Annual Report 2008 Website
Content
2008/9
Annual Report
L
A
W
Y
E
R
S
F
O
R
H
U
M
A
N
R
I
G
H
T
S
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
2
0
0
8
/
9
ii
L
A
W
Y
E
R
S
F
O
R
H
U
M
A
N
R
I
G
H
T
S
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
2
0
0
8
/
9
CONTENTS
National Director’s Message ....................................................................................................... 3
LHR Celebrates its 30-Year Anniversary ............................................................................. 4
Refugee And Migrant Rights Programme ........................................................................... 5
Immigration Detention Monitoring Unit ............................................................................... 15
Strategic Litigation Unit .............................................................................................................. 18
Land And Housing Unit ...............................................................................................................24
Environmental Rights Project ................................................................................................. 30
Child Rights Project ....................................................................................................................... 31
HIV/AIDS Project ...........................................................................................................................32
Note of Thanks ................................................................................................................................33
Financial Statements ....................................................................................................................34
1
L
A
W
Y
E
R
S
F
O
R
H
U
M
A
N
R
I
G
H
T
S
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
2
0
0
8
/
9
NATI ONAL DI RECTOR’S MESSAGE
Lawyers for Human Rights marked an important
milestone in 2009 by celebrating its 30-year
anniversary. In response to oppressive laws
and human rights violations by the apartheid
government, human rights lawyers, activists
and academics gathered in Cape Town for a
groundbreaking conference on human rights in
1979 from which LHR emerged. Thirty years later,
a new generation of LHR lawyers continue the
spirit of activism and commitment to protect and
enforce human rights in South Africa.
As part of its celebratory activities, LHR hosted
a conference on the role and impact of public
interest litigation in South Africa on 19 and 20
November 2009 in Parktown, Johannesburg.
The conference brought together
representatives from government, the judiciary,
civil society, legal profession and chapter
nine institutions to reflect on the impact
and limitations of public interest litigation in
establishing a more equalitarian state and
enforcing human rights in South Africa.
LHR has brought a number of high profile
cases in the 2008/9 period. In the Zimabawean
Exiles Forum matter, LHR sought the release of
several Zimbabwean human rights activists who
were arrested and threatened with deportation
following a protest against the arms shipment
to Zimbabwe that took place at the gates of the
Chinese Embassy.
National director Jacob van Garderen addressing the Moutse
community during the provincial demarcation hearing in the Constitutional Court
2
L
A
W
Y
E
R
S
F
O
R
H
U
M
A
N
R
I
G
H
T
S
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
2
0
0
8
/
9
LHR’s Land and Housing Unit is involved in a
large number of eviction and land restitution
matters, including the highly publicised Schubart
Park and Kruger Park eviction cases.
This case made headlines when the North
Gauteng High Court issued an interdict
preventing the City of Tshwane from evicting a
large number of residents without following the
necessary procedure.
The Refugee and Migrant Rights Programme
continues to ofer extensive legal services in
Johannesburg, Pretoria, Durban and Musina
to an ever-increasing number of refugees and
migrant workers. In recognition of its excellent
work, the UNHCR’s regional ofce for Southern
Africa nominated LHR for the prestigious Nansen
Award, which is given annually by the UNHCR to
individuals or groups for outstanding service to
the cause of refugee protection.
The Strategic Litigation Unit has been busy
with a number of precedent-setting cases and
has been instrumental in the development
of refugee/migration law jurisprudence. Its
establishment has bolstered LHR’s capacity to
provide litigation services to the communities
served by the organisation. The Unit has
conducted and supported an incredible amount
of impact litigation. LHR has been involved,
either as attorneys of record or as amicus curiae
in no less than four Constitutional Court matters
and two appeals heard by the Supreme Court of
Appeal.
The Constitutional Court handed down
judgment in the Merafong demarcation case
in June 2008. The case was brought on behalf
of the Khutsong community to declare the 12
th
Constitution Amendment Act, which transferred
that region from Gauteng to the North West,
unconstitutional. The court dismissed the
application, finding the case required political,
rather than judicial, intervention. However,
after the case had been decided by the court,
the ANC government made an about-turn and
introduced legislation to reincorporate Merafong
into Gauteng.
A new project focusing on environmental justice
was launched to assist people adversely afected
by environmental degradation. The project
focuses on access to clean water, sanitation and
the impact of mining on the environment and
livelihoods of poor communities.
It has been an exciting and busy two years and
we look forward to taking many of these cases
into 2010.
JACOB VAN GARDEREN
NATIONAL DIRECTOR
3
L
A
W
Y
E
R
S
F
O
R
H
U
M
A
N
R
I
G
H
T
S
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
2
0
0
8
/
9
LHR’s 30-year anniversary was celebrated in November with a two-day conference in Johannesburg
under the theme of the role and impact of public interest litigation in South Africa.
More than 200 delegates from civil society, partner organisations and the legal profession attended.
On the first day keynote speakers, including Deputy Justice Minister Andries Nel, Yasmin Sooka
and Jody Kollapen outlined the key human rights challenges and the emerging use of litigation as a
strategy for ensuring change.
On the second day, delegates were invited to attend parallel sessions on refugee and migrant rights,
land and tenure reform, environmental rights, international justice and child rights.
