MALAIKA MAHLATSI: Non-compliance impacts everyone – including those who do not comply

A few years ago, an informal settlement mushroomed not too far from the Johannesburg North suburb where I live. It has since become fully developed, with economic activity taking place around it.

It started like most other informal settlements in the city – a few shacks built on an open veld, and within months, an entire community had been established. But like many such settlements, this one does not have basic amenities such as running water, sanitation and electricity.

It is not a regularised settlement and while the Constitution and the Municipal Systems Act obligate municipalities to provide these basic municipal services to all residents, including those in unregularised informal settlements, this does not often happen due to fiscal constraints.

Making the situation worse for this particular informal settlement is that it is built on a wetland. As a trained geographer and urban planner, I have an appreciation of the very real dangers of building houses on wetlands.

It leads to environmental degradation (impacting the natural environment and wildlife, as wetlands are a vital ecosystem that supports biodiversity) and structural problems. The lack of water and sanitation services also leads to sewage flooding and other challenges that result in health issues. It is a very serious challenge.

This issue close to home is the reason that I have been following the legal battle between the City of Johannesburg and some residents of Klipfontein View with keen interest. This particular matter does not involve the illegal occupation of a wetland, but rather, encroachment onto state-owned land that has been identified for the development of a much-needed clinic and wellness centre.

The City was forced to institute legal proceedings against the residents following their refusal to demolish their unlawfully erected houses on the land on which the municipality is building the wellness centre. A month ago, the Gauteng division of the High Court, having received a request from the city for the removal of the occupants, granted the order in the municipality’s favour.

One of the deciding factors for this order, beyond its legal rationality, is the impact that the encroachment will have on the broader community. It came out during evidence that the larger community of Klipfontein View is on the side of the City of Johannesburg and is putting pressure on the municipality to apply the law and ensure the removal of the occupiers.

This is because the wellness centre that the municipality is developing, which will include a clinic and drug treatment centre, was requested by the community that so desperately needs the services. The respondents, in their submission to the court, contended that while they acknowledge the unlawfulness of their actions in erecting their homes on state land, the municipality must be considerate towards their families.

I have an appreciation of the crisis of landlessness that forces people to build on unoccupied land, especially in cities like Johannesburg, where land hunger is particularly pronounced. Gauteng is the smallest province in South Africa by land mass. Yet, it has the country’s biggest share of the population.

It is home to more than 16 million people, many of whom have been forced to migrate here by economic circumstances rooted in the historical disenfranchisement of other parts of the country that happened alongside the concentration of industry and resources here. It is important that we recognise that all this is happening because of our country’s history of land dispossession that has left Black people without ownership of land.

For this reason, I deeply sympathise with the 20 respondents in this case. But there is another reality that we must confront with honesty, and it is that the community of Klipfontein View has every right to basic services that the government is constitutionally obligated to provide.

Access to healthcare is a critical need, especially in a township where no alternatives exist. Johannesburg is battling a substance abuse epidemic of biblical proportions. It requires medical and psychological interventions. We cannot and must not condemn drug addicts to criminalisation by moralising drug addiction.

We must, instead, provide the necessary services to those who are struggling with it. A drug treatment centre is a critical need because the future of this country rests on its youth, and that youth is dying of drugs.

In building the Klipfontein View Wellness Centre, the City of Johannesburg is attempting to resolve this very pertinent issue. How is the municipality supposed to do this work that is to the benefit of a collective, to nearly 15,000 residents of Klipfontein and surrounding working-class communities, if 20 people decide that they should be prioritised for housing above all else and all others?

The reality of the situation is that the government has competing priorities and limited resources. In an ideal economy, the state should be able to provide housing to all, while also providing basic services like clinics. But this is not possible, and the implication is that a determination must be made about what must be prioritised.

Our collective impatience with some issues, legitimate though it may be, compounds the crisis of under-development. When we resort to non-compliance, as happened with the individuals who encroached on land meant for the development of a clinic and wellness centre, we interfere with the important and systematic work of the government and place the lives of our communities in jeopardy. It is calamitous for everyone involved.

Imagine if the municipality allowed the 20 respondents to remain on the occupied land and failed to build the wellness centre. It is those same households who will be terrorised by drug addicts who, seeking money to buy the next fix, will break into those houses, causing unimaginable harm. We must recognise that non-compliance affects everyone, including those who do not comply.

The order by High Court Judge, M.M. Mabesele, instructs the respondents to destroy and/or demolish the structures they have erected and states that in the event that they fail to comply within the stipulated number of days, the sheriff of the court be authorised to demolish them and recover the costs and expenses of the demolition from them.

I hope that the situation does not come to this, that the respondents will work alongside the City of Johannesburg to ensure a dignified removal process.

It would be painful to see huge tractors razing down people’s houses to their foundations as we have often seen. It is a dehumanising experience to which no one should be condemned. This is why non-compliance should never be a resort. Everyone pays the price for it.