Evictions and the right to housing

Two evictions have been in the news in Cape Town recently: The violent eviction today of occupiers of unfinished houses in Delft, and the as-yet unresolved application by the provincial government to evict 22 000 people from Joe Slovo informal settlement to make way for the N2 Gateway development. The constitution recognises property rights, but also guarantees rights that limit the ability of owners to enforce their property rights — notably the right to human dignity and the right to access to housing. Today the Costutional Court issued judgment in another landmark eviction case. Click through for discussion and reactions.

Update (21/02): The Delft evictees are appealing for food and water after spending the night out in the open. Sandra Liebenberg writes in the Cape Times Municipalities must consider people's housing rights when planning evictions (behind paywall). Human Rights Commission to probe Delft evictions.

Pierre de Vos discusses the difficulties of balancing these rights in a post to his excellent blog Constitutionally Speaking today in reference to the Constitutional Court's judgment in the matter of "Occupiers of 51 Olivia Road Berea Township and 197 Main Street Johannesburg v City of Johannesburg". Unfortunately the links to the full judgment are broken on the Concourt site, but the media summary is available. (Hopefully those links will be corrected soon.) From the summary:

...the Court held that it is essential for a municipality, to engage meaningfully before ejecting people from their homes if they would become homeless after the eviction. This is mandated by various provisions of the Constitution, including section 26(2). People must be treated as human beings. A court must take into account whether there has been meaningful engagement before granting an order evicting people from their homes. The Supreme Court of Appeal should therefore not have granted the ejectment order in the circumstances of this case where there had been no engagement.

Secondly, while the City has obligations to eliminate unsafe and unhealthy buildings, its constitutional duty to provide access to adequate housing means that potential homelessness must be considered by a city when it decides whether to evict people from buildings.

This is Pierre de Vos's take on the judgment:

As I read it, this judgment does not prevent authorities from evicting people, but emphasize that where such an eviction is required it should be done in a manner constistent with the Constitution. High-handed, secretive actions by the authorities that disrespect the rights of the people involved would not be reasonable.

Important principles are being affirmed here that raise questions in the Delft and Joe Slovo cases. Have the authorities engaged adequately and given adequate consideration to their constitutional duty to provide access to adequate housing?

What are your thoughts on this (particularly anyone who is familiar with the eviction proceedings in the Delft case)? Will this judgment have bearing on the Joe Slovo case? Let me know what you think in the comments!

Update (21/02): Sandra Liebenberg says in today's Cape Times:

"Human beings are required to be treated as human beings" - this is the key message which emerges from the Constitutional Court's landmark judgment...

...[the Court] affirmed the basic principle that in situations where people face homelessness due to an eviction, public authorities should engage seriously and in good faith with the affected occupiers with a view to finding humane and pragmatic solutions to their dilemma. ...

It affirms, in the first place, the foundational constitutional value of respect for each person's inherent dignity.