LHR CELEBRATES 30 YEARS
OF MAKI NG RI GHTS REAL
4
L
A
W
Y
E
R
S
F
O
R
H
U
M
A
N
R
I
G
H
T
S
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
2
0
0
8
/
9
The protection of refugees and asylum-
seekers became a key human rights
concern during South Africa’s first
decade of democracy. Since 1994,
approximately 200 000 people, mainly
from the conflict areas such as the Great
Lakes region, Somalia, the Democratic
Republic of Congo and Zimbabwe have
applied for asylum in South Africa.
Despite relatively modest figures, the
government has struggled to honour
its constitutional and international
obligations to provide sanctuary and
protection to refugees and asylum-
seekers.
LHR ofers free legal services to
indigent and vulnerable asylum-seekers,
refugees and migrants. Approximately
400 people are assisted on a monthly
basis through LHR’s three law clinics. In
addition to direct legal assistance, LHR
undertakes strategic litigation, human
rights monitoring, policy development,
training and advocacy through research,
publications and participation in a
number of national and international
refugee and migrant advocacy networks.
Litigation is used to advance clients’
rights and to develop African
jurisprudence in the field of refugee and
immigration law. LHR’s legal advocacy
focuses primarily on unlawful arrest,
detention and deportation practices,
facilitating access to asylum and
socioeconomic rights of refugees and
migrants.
LHR also carries out vigorous detention
monitoring throughout South Africa
at detention centres, police stations,
airports and prisons.
LHR is also an implementing partner of
the UNHCR.
REFUGEE AND MI GRANT
RI GHTS PROGRAMME
5
OVER SEVERAL WEEKS IN MAY 2008, A WAVE OF VIOLENT ATTACKS
AGAINST PEOPLE ON THE BASIS OF THEIR PERCEIVED NATIONALITY,
ETHNICITY OR MIGRANT STATUS LED TO THE DISPLACEMENT OF TENS
OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE FROM THEIR HOMES AND COMMUNITIES.
LHR consulting Zimbabwean refugees at the Central Methodist
Church in Johannesburg in the aftermath of xenophobic violence
The “R28” group of refugees and asylum-seekers stranded next to the road outside
Lindela following their release (see page 11 for more information)
6
L
A
W
Y
E
R
S
F
O
R
H
U
M
A
N
R
I
G
H
T
S
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
2
0
0
8
/
9
REFUGEES MAKE MISTAKE OF KNOWING THEIR RIGHTS
BUSINESS DAY, 11 AUGUST 2008
The past three months have seen a
dramatic change in the public perception
of this country’s victims of xenophobic
violence.
From once pathetic victims of violent
wrath by SA’s poor and disillusioned, refu-
gees - upset by the government’s poorly
planned re-integration policy - have now
been branded as ungrateful rebels. This is
often what happens when you don’t live
up to your brand name.
The public is quite used to seeing pathetic
refugees carrying their worldly belongings
on their backs while hiking over some
rugged mountain pass to reach a border
crossing.
In SA, our perception is more of desper-
ate people scurrying under our northern
border fence escaping from a crisis that
our government often pretends does not
exist.
What we apparently don’t want to see are
politically aware adults who will not stand
idly by and watch their legal rights be
trampled on.
Two weeks ago, a group of those people
were cast away from their shelter in
Johannesburg when asked to sign a
paper, which any attorney practiced in the
law of contract would never allow their
client to sign. It stated that refugees and
asylum-seekers who registered at the
camps would lose their rights to social
assistance, among other benefits.
Refugees and asylum-seekers have the
right to access certain social grants.
Indeed, many have been benefiting from
social relief-of-distress grants since
everything they owned, including houses
and businesses, were destroyed or stolen
in the violence that caused the deaths of
65 people and displaced thousands.
Officials were quick to assure them
verbally that this provision did not apply
to refugees, but they were still required
to sign.
These assurances came from the same
department - Home Affairs - that has
done its best to erode any sense of trust
in the past 10 years by mismanaging its
refugee reception offices and by allowing
the constant harassment and arbitrary
arrest of the people it is charged with
protecting.
But when people started to question the
legality of signing the paper, they were not
given the opportunity to consult a lawyer.
Rather they were herded onto trucks and
sent to the Lindela repatriation centre.
When it became clear that it was illegal
to deport refugees, they were released
to the side of the highway with no money
to go any farther. Those men not lucky
enough to have friends or family with a
bakkie were then hauled off to the police
station to spend a week in jail for “alleg-
edly” obstructing traffic.
These frivolous charges are being used to
detain people, actually just the men, who
would normally be allowed to pay a fine.
In fact, there was not even a mention of
bail at their first appearance and pros-
ecutors are assured that the courts are
booked up for any new bail applications in
the coming weeks.
At least women and children were pro-
vided for by a local shelter although still a
long way away from their husbands and
fathers in jail.
In cells, the men were then asked to
sign an affidavit relinquishing their
refugee status, depriving them of the only
protection afforded to them at this point:
international protection.
When the affidavits didn’t work, they were
hauled back to Lindela for more inter-
views, once again without their lawyers.
This is most likely the next attempt by the
government to deport these documented
refugees and asylum-seekers to avoid the
protections provided for by Parliament in
the law.
And as this was happening, the local re-
sponse showed the true extent of how far
we still have to go toward re-integration
and reconciliation. Many described them
as “ungrateful” and “uncooperative,”
without asking why or whether there was
a valid reason for doing so.
No one should make the mistake of
idealising this group. A few among them
tried to capitalise on the situation to make
political gains, although the majority were
simply stuck at the side of the road with
nowhere to go.
