Experts warn that the proposed changes to the 2026 PIE Amendment Bill could worsen the housing crisis in South Africa.
Image: File picture
The proposed 2026 Amendment Bill to the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE) is drawing significant scrutiny from housing policy experts and stakeholders, urging a re-evaluation of its implications.
Renier Kriek, the Managing Director at Sentinel Homes, says while PIE was originally designed to protect vulnerable unlawful occupiers, its current reading has unintentionally compromised the very essence of housing access for many South Africans.
PIE was instituted as a response to the harsh practices of apartheid-era evictions, bringing about a constitutional safeguard to uphold the dignity and judicial rights of those living unlawfully on land — primarily targeting squatters. However, says Kriek, the act’s broad definitions and provisions, particularly surrounding the term “unlawful occupier,” have led to court interpretations that extend protection to individuals who previously occupied land lawfully, but whose rights have lapsed. Key legal judgments, notably the Supreme Court of Appeal's decisions in Ndlovu v Ngcobo and Bekker v Jika, have underscored this interpretation, categorising past tenants and owners as “holders over,” thus unintentionally including them under PIE’s protective umbrella.
Kriek argues that while this legislative understanding was valid from a textual standpoint, it has significant repercussions for housing policy. The proposed amendment, as it stands, could exacerbate these issues rather than rectify them. The 2006 Amendment Bill presented an opportunity to clarify that PIE should not apply to individuals who occupied land under prior agreements when those agreements ended. It clearly delineated that PIE was not intended to cover tenants, mortgagors, and owners, addressing the fallout from the high court’s interpretation.
As the bill is currently open for public comment, Kriek maintains that South Africans must advocate for the incorporation of the corrective language from the 2006 Amendment Bill into the 2026 propositions. Crucially, this is not an attack on housing rights; rather, it is a plea for a better understanding of them, where access to adequate housing extends beyond merely securing evictions for those already within the formal housing market.
Section 26 of the South African Constitution guarantees access to adequate housing, but the implementation of piecemeal amendments without comprehensive understanding risks stranding those who desperately require housing access. Increased risks associated with recovery processes for landlords and investors could lead to discouragement in the housing sector — a vicious cycle manifesting in strict tenant screening, boisterous rental prices, and diminished interest in affordable housing initiatives.
Moreover, Kriek posits that it is usually those in precarious situations — those who lack adequate housing or who have never held legitimate access to it — who bear the brunt of ineffective eviction legislation. Far too often, the legal system inadvertently prioritises the interests of the privileged; “holders over” receive protection while newcomers are kept in limbo without security in their search for housing. Thus, PIE’s moral obligation should focus on safeguarding vulnerable squatters from arbitrary evictions, rather than prolonging the stay of those who have overstayed their welcome.
As South Africa confronts an increasingly bleak housing crisis, renewing the PIE Act’s focus on its primary purpose is imperative, says Kriek. Housing access must be protected not merely for those already inside the system, but for the individuals striving to enter it. The legislative revision offers a chance to align legal frameworks with the true promise of Section 26 — ensuring that more South Africans gain access to adequate housing instead of fewer.
IOS