Minister Thembisile Simelane explained the amendments aim to curb organised land invasions while preserving constitutional protection against arbitrary eviction.
Legal experts warned that broader criminalisation and uncertainty over alternative accommodation could have unintended consequences for vulnerable occupiers.
The roundtable called for stronger safeguards, meaningful public participation and closer attention to municipal capacity and the roots of South Africa’s housing crisis.
South Africa’s attempt to tighten the law governing illegal evictions and unlawful land occupation must protect vulnerable people without allowing organised exploitation to flourish, Human Settlements Minister Thembisile Simelane told a high-level Stellenbosch University (SU) law reform roundtable.
Recently hosted online by SU’s Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) and facilitated by Thembalethu Seyisi, the discussion examined the Draft Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Amendment Bill, published for public comment in April 2026.
Seyisi, the Head of Law Reform, Advocacy and Institutional Partnerships at the CSJ, explained that the Law Reform Roundtables are intended to foster public participation in the law-making process.
“It is a space where diverse expertise – legal scholars, policymakers, civil society, practitioners, and affected communities – come together to engage in genuine democratic dialogue to shape law reform that prioritizes social justice,” he explained.
The Bill proposes broader offences for people who organise or incite unlawful occupation, a maximum fine of R2 million, mandatory joinder of relevant public authorities, mediation in certain cases involving state-owned land and greater court powers over the duration of temporary alternative accommodation.
A difficult constitutional balance
Simelane said the reform responded to nearly three decades of experience under the 1998 PIE Act. South Africa continues to face severe housing need and spatial inequality, while organised land invasions, building hijackings and the unlawful sale of sites increasingly exploit desperate households, she pointed out.
“We must therefore avoid a false choice between protecting vulnerable occupiers and upholding the rule of law,” she said. “A just framework must do both.”
She stressed that the Bill was not a substitute for housing delivery. The longer-term answer, Similane argued, lay in serviced land, affordable housing and informal-settlement upgrading. She also welcomed scrutiny of the Bill and said the public consultation period would be extended to allow further input.
Warnings about unintended consequences
Prof Thuli Madonsela, Director of the Centre for Social Justice, urged government to test the legislation for “hidden unfair distributive impacts”. Using the Centre’s Social Justice Impact Assessment Matrix (SIAM), she warned that provisions aimed at criminal syndicates could also harm poor, landless and homeless people.
“Not all that is made for all is tailored for all,” Madonsela said. She recommended narrowing the criminalisation provisions to target those acting with criminal or commercial intent rather than community organisers and called for pregnancy to be explicitly recognised among vulnerability factors. She also supported mediation, provided mediators were properly selected and trained and funding was available.
Prof Juanita Pienaar, Acting Dean of SU’s Faculty of Law, focused on uncertainty surrounding temporary alternative accommodation. She questioned when courts might grant eviction orders without requiring such accommodation and warned that temporary relocation could leave people moving repeatedly between inadequate settlements.
“Ultimately, we cannot approach PIE in isolation,” Pienaar said, arguing that reform had to form part of a broader approach to providing equitable and effective access to land and affordable housing.
Procedural concerns were raised by Dr Sarah Fick of the University of the Western Cape, including removing court service of eviction notices as a safeguard and imposing time limits on temporary accommodation without specifying what should follow.
Arguing that the amendment Bill was unnecessary and risked weakening constitutional protections Inga Dyantyi, an attorney at Ndifuna Ukwazi, took the strongest position. She said housing shortages, failed land reform and unaffordable urban housing should be addressed at their roots rather than primarily through eviction law.
Public concerns sharpen the debate
Questions from civil society and community representatives echoed these concerns. Participants challenged the adequacy of temporary relocation areas and asked whether municipalities had sufficient resources to provide meaningful alternatives.
The position of communal land under traditional leadership came under scrutiny and concerns were raised whether criminalising organisation around land occupation could undermine legitimate community activism.
Responding, Simelane said the Department was helping municipalities assess informal settlements and find alternatives that avoid homelessness. She said mapped informal settlements had risen from 4 075 to about 4 212 and emphasised that the state’s response was “not necessarily starting from criminalising individuals”.
In closing, Madonsela said the Bill’s intentions were understood, but its possible consequences required further examination. “We may not agree with everything you’ve come up with, but what the colleagues are saying is they note the good intentions. There may however be unintended consequences.”
Subsequent to the roundtable, the CSJ submitted a policy brief to the Department of Human Settlements with recommendations on how the Amendment Bill can be best improved.
If you have rented out property and struggled to evict non-paying tenants who were also vandalising your property you will understand the importance of this legislative amendment. People are taking advantage of our constitutional democracy to protect their malicious intent.