But the real crime that they committed
was speaking up for themselves and their
rights. They did not live up to the expecta-
tion that a “grateful” refugee would have
been more “cooperative” with a poorly
implemented government plan.
All the more considering that the govern-
ment’s reintegration plan is nothing more
than vague assurances that it has spoken
to the hostile communities and that it is
now safe to go back.
This is cold comfort, especially after
recent reports that five refugees were
murdered when they attempted to return
to their homes.
Little wonder then that “these people” are
standing up for their rights and dignity in
a country that belongs to all who live in it.
Perhaps the first mistake was allowing
refugees in the first place to get the feel
for how a democratic society works.
David Cote heads the Strategic Litigation
Unit at Lawyers for Human Rights.
7
L
A
W
Y
E
R
S
F
O
R
H
U
M
A
N
R
I
G
H
T
S
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
2
0
0
8
/
9
Outbreak of xenophobic violence
Over several weeks in May 2008, a wave of violent attacks against people on the basis of their
perceived nationality, ethnicity or migrant status led to the displacement of tens of thousands of
people from their homes and communities.
Over 60 people were killed and more than 600 others were injured. The attacks, which appeared
to have been structured and organised by community leaders, began in the Alexandra township of
Johannesburg and quickly spread to other areas of Gauteng. The violence flared briefly in Durban
and led to the flight of an estimated 20 000 people from their homes in the greater Cape Town area.
Over 30 000 people fled to Mozambique and other countries of origin.
Although the geographical areas afected were relatively small, the impact was severe as thousands
were gripped by fear and experienced the trauma of being aggressively evicted from their homes,
physically assaulted, burnt and even killed.
The scale and intensity of the May 2008 violence was unusual and caused widespread shock but
there had been sporadic attacks on refugees and migrants leading up to the outbreak of violence,
including in Mamelodi, Atteridgeville, Soshanguve and Cape Town as well as a number of serious
incidents in previous years in the Eastern and Western Cape.
Inquiries by human rights organisations highlighted contributing factors, including strong xenophobic
sentiments among South Africans, feelings of resentment towards and competition with foreigners
over jobs, housing and social services combined with anger and frustration over the slow pace of
delivery, persistence of high unemployment levels, perceptions of corruption among the police
service and Home Afairs in relation to refugees and migrants and a lack of efective policies on
migration, the role of criminality - of an organised (politically-motivated) element - behind the
violence and limits on the police services’ organisational capacity to respond to large-scale violence.
While the national government’s response was initially slow, members of the public, humanitarian
and UN agencies, local charities and other civil society organisations ofered immediate assistance
to those displaced and sheltered at police stations, community halls, churches, mosques and other
temporary shelters.
Provincial government and local municipalities mobilised disaster management services to
coordinate a humanitarian response. The situation was declared a disaster in Gauteng, leading to
the establishment of ofcial sites referred to as “camps”. These camps were established to provide
temporary protection and safety for displaced individuals. There was a need for training on the
establishment of these camps and development of a budget from the humanitarian community. The
government, with the advice and support - including financial - of UN agencies, humanitarian and
charitable organisations and a wide range of other civil society organisations, largely funded the
response to this emergency.
LHR began a process of camp monitoring to ensure displaced foreign nationals, who were limited in
their ability to move around, were informed of their rights and could access legal assistance.
Zimbabwean refugees camped out at the Central Methodist
Church in Johannesburg in the aftermath of xenophobic violence
8
L
A
W
Y
E
R
S
F
O
R
H
U
M
A
N
R
I
G
H
T
S
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
2
0
0
8
/
9
‘LIKE A CONCENTRATION CAMP’
PEARLIE JOUBERT, MAIL & GUARDIAN, 2 OCTOBER 2008
The head of the Blue Waters refugee
camp outside Muizenberg, Western
Cape, accused the government this week
of deliberately starving out camp in-
mates—as the Home Affairs Department
prepares to deport most of them.
After speaking to the Mail & Guardian,
camp coordinator Marti Weddepohl was
also repeatedly harassed by shadowy
individuals, who warned her that she and
her family would suffer if she continued
to speak to the media.
In an interview last week Weddepohl
accused government and the City of
Cape Town of expecting her to run “a
concentration camp”, adding that Home
Affairs was using “sinister methods” to
force refugees out of the camps.
“The Blue Waters camp was specifi-
cally designed to provide the minimum
of facilities to these people. I find [the
methods] very cynical given the fact that
it’s unsafe for these people to reintegrate
into the townships.
“The government is planning to
deport most of the refugees still in the
camps and their rapid re-assessment
programme is merely window-dressing.
A government official told me the plan
is to deport up to 98% of the refugees,”
she said.“They’re expecting me to make
things as unpleasant as possible - if not
impossible - for the refugees to stay here
and I can’t do it any more.”
Lawyers for Human Rights (LHR) also
issued a statement last week express-
ing deep concern about reports that
“coercion and intimidation have been
employed in the camps to force residents
to leave the sites”.
“These methods include the removal of
identity cards from residents, removing
their property, including clothes, arresting
residents for ‘trespassing’ and then
withdrawing the charges after a weekend
in detention.”
LHR said the “Red Ants”, hired by the
council, were used to remove the tents
from the residents of the Akasia (Pre-
toria) camps, leaving refugees without
shelter.
Weddepohl said conditions in the Blue
Waters camp were “shocking” and that
two female inmates had miscarried last
week. One, a Somali, miscarried in the
camp after being refused access to the
Mitchell’s Plain hospital on Tuesday.
