GROUNDUP
City of Cape Town defends its demolition of homeless Green Point tent camp in court
Ndifuna Ukwazi argues City by-laws cannot be allowed to trump constitutional rights.
First published by GroundUp.
The City of Cape Town has defended its demolition of a tent camp set up by homeless people near the Green Point Tennis Club.
On 23 August, more than 20 people living in tents and informal structures were forced to vacate the area by law enforcement officials. It left the group without shelter and their tents damaged or confiscated.
Ndifuna Ukwazi (NU) Law Centre took the matter to court on an urgent basis making an application to direct the City to return the confiscated belongings. The City agreed to do this on 27 August, and it filed an answering affidavit the following day.
But NU also wants the court to declare that the City’s actions breached constitutional rights and were not in line with the Prevention of Illegal Eviction From and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (Pie Act).
The matter was heard before Acting Judge Tessa le Roux in the Western Cape high court on Friday.
Advocate Roseline Nyman, for the City, said the occupiers were served three times with notices to vacate the area — on 28 January, 23 March and 16 August.
“The occupants knew that their occupation was unlawful,” Nyman told the court.
They were also served compliance notices for intentionally blocking or interfering with pedestrian and vehicular passage in a public place, and for failing to comply with lawful instructions under the municipal by-law relating to Streets, Public Places and the Prevention of Noise Nuisances.
Nyman said the City had taken a “three-phased approach”. A compliance notice is served and the person is given the opportunity to remove their structure. The provincial Department of Social Development (DSD) offers to relocate them “to a place of safety”. If the person fails to comply, a fine is issued. If the person still fails to comply, the City’s Displaced People’s Unit (DPU) will then “clean the area of all items dumped, stored, and accumulated”.
Nyman said that hours before the eviction, officials gave the occupiers an opportunity to remove their tents. The provincial DSD offered to relocate them to the City’s Safe Spaces at Culemborg, Bellville and the Haven Shelter.
She said this offer was rejected. Instead, individuals wished to be accommodated at the Greenpoint Bowling Alley, Wynyard Mansions and Green Point Stadium. These were unavailable according to the City.
The City applied the by-law in the proper way and the Pie law was not applicable in this case, said Nyman.
Advocate Ranjan Jaga, for the applicants, argued that under the Constitution no one may be evicted without a court having considered all the relevant circumstances and issued an order. Jaga argued the City had used its by-laws to circumvent constitutional protections and the Pie Act.
“We submit that a by-law can never trump the provisions of the Constitution,” Jaga told the court.
He said the City had also violated the Disaster Management Act regulations which prevent anyone from being evicted during the lockdown period without a court order.
“The City relied on a by-law to dismantle people’s tents in the middle of a pandemic,” said Jaga.
He said the City had also ignored its own policy which stated that “tents will not be removed during the national lockdown”.
Jaga asked the court to declare the City’s actions unconstitutional.
Acting Judge Le Roux reserved judgment. DM
Become an Insider
We all have constitutional rights, as we have responsibilities, even if one is down and out of the loop.
A local authority must be able to manage the day to day running of its city, with clear laws and rules. This is to strengthen the social contract of fairness between its various citizens, so that services can be delivered and the city can function at a level which allows most residents to go about their daily lives.
This daily activity is what pays the City rates and taxes for the services required.
It’s a full-circle.
Allowing a by now substantial “sub-culture” of squatting on any public land is undermining the whole system of responsibilities. The attempt to trump individual rights (with illegal acts) over all our shared responsibilities is a red herring.
The City is offering them relocation areas, Culembourg is down the road, and it is rejected. Rejecting help when there are no other options or opportunities is not acceptable.
But maybe it’s seen as protest to occupy a 1-meter road verge and pulling ones pants down and having a good crap in full view of oncoming traffic.
That’s a different argument, to be dealt with by a different City bylaw.
Illegal settlements are a direct cause of a lot of crime and should never have been allowed to start. Just look at all the prime property in Hout Bay that is now a squatter camp. This Hout Bay shack town also “conveniently” catches fire and burns down EVERY year just before Christmas so that they can benefit from the “tragedy” through money collected by white people feeling guilty.
These okes are drug addicts first, homeless second. It’s a complicated problem to solve both, but good luck to those that try