Download the file - United Nations Rule of Law

316Summary of case studiesThese efforts helped many in the community to gain anew perception of themselves as persons imbued withcertain rights that are protected by both national and internationallaw. They also learned that the government and theWorld Bank had certain legal obligations to them whether ornot they had valid legal title to their lands. They learned thatthe World Bank and the government were under duty toconsult with them and to ensure their active participation inthe LDSP’s design and implementation, as well as to provideadequate notice, compensation, resettlement and rehabilitationto them should forced eviction become inevitable inorder to accomplish the project’s purposes.Following a series of consultations and investigations,the government of Lagos renewed its effort to forcibly evictthe Ijora-Badia community in July 2003. Now, however, theresidents were better organized, mobilized and determinedto keep their homes. On 29 July 2003, a demolition squadescorted by heavily armed police officers destroyed a part ofthe Ijora-Badia settlement, but had to pull back momentarilydue to vehement resistance.On 1 August 2003, SERAC filed a lawsuit on behalf ofthe Ijora-Badia residents seeking to enforce their fundamentalrights, as well as an order of injunction restraining therelevant authorities from continuing with the community’sdestruction pending a resolution of the matter by the courts.On 19 August 2003, the court granted leave to the applicantsto apply to enforce their fundamental rights.In disregard of the pending lawsuit and the order ofleave, the Lagos state government again attacked Ijora-Badiaon 19 October 2003. Bulldozers backed by heavily armedpolice officers destroyed houses and other structures and leftover 3000 people homeless, mostly women and children.In a dramatic turn of events, however, researchrevealed that a significant portion of the Ijora-Badia lands hadbeen acquired by the federal government of Nigeria in 1929for the use and benefit of the Nigeria Railway Company. Thisfinding had profound implications for the community andthe Lagos state government. In a SERAC-backed petition tothe federal minister for housing and urban development, theIjora-Badia community ascribed responsibility to the federalgovernment for the many violations committed against themby the Lagos state government and demanded immediateaction to save their homes and land. In an uncharacteristicallyswift reaction, the minister notified the Lagos stategovernment of its legal ownership of the Ijora-Badia land anddirected the Lagos state government to keep away fromIjora-Badia while accepting responsibility to upgrade andredevelop Ijora-Badia for the benefit of its people.An urban slice of pie: The Prevention ofIllegal Eviction from and UnlawfulOccupation of Land Act in South AfricaThe first democratically elected parliament of South Africaadopted a constitution with a bill of rights in 1996. The billof rights included a range of justiciable socio-economicrights, including the right to housing, all of which were to be‘respected, protected, promoted and fulfilled’. The adoptionof the new constitution offered hope to thousands ofhomeless and landless South Africans, who looked forwardto the fulfilment of their rights to land and housing (see alsoChapter 6).After the abolishment of apartheid, millions of peoplewere able to move about freely for the first time, leading to arapid increase in the level of urbanization. Furthermore, thedemocratically elected government committed itself toreturn land to those who had been dispossessed on thegrounds of their race and local government, and pledgeditself to deliver basic services to the majority of the poor.The government made it clear that South Africa’s historyhad for too long been one of dispossession and dislocation.In excess of 3 million people had been forcibly removed toenforce spatial racial segregation. The apartheid regime hadbulldozed black communities and moved them away fromthe centre of every one of its cities and most towns.Shortly after the introduction of the new constitution,the courts started grappling with its impact on tenure issues.The key court cases centred on evictions: the new constitution,in effect, banned evictions without a court order madeout after considering all relevant circumstances. In adramatic shift from old cases – where an assertion of ownershipwas sufficient to obtain eviction – a new court rulingheld that landlords/owners had to plead all relevant circumstances,otherwise cases were to be dismissed by the courts.As a result of the new constitution, the new parliamentadopted a series of new legislation (see Box 6.25).Prominent among these was the Prevention of IllegalEvictions from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE),which was passed in 1998. In fact, most of the land-relatedcases that have reached the higher courts in South Africaduring the last decade have dealt with PIE’s impact on thelives of people living illegally on land in urban areas. The newact protected illegal occupants from the evictions of old andprescribed new procedures for carrying out evictions.A flurry of cases followed across the country, adoptingor rejecting the greater burden being placed on theowner, and the new legislation, particularly PIE, came to playa significant role. Further statutory interpretations ensuredthat, in all cases, potential evictees (often previously evictedwithout ever having seen court papers) had to be advisedexpressly of their right to legal representation; furthermore,the courts ruled that they were entitled to legal representationwhenever they faced substantial injustice. Landlords(and courts) initially believed that this legislation regarding‘illegal evictions and unlawful occupations’ dealt only withthe hundreds of thousands of people living in desperateconditions in informal settlements. However, after a longseries of court cases, it was clarified that this protectiveapproach should be applied to all unlawful occupants, includingthose who had not paid rent or their mortgage, and whohad therefore become unlawful occupants. These new courtcases were, in fact, developing a substantive rights jurisprudenceand were not merely interpreting proceduralprotections.The next key shift occurred with the Grootboom case(see also Box 6.26), where the Constitutional Court, whilenot following the High Court’s order that shelter should bemandatory for children – held that in failing to provide for