The M&G visited the camp last Tuesday
and spoke to three people with urinary
infections. Weddepohl said this was
because the toilets are “hardly ever prop-
erly cleaned and disaster management
officials refuse to provide materials for
the refugees to do the cleaning”.
“From the start service delivery has been
terrible. If it weren’t for the churches and
mosques, nobody would have received
food the first couple of days,” she said.
“For four months now not a single drop
of milk and no fresh fruit and vegetables
have been delivered. Only in the third
month did they deliver baby food.
“I initially thought this was incompe-
tence, but I now believe there’s a deliber-
ate intention to make life as difficult as
possible so that people will leave.”
Weddepohl said the refugees were
malnourished. “Every day I see people
with sores around their mouths and
increasingly people have to be medically
treated.
“The government has been supplying dry
bread and a small bottle of juice once
a day. When I complained about the
nutritional value of this - especially for
the kids - I was told by Adiel Mnyem-
bane, assistant director in the Depart-
ment of Social Development, that this is
what people in the townships eat and the
refugees must eat the same.”
About 2 200 foreign nationals are still
housed in three camps in the Western
Cape. Nationals of various African
countries, they have refused to move
back into the townships because they
fear for their lives. Some reintegrated but
returned after they were threatened.
Weddepohl, employed by the Cape
Town council on a monthly contract, is
contractually prevented from speaking
to the media. “But I can’t keep quiet
any longer because it’s simply not right
what is happening to these refugees and
asylum-seekers.”
She said Home Affairs officials were
using the camps to gather information
about refugees to deport them. “I’ve
been told that deportations will start
today [last Wednesday].
“I’ve been strong-armed by the police
crowd control unit to identify refugees
who were arrested and put in Pollsmoor
prison without being charged. They
were intimidated and accused of being
members of al-Qaeda by immigration
officials. These are false arrests and I’ve
been made party to them,” she said.
“The Home Affairs officials who came
into the camp on Monday called refugees
kweri-kweri in front of me. They refused
to tell me their names and laughed. I
can’t be party to people being treated
like this.”
Weddepohl said that at a meeting with
United Nations High Commission for
Refugees (UNHCR) representative Arvind
Gupta and a representative of Unicef
this week, she declared that she was
“expected to run a concentration camp”.
“I told them that I will no longer mislead
the refugees about the fact that I know
home affairs is planning to deport most
of them. The plan is to arrest people by
the end of this week and my conscience
tells me I must tell them what I know.”
She said she asked the two UN
representatives about the plan for the
refugees and what she should do. “I
asked Gupta: What must I do with them?
Force them out of the camp - and then
where do they go? They said that they
didn’t know either.”
The UNHCR announced earlier this week
that it will make R750 available to each
family leaving the camps and that those
opting to accept financial assistance will
receive it only if they move out.
Weddepohl responded to a call made by
her church in Scarborough four months
ago in response to the xenophobic
violence that swept the Cape Peninsula
and displaced thousands.
9
L
A
W
Y
E
R
S
F
O
R
H
U
M
A
N
R
I
G
H
T
S
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
2
0
0
8
/
9
...CONTINUED
She initially worked at the Soetwater
camp near Cape Point, but was later
transferred to the “consolidated” camp
at Blue Waters.
National government has announced
that all camps will close by the end of
September.
Western Cape Premier Lynne Brown
expressed concern about the alleged
harassment of Weddepohl, saying that
she “is effectively doing the state’s work
and should be protected”.
“I’m very concerned that this woman is
being threatened and have spoken to
the joint operations committee to report
to me on this matter. No volunteer or
employee should be at risk for doing
his job.
“People working for the state should
be protected at all times. As far as I’m
concerned whistle-blowers have to be
protected,” Brown said.
She said that she has not been told that
most of the refugees are to be deported.
Cape Town mayor Helen Zille said
people working in the camps with the
refugees are “entitled to speak to the
media. It’s nonsense that people are
being threatened for doing so.”
The chief director of communications of
Home Affairs, Siobhan McCarthy, denied
that refugees remaining in the camps
faced deportation.
“Home Affairs officials are trained to
assess immediately whether a person is
a genuine refugee and asylum-seeker
or merely an economic refugee. We
don’t deny people South African papers
if they’re genuine asylum-seekers,” she
said.
She confirmed that 98% of refugees
in camps in Johannesburg have been
denied refugee status, but added: “We
can’t just deport people without the right
to appeal our decisions.”
McCarthy conceded that Home Affairs
“does have a problem” with the manner
in which staff address refugees. “It’s un-
acceptable to use derogatory language
towards asylum-seekers. It’s a problem
among our staff,” she said.
Spokesperson for the NIA Lorna Daniels
denied that there was an NIA presence
in the camp.
“It is highly unlikely that those threaten-
ing the camp coordinator work for the
NIA. Our people don’t operate like that.”
Threatened for talking to the me-
dia Since speaking to the M&G, Marti
Weddepohl, camp coordinator at the
Blue Waters camp, said she was threat-
ened on three occasions by unidentified
white men who told her to stop speaking
to the media.
When the M&G visited the Blue Waters
camp a woman sitting in Weddepohl’s
office identified herself as an employee
of the National Intelligence Agency and
asked not to be photographed.
Hours after Weddepohl was interviewed
on Tuesday, a white man who refused
to identify himself visited Weddepohl at
the camp and told her not to speak to
the media.
