to local public prosecutors. The reality that, today, white landowning interests continue to put black South African residents of informal settlements on trial for attempting to live on white-owned land is highly problematic. Essentially, these white interests work within the PIELA to continue Apartheid-era racial discrimination in the economy, society and the law. Key statistics and …show more content…
As it stands, the PIELA allows predatory lenders to demand payment from impoverished residents of color within the law. In particular, cases such as Jaftha v Schoeman of 2004 and Gundwana v Steko Development of 2011 illustrate the continued struggle of black South Africans to keep their residences against white lenders and landowners’ expropriation. Regrettably, these corporate interests persuade courts to prosecute dark-skinned, impoverished people far too often. In Jaftha v Schoeman, Maggie Jaftha, an unemployed woman of color with only an elementary-level education, had to fight Afrikaner creditor Mietjie Skaarnek’s claim to hundreds of Rand in the first case to question legally enforced seizure of civilian property. Additionally, the white-led Nedbank received court permission to avoid the constitutional right of Elsie Gundwana to fair housing and evict Ms. Gundwana from her home, like the situation under Apartheid, when the Afrikaner National Party (ANP) bulldozed townships such as District Six, on the outskirts of Cape Town, which contained many residents of color. These cases show that Skaarnek and Nedbank unjustly discriminated against Jaftha and Gundwana as incompetent and unimportant people of color, seeking to sadistically cheat the impoverished defendants of color out of land for capital gains.
In 1951, the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act (PISA) preceded the PIELA and collectively labeled black township and informal settlement residents as squatters. PISA enforced the removal of non-white residents from their homes into townships such as Cape Town’s District Six, which is the eviction-centered residential segregation that the PIELA aims to reverse. Today, the PIELA attempts to counteract this discriminatory precedent by prohibiting illegal evictions, especially evictions of black residents by white landowners. To ensure due process to residents of color, the law mandates that court officials assess the so-called relevant circumstances under which impoverished people of color might be occupying land. Yet, the act does not prevent private agribusiness, corporate, and other landowning interests from prosecuting occupants occupying those interests’ land if private interests procure an accredited attorney to local public prosecutors. The reality that, today, white landowning interests continue to put black South African residents of informal settlements on trial for attempting to live on white-owned land is highly problematic. Essentially, these white interests work within the PIELA to continue Apartheid-era racial discrimination in the economy, society and the law. Key statistics and …show more content…
As it stands, the PIELA allows predatory lenders to demand payment from impoverished residents of color within the law. In particular, cases such as Jaftha v Schoeman of 2004 and Gundwana v Steko Development of 2011 illustrate the continued struggle of black South Africans to keep their residences against white lenders and landowners’ expropriation. Regrettably, these corporate interests persuade courts to prosecute dark-skinned, impoverished people far too often. In Jaftha v Schoeman, Maggie Jaftha, an unemployed woman of color with only an elementary-level education, had to fight Afrikaner creditor Mietjie Skaarnek’s claim to hundreds of Rand in the first case to question legally enforced seizure of civilian property. Additionally, the white-led Nedbank received court permission to avoid the constitutional right of Elsie Gundwana to fair housing and evict Ms. Gundwana from her home, like the situation under Apartheid, when the Afrikaner National Party (ANP) bulldozed townships such as District Six, on the outskirts of Cape Town, which contained many residents of color. These cases show that Skaarnek and Nedbank unjustly discriminated against Jaftha and Gundwana as incompetent and unimportant people of color, seeking to sadistically cheat the impoverished defendants of color out of land for capital gains.