17 June 2026
Blaai af vir Afrikaanse weergawe.
The Free Market Foundation (FMF) has submitted its detailed comments on the draft Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Amendment Bill, 2026 to the Department of Human Settlements.
The FMF welcomes the Bill’s introduction of criminal offences targeting those who incite or organise illegal occupations. This represents a positive shift that closes previous loopholes and provides owners and responsible state entities with more effective tools to respond to land invasions that undermine property rights, the rule of law, and public order.
However, the FMF submits that the Bill remains inadequate in general and problematic in several respects.
The Bill fails to establish ownership and the owner’s common law rights as the unambiguous foundation of the regulatory regime. The Bill further perpetuates arbitrary distinctions, particularly regarding counter-spoliation (that is, resistance of occupation by the owner), risks imposing the burden of alternative accommodation on private property owners, and provides inadequate protection for indigent and disadvantaged owners’ constitutional property rights under section 25 of the Constitution.
Dr Martin van Staden, Head of Policy at the FMF, says: “The criminalisation of incitement and facilitation of unlawful occupation is a welcome development. Yet the Bill does not go far enough. It must clearly distinguish between the eviction of a person whose lawful occupation has terminated, and the removal of a person who occupied unlawfully from the outset. In the latter case, the law should be slow to offer any protections whatsoever.”
“The arbitrary timing-based restrictions on the right to counter-spoliation are antithetical to the rule of law. An owner or authorised agent should be entitled to take reasonable and proportional steps to prevent or reverse an unlawful occupation, provided there has been no unreasonable delay or acquiescence. Ignorance of the occupation or genuine inability to respond timeously should never operate to the owner’s prejudice,” continues Dr Van Staden.
The FMF further recommends an express statutory provision prohibiting any requirement, order, or effective compulsion on private parties to provide, fund, or facilitate alternative accommodation in eviction or removal proceedings. The state must bear this responsibility through expedited interim accommodation, dedicated funding, clear timelines, and accountability mechanisms.
To ensure equal constitutional protection, the FMF calls for targeted state-funded legal support for qualifying poor and disadvantaged property owners in eviction proceedings, with an inclusive threshold (for example, annual taxable income or gross household income below R5 million, subject to appropriate means testing). The FMF also recommends broader measures to reduce cost and complexity for owners, and a comprehensive, independent regulatory impact assessment prior to finalisation.
“The rule of law requires that any limitation on rights be authorised, rational, and non-arbitrary,” adds Dr Van Staden. “The current framework’s structural biases against owners – especially poorer and disadvantaged owners who do not have the means to fight land invasions in court – must be corrected if section 25 is to have meaningful effect for all South Africans.”
Click here to read the full submission.
Ends.
***
Vryemarkstigting verwelkom PIE-wysigingswetsontwerp maar dring aan op sterker eienaarskapbeskermings
17 Junie 2026
Scroll up for English version.
Die Vryemarkstigting (FMF) het sy gedetailleerde kommentaar op die konsep Wysigingswetsontwerp op die Voorkoming van Onwettige Uitsetting en Onwettige Besetting van Grond, 2026 aan die Departement van Menslike Nedersettings voorgelê.
Die FMF verwelkom die wetsontwerp se daarstelling van strafregtelike nagevolge gerig op diegene wat onwettige besettings aanhits of organiseer. Dit verteenwoordig ‘n positiewe verskuiwing wat vorige leemtes sluit en eienaars sowel as verantwoordelike staatsentiteite met meer doeltreffende hulpmiddels voorsien om op grondbesettings te reageer wat eiendomsregte, die oppergesag van die reg, en openbare orde ondermyn.
Die FMF doen egter aan die hand dat die wetsontwerp in die algemeen onvoldoende bly en in verskeie opsigte problematies is.
Die wetsontwerp versuim om eienaarskap en die eienaar se gemenereg-regte as die ondubbelsinnige grondslag van dié reguleringsregime te vestig. Die wetsontwerp handhaaf verder arbitrêre onderskeidings, veral ten opsigte van teenspoliasie (weerstand teen besetting deur die eienaar), loop die risiko om die las van alternatiewe akkommodasie op private eienaars te plaas, en bied onvoldoende beskerming vir behoeftige en benadeelde eienaars se grondwetlike eiendomsregte ingevolge artikel 25 van die Grondwet.
Dr. Martin van Staden, Beleidshoof by die FMF, sê: “Die kriminalisering van die aanhitsing en fasilitering van onwettige besetting is ‘n welkome ontwikkeling. Tog gaan die wetsontwerp nie ver genoeg nie. Dit moet duidelik onderskei tussen die uitsetting van ‘n persoon wie se regmatige besetting beëindig is, en die verwydering van ‘n persoon wat van die begin af onwettig besit geneem het. In laasgenoemde geval behoort die reg traag te wees om enige beskerming hoegenaamd te bied.”
“Die arbitrêre tydsgebaseerde beperkings op die reg tot teenspoliasie is strydig met die idee van die regstaat. ‘n Eienaar of gemagtigde agent behoort geregtig te wees om redelike en proporsionele stappe te neem om ‘n onwettige besetting te voorkom of om te keer, mits daar geen onredelike vertraging of stilswyende instemming was nie. Onkunde oor die besetting of ‘n werklike onvermoë om tydig te reageer behoort nooit tot die eienaar se nadeel te strek nie,” aldus dr. Van Staden.
Die FMF beveel verder ‘n uitdruklike statutêre bepaling aan wat enige vereiste, bevel, of effektiewe dwang op private partye verbied om alternatiewe akkommodasie in uitsettings- of verwyderingsverrigtinge te verskaf, te finansier, of te fasiliteer. Die staat moet hierdie verantwoordelikheid dra deur middel van versnelde tussentydse akkommodasie, toegewyde befondsing, duidelike tydlyne, en verantwoordingsmeganismes.
Om gelyke grondwetlike beskerming te verseker, doen die FMF ‘n beroep op geteikende staatsbefondsde regsbystand vir kwalifiserende arm en benadeelde eienaars in uitsettingsverrigtinge, met ‘n inklusiewe drempel (byvoorbeeld jaarlikse belasbare inkomste of bruto huishoudelike inkomste onder R5 miljoen, onderhewig aan toepaslike middeltoetse). Die FMF beveel ook breër maatreëls aan om koste en kompleksiteit vir eienaars te verminder, asook ‘n omvattende, onafhanklike regulatoriese impakassessering voor finalisering.
“Die oppergesag van die reg vereis dat enige beperking op regte deur die wet gemagtig, rasioneel, en nie-arbitrêr moet wees,” voeg dr. Van Staden by. “Die huidige raamwerk se strukturele vooroordele téén eienaars – veral armer en benadeelde eienaars wat nie die middele het om grondbesettings in die hof te beveg nie – moet reggestel word indien artikel 25 vir alle Suid-Afrikaners betekenisvolle effek kan hê.”
Klik hier om die volledige voorlegging te lees.
Einde.