“He told me ‘you know you are very
vulnerable and we know everything
about you. We know that you are speak-
ing to the media,’” Weddepohl said. “He
refused to identify himself.”
On Wednesday morning, driving along
Marine Drive outside Muizenberg on her
way to the camp, Weddepohl said she
was forced off the road by an unmarked
white Opel Monza.
“The car drove behind me with its
hazard lights on, flashing its headlights. I
assumed it had to do with the camp and
slowed down. The car overtook me and
forced me to stop.
“Two white men wearing jackets got out
and the one said: ‘You clearly don’t take
this seriously. We’ve told you to stop
talking to the media.’”
Later on Wednesday Weddepohl was
stopped again by the same vehicle while
leaving the camp. “The same guys got
out and were aggressive and said: ‘You
and your family clearly need to be taught
a lesson. You were warned to stop talk-
ing to the media.’”
Weddepohl said she was clearly being
watched and followed and was certain
that her telephone conversations were
being monitored.
10
L
A
W
Y
E
R
S
F
O
R
H
U
M
A
N
R
I
G
H
T
S
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
2
0
0
8
/
9
Change in focus
These attacks brought a shift in the issues and concerns of those who sought assistance at LHR’s
law clinics. A number of clients were displaced in the violence and had lost their homes, businesses,
belongings and money. The majority sought immediate relief, some wanted to be resettled and a
high number were concerned about their future security. Many clients came to LHR’s ofces seeking
immediate social assistance for accommodation, food, clothing and assistance in reopening their
businesses.
The majority of clients were referred to the Jesuit Refugee Services and Social Development
Department. LHR was also able to secure a number of social relief of distress grants and food
packages. A number of people sought advice on resettlement to third countries, requesting
assistance in approaching the UNHCR with resettlement applications.
A number of clients also sought assistance in returning to their countries of origin. LHR advised
clients on the implications of returning home and consulted them about their safety in doing so
and, when appropriate, assisted them with prepared statements and country of origin information
to submit their applications to the UNHCR and International Organisation for Migration (IOM) for
voluntary repatriation.
During July 2008, Home Afairs began a process of registering people at the temporary camps,
ostensibly to cater for the numbers and provide security at various sites. This was also to provide
temporary residence permits to undocumented foreigners, allowing them to remain lawfully in the
country for six months. This registration process was met with confusion and mistrust by a number
of displaced foreign nationals.
At this time LHR was denied access at the Rifle Range site in Glenanda where the registration
process was particularly difcult. After a large number of people refused to register, a group of
approximately 750 men, women and children were removed and taken to the Lindela Repatriation
Centre under threat of deportation. LHR was again denied access to this group and was barred from
entering Lindela.
Eventually the entire group was released from Lindela and camped on the side of the R28 in
Krugersdorp. LHR continued to monitor the group and disseminated information on their re-
integration options in South Africa and financial assistance from JRS. After this group had been
camping on the side of the R28 for a number of days, a group of 208 men were arrested and charged
with “obstructing trafc”. LHR worked with the Legal Aid Board at the Krugersdorp Justice Centre
for the charges to be withdrawn. The group was subsequently re-detained at Lindela, which was the
subject of ongoing litigation.
LHR spent almost two weeks consulting with each person at Lindela which was made difcult by
immigration ofcers refusing access to the group and restricting consultations to groups of five.
LHR launched an urgent application against Home Afairs on 2 September 2008 calling for the halt
of any deportations, their release from detention and the return of their permits on the basis that any
status determination and appeal interviews conducted while in police custody at Krugersdorp Police
Station, and subsequently re-detained at Lindela, were conducted irregularly, not least of all due to
their unlawful detention at the time.
Subsequent to launching the application, it became apparent that Home Afairs was continuing to
deport a number of this group and as it refused to give an undertaking to stop doing so until final
adjudication of the matter by the courts it was necessary to launch an urgent application interdicting
the Department from continuing any further deportations which was duly granted. An order was
ultimately obtained for the release of the remaining 37 detainees on 21 October 2008. LHR has
subsequently represented those remaining with their status determination interviews at Crown Mines
and is continuing to represent a number on appeal.
As a result of the accelerated status determination process conducted at these sites, LHR assisted
a number of people in advising them of appeal procedures and with preparation of their appeal
documents. LHR represented a number of people at the Refugee Appeal Board where they were
particularly vulnerable.
11
L
A
W
Y
E
R
S
F
O
R
H
U
M
A
N
R
I
G
H
T
S
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
2
0
0
8
/
9
COURT HALTS RELOCATION OF FOREIGNERS
IMKE HOORN AND ZODIDI MHLANA, MAIL & GUARDIAN, 2 JUNE 2008
The Johannesburg High Court has
granted an urgent interdict preventing
the relocation of foreigners displaced
by xenophobic attacks who are being
accommodated at the city’s Cleveland
and Jeppe police stations, Lawyers for
Human Rights (LHR) said on Monday.
The interim interdict was granted by
Justice Kathy Satchwell shortly after
5pm, said LHR advocate Jacob van
Garderen. It prevents the relocation of
the foreigners to a shelter at Vickers
Road, City Deep.
The application was brought by LHR
in conjunction with the Johannesburg
Central Methodist Church and Médecins
sans Frontières (MSF) pending an order
that would “ensure the safety of the
displaced foreigners,” LHR said in a
statement.
