The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) has come out strongly against what it calls “unlawful and degrading” evictions being carried out in Gauteng and other parts of the country, warning that the practice violates the Constitution and leaves vulnerable families destitute.
In a statement released on Sunday, the Commission condemned remarks by Gauteng Premier Panyaza Lesufi, who recently vowed that the province would push ahead with night-time operations to reclaim hijacked buildings and dismantle informal settlements, even if it meant carrying out removals “at 02h00 in the morning.”
“These actions are inhumane, degrading, and dangerous,” the SAHRC said. “They expose families to criminality, trauma, and displacement, and erode the very foundations of our constitutional democracy.”
Evictions have been a flashpoint issue in South Africa for decades, as rapid urbanisation, unemployment, and rising rents push thousands into informal settlements and abandoned buildings. According to housing activists, municipalities often justify forced removals as necessary to deal with overcrowding, crime, or fire hazards.
But many evictions are carried out without court orders, in violation of Section 26(3) of the Constitution, which explicitly prohibits removing anyone from their home without judicial oversight. The Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE), passed in 1998, was meant to give practical effect to this constitutional protection. It requires meaningful consultation with communities and safeguards for children, women, older persons, and people living with disabilities.
Yet, despite the law, rights groups say unlawful evictions have only increased in recent years, particularly in big cities such as Johannesburg, Cape Town, and Durban.
For residents of informal settlements, the SAHRC’s statement is not just about legal technicalities – it is about survival.
In Marlboro South, Johannesburg, Thandiwe Maseko (32) and her two children were among dozens of families forced out of shacks by private security in July. She recalls being woken in the early hours by dogs barking and the sound of corrugated iron sheets being torn down.
“They told us to take what we could and leave. There was no warning, no papers, nothing,” she said. “We slept on the street for two nights. My children are still scared when they hear loud noises.”
Her story mirrors many others across the province: children pulled from their beds, older persons unable to collect medication, and breadwinners losing what little security they had.
Premier Lesufi has defended his stance by pointing to the dangers of hijacked buildings, especially after the 2023 fire in Johannesburg’s Marshalltown that claimed more than 70 lives.
“We cannot fold our arms while criminal syndicates profit from hijacked buildings and families live in unsafe, overcrowded, and undignified conditions,” Lesufi said recently. “If it means we must act at night to save lives and reclaim our city, then that is what we will do. We cannot normalise lawlessness.”
But critics argue that the Premier’s approach prioritises security crackdowns over humane solutions. “We don’t deny the challenges of hijacked buildings,” said an Inner-City Housing Coalition, “but you cannot simply throw people out in the middle of the night without alternatives. That is state violence dressed up as policy.”
The SAHRC echoed this concern, stressing that eviction must “never be a pathway to destitution” or a tool of exclusion. Instead, it urged government to balance safety concerns with its constitutional obligation to provide adequate housing.
The Commission announced plans to engage with key government departments, the South African Local Government Association, and the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority to address the issue.
“Monitoring alone is not enough,” the statement read. “Political will, institutional accountability, and community empowerment are essential to ending this crisis.”
For families like Maseko’s, those words cannot come soon enough. “We just want a safe place to live,” she said softly, clutching her youngest child. “Is that too much to ask?”