“The media have reported that a number
of the attacks on foreign nationals were
perpetrated by mobs from various hos-
tels around the city. LHR is concerned
that the displaced foreigners will be
placed in a position of vulnerability if they
are relocated to the Vickers Road shelter
as their security will not be guaranteed,”
it said.
LHR said while it recognised the urgent
need for temporary shelters, there were
“serious concerns” about the safety of
the temporary shelter at Vickers Road.
“The Vickers Road shelter is being
constructed on the site of an old railway
station in area of Kaserne that is directly
adjacent to a hostel. There were reports
that hostel dwellers fired shots at the
persons who were tasked with setting up
the camp over the weekend,” it said.
“The international standards of refugee
camps are not met,” Rachel Cohen, the
head of mission for the MSF in South
Africa, told the Mail & Guardian Online
earlier on Monday.
Bishop Paul Verryn of the Central
Methodist Church said: “The place [the
shelter] is really next to the hostels which
were probably involved in the xenophobia
attacks. We also heard that shots were
fired from the hostels. And third, the
hostels are not being consulted.”
The foreigners being accommodated at
the Cleveland and Jeppestown police
stations were to be moved to the Vickers
Road shelter on Tuesday.
“On the northern and western side of
the shelter lies a mine dump which has
been cleared by bulldozers over the past
week in order to level the ground,” said
the LHR. “There is no barrier between
the Vickers Road shelter and the hostels.
All that separates them, at present, is an
open road.”
The Gauteng provincial government
would not comment on the court order. It
would first have to look at the issues that
the LHR had raised and which neces-
sitated the interdict, said spokesperson
Thabo Masebe.
‘What if they loot our tents again?’
On Sunday some of the refugees, togeth-
er with UN and government officials, had
visited the new shelter, where hundreds
of white-and-blue UNHCR tents stand on
cement slabs under the roof of a railway
building in Vickers Road, close to City
Deep. It is not far from the M2 highway
and next to a dusty field that used to
be a mine dump. With bricks, sand and
grass spread on the ground, it looks far
from ready.
Most refugees to whom the M&G spoke
on Sunday were also scared of their
“new” hostel neighbours.
Foreign national David Kwizara from
Burundi was absolutely clear about it,
“These Zulus are going to kill us,” he
said. “We are willing to go to another
place, but we want the UN to guarantee
safety and security.”
Thandeka Nyathi, a mother of two from
Bulawayo in Zimbabwe, was one the
refugees living at the Jeppe police
station who did not want to move to the
shelter, fearing that hostel dwellers might
attack her.
“I wake up in the morning and I have to
leave the house at 5.30am, so I’m really
scared that these people might attack
us,” she said. “If we are going there, I’ll
have to find a place for myself. There is
no way that I can go near a hostel. It is
close to the Zulus; that will mean that
we are provoking them. It is safe for the
people who are unemployed because
they do not have to go anywhere. We
have to work because we have kids to
look after.”
Matthew Bruno, from Malawi, said he
would not move to the new shelter. “I am
not happy about this at all. Going to the
area, I think it’s better if we go home.
Jeppe is better. What if they loot our
tents again?” he asked.
It was also clear from speaking to some
hostel dwellers that the refugees prob-
ably would not receive a warm welcome.
Mfana Shaba, a taxi driver living at the
George Goch hostel, said: “Only Zulu
people live here and if they come to the
hostel, they would get beaten up; if they
want to see a massacre, they must bring
them here. It is not going to work.”
Leonard Kwanyana, who has been living
at the hostel for more than 10 years,
said: “If they [the authorities] removed
them to the hostel, they will be starting
a civil war. These are Zulus and their
attitude towards foreigners will never
change. They should not move them
to the xenophobic hot spot like [this]
because blood will flow on the floor.”
An induna (leader) at the hostel, Zanazo
Dladla, also questioned the government’s
plan relocate the displaced foreigners to
the new shelter. “Why are they bringing
them here? People are going to attack
them. We need to sit down as the com-
munity and the government to decided
what should happen,” he said.
On Sunday, about 2 000 people from
other locations were already moved to
tents at three other sites—Olifantsfon-
tein in Midrand, Corlett Drive Extension
in Corlett Gardens and near Rand Airport
in Germiston.
12
L
A
W
Y
E
R
S
F
O
R
H
U
M
A
N
R
I
G
H
T
S
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
2
0
0
8
/
9
Zimbabwe Dispensation Project
After many years of ignoring the particular needs of Zimbabwean migrants, in April 2009 the
government announced a new migration management regime in relation to Zimbabweans, including
a moratorium on deportations, a 90-day free visa for Zimbabweans entering South Africa and a
12-month special dispensation permit for undocumented Zimbabweans already in the country.
LHR with the Consortium for Refugees and Migrants in South Africa (CoRMSA) met and actively
lobbied senior Home Afairs ofcials to consider rolling out a special permit for Zimbabwean and
SADC nationals.
TREATMENT OF ZIMBABWEANS IN SA IS ALSO IN CRISIS
DAVID COTE
Despite the denials by President Thabo
Mbeki and Home Affairs Minister Novisiwe
Mapisa-Nqakula, there is a crisis in Zimba-
bwe; one that threatens to further displace
the Zimbabwean people. Both have stated
that there is no crisis that warrants any
policy or intervention on the part of the
government regarding the numbers of
people crossing the SA-Zimbabwe border.
This intransigent view on the part of senior
South African government officials is in
fact perpetuating a crisis in SA. Such a cri-
sis is characterised by the ill treatment and
abuse of Zimbabweans fleeing the political
oppression and subsequent economic
meltdown in that country.
Mapisa-Nqakula said on Interface, a
current affairs programme on SABC
3, recently that people found without
documents would be taken to Lindela and
deported. She also said refugees were not
deported and that there was no special
focus on Zimbabwean deportations.
This is simply untrue. Lawyers for Human
Rights have assisted a significant number
of refugees threatened with deportation.
Further, the South African Police Service
is building a new detention centre near
Musina for Zimbabweans found crossing
the northern border. In the meantime, such
people are being detained in an old sports
hall on a nearly abandoned army base.
The conditions of this facility are appalling.
The lack of services, access to appeals
procedures or the asylum process for those
wishing to make applications is a direct
violation of SA’s international obligations
and domestic immigration, policing and
refugee laws.
For example, a person who wishes to apply
for asylum must make an application within
SA at one of five refugee reception offices
located in SA’s largest cities. Moreover, our
law exempts refugees from prosecution if
they have entered SA unlawfully, as long
as they intend applying for asylum. This is
in recognition of international principles,
which acknowledge that most refugees
who flee do not carry travel documents
or otherwise fear being refused entry at a
border crossing. Detainees at the Musina
facility are neither given the opportunity
to appeal against their deportation nor
to inform an immigration officer of their
intention to apply for asylum. The evidence
of ongoing detention and deportation of
Zimbabwean asylum seekers directly con-
tradicts Mapisa-Nqakula’s statement that
SA does not deport asylum seekers.
The indiscriminate violence against
foreigners in SA, both documented and
undocumented, goes against the grain
in a country committed to respecting the
human rights of all people in SA. Mapisa-
Nqakula’s insistence that undocumented
people will be arrested, detained and
deported adds to the climate of intoler-
ance and does not prevent undocumented
migration. The overemphasis on immigra-
tion control and policing does little to curb
xenophobic attacks or to support the duty
of the police to protect foreigners against
such attacks. Even when the police do
intervene, the home affairs department has
shown its zealousness to arrest and deport
such victims before allowing the police to
investigate the attacks.
Acknowledging the extent of the crisis in
Zimbabwe is the first step the cabinet must
take in order to prevent such human rights
abuses. Human rights abuses are not only
being committed in Zimbabwe but also
in SA, where our government is refusing
to recognise its own responsibilities. The
result is that the crisis in Zimbabwe has
spilled over the borders.
In order to deal with this, the government
must take firm action in Zimbabwe and
openly recognise that the situation is a
symptom of a crisis that has been continu-
ing for nearly a decade.
The government must insist that election
results be released immediately and that
human rights abuses in Zimbabwe will not
go unchecked. The Home Affairs Depart-
ment must also reveal the plan of action
referred to by Mapisa-Nqakula during her
interview and allow the public to know
how the government plans to deal with the
numbers of people crossing the border to
escape that crisis.
Finally, the international and domestic
obligations on the government require it to
introduce a plan of action to protect foreign
nationals being assaulted and killed by the
communities in which they live. The South
African Police Service must investigate
attacks against foreign nationals, arrest
those involved and charge their own mem-
bers implicated in such attacks.
Failure to do so puts the lives of people
at risk and leads to the impression that
those who attack foreign nationals may do
so with impunity. If there is no crisis in Zim-
babwe, as the government states, then the
deaths of foreign nationals and the lack of
a plan to deal with the movement of Zim-
babweans into the country is, at the very
least, a human rights crisis in SA.
13
L
A
W
Y
E
R
S
F
O
R
H
U
M
A
N
R
I
G
H
T
S
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
2
0
0
8
/
9
Litigation
LHR is increasingly using litigation as a strategy to enforce the rights of refugees and asylum-seekers.
Many of the cases were prepared on a public interest basis through which not only the individual but
also the class or group benefited from the outcome. Our access case challenged the limited and poor
access to refugee reception ofces (RRO) but this proved unsuccessful due to the inability to have court
orders enforced. One result of this litigation was even though not directly related to it, the Crown Mines
Refugee Reception Ofce in Johannesburg was opened during early 2008.
The Moyo Case: Enforcing a child’s right to citizenship
The case of Sibekiwe Moyo involved the issue of enforcing a child’s right to acquire the citizenship of
their parent. In this case, South African authorities refused to register Moyo on the Births and Deaths
Register. One parent is South African and the other is Zimbabwean. The South African parent had
passed away and LHR assisted with necessary paternity testing. The Pretoria High Court ordered Home
Afairs to register Moyo’s birth.
Challenge to the government’s treatment of migrants affected in the xenophobic violence
As a result of the xenophobic violence and government’s response to the crisis, the Strategic Litigation
Unit was active in supporting the RMRP in two applications to the high court regarding the treatment of
the victims of that violence. In the first case, an urgent application was brought to the Witwatersrand
Local Division in Johannesburg in June 2008 to challenge a site for an emergency shelter next to a
hostel that posed a danger to the inhabitants of that site. The application was successful and the site
was moved.
Social grants for disabled refugees
Following a Constitutional Court judgment that held the exclusion of permanent residents from the
welfare scheme was discriminatory and unfair and infringed the right to equality, LHR pursued the
extension of grants to disabled refugees. LHR represented a number of disabled refugees and two
refugee organisations that had disabled refugee members. LHR launched an application challenging the
constitutionality of the exclusion from disability grants. This was successful and disabled refugees were
able to access disability grants. LHR continued to test the application of this procedure in 2009 and
assisted disabled refugees in accessing this social assistance grant.
Representing the best interests of the child: Sudanese refugee child burn survivor
LHR director Jacob van Garderen was appointed curator ad litem in respect of a young Sudanese boy in
an application brought by the Centre for Child Law.
The curator is appointed by the court to look after the child’s interests. The boy was a burn survivor
living in a refugee camp in Chad and was brought to South Africa for medical treatment. A number
of organisations and individuals were interested parties in the matter. Due to the severity of disputes
among the interested parties, a curator was appointed to make recommendations to the court.
Arrangements were made for the child to be relocated to Tunisia to continue his treatment. Tunisia was
selected for having a language, religion and culture that the child would be able to identify with. The
level of specialist treatment was readily available in Tunisia. It was also closer to the child’s extended
family who were in Chad.
LHR filed the curator’s report and the matter was finalised. The child received the necessary medical
treatment in Tunisia and returned to his family in Chad.
The LHR team outside the
Constitutional Court in Johannesburg
LHR at the Johannesburg Magistrates Court representing
Zimbabwean asylum-seekers that were unlawfully arrested
14
L
A
W
Y
E
R
S
F
O
R
H
U
M
A
N
R
I
G
H
T
S
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
2
0
0
8
/
9
LHR monitors the arrest, detention and deportation of foreign nationals at local detention centres,
including the Lindela Repatriation Centre and Musina Deportation Centre (SMG), airports, police
stations and prisons. LHR has been litigating for the release of persons unlawfully held in detention
since 2006 with a high success rate – launching at least seven high court applications each month.
LHR visited Lindela every week to consult with detainees, seeing an average 20 detainees per visit.
These visits ofered advice on their rights in detention, focusing on asylum-seekers and refugees being
detained unlawfully or wishing to lodge asylum applications.
Litigation work
Zimbabwe Exiles Forum versus Minister of Home Affairs and Others
During April 2008, a group of roughly 170 Zimbabwean nationals were arrested outside the Chinese
Embassy for protesting against the Chinese arm ship carrying arms to Zimbabwe. Of this group,
33 were detained at Lindela as they were largely undocumented. LHR intervened on behalf of the
Zimbabwe Exiles Forum and all 33 of them were assisted in lodging asylum claims. LHR then obtained
a court order securing their release.
LHR envisaged this case as a precedent-setting matter, seeking to clarify Home Afairs’ policy and
practice on a number of issues afecting many asylum-seekers in Lindela which included the detention
of asylum-seekers once they were issued with temporary permits, the maximum length of detention
permissible in law and the worrying practice of immigration ofcials releasing and immediately re-
arresting asylum-seekers at Lindela.
Jeebhai and Ulde
In Ulde, LHR acted as amicus curiae. The court confirmed foreign nationals’ constitutional right not
to be arbitrarily detained. The court further held that Section 34(1) of the Immigration Act did not
obligate immigration ofcers to detain every illegal foreign national. In Ulde’s case, the fact that a
magistrate had granted him bail should have influenced the discretionary decision and weighed
against his detention as an illegal foreigner. The court found that an ofcial must apply their mind to
the individual facts before ordering detention.
In Jeebhai, the court again stressed the consequences of deportation were far-reaching. For
this reason the court ruled immigration ofcials were bound to observe strictly and punctiliously
the administrative justice safeguards created in the Immigration Act. The court emphasised the
government had an obligation to establish sufcient facts to justify its actions with respect to arrest
and detention.
Koyabe
In February 2009, LHR brought an amicus curiae application before the Constitutional Court
challenging whether there was a requirement to exhaust internal remedies before bringing a detention
matter to court. The brief argued the procedures laid out in Section 8 of the Immigration Act did not
apply in claims based on unlawful detention because of the fundamental rights.
On 25 August 2009, the court dismissed the main application and dealt with the amicus submissions
by finding they were not relevant to the present case but preserved the issues for a future case, which
was the main aim of LHR’s intervention.
DETENTI ON MONI TORI NG UNI T
LHR at the Johannesburg Magistrates Court representing
Zimbabwean asylum-seekers that were unlawfully arrested
15
L
A
W
Y
E
R
S
F
O
R
H
U
M
A
N
R
I
G
H
T
S
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
2
0
0
8
/
9
Jean Paul Ababason Bakumundo versus Minister of Home Affairs
Jean Paul Ababason Bakumundo, a DRC national, spent 63 hours over six days standing in the queue
outside the Crown Mines RRO to renew his permit but could not gain access to the ofce. The police
subsequently arrested him due to his expired permit. LHR wrote two letters to Home Afairs on
Bakumundo’s behalf.
When Home Afairs did not respond, LHR launched an urgent application seeking Bakumundo’s
release and a stay of his deportation until his asylum claim was determined. Home Afairs filed a
notice to oppose and was in active settlement negotiations with LHR leading up to Bakumundo’s
court hearing. On the morning of the hearing, LHR was told that Bakumundo had been deported two
days earlier.
LHR returned to court seeking an order that Bakumundo’s deportation was unlawful and requested
the court to order the state’s assistance with his return to South Africa. The court held that
Bakumundo’s deportation was unlawful and unconstitutional and ordered that he be compensated
for the costs of a return flight to South Africa, be admitted entry and re-issued and asylum permit in
order to resume his asylum application.
Conditions at the Musina detention centre
Since August 2008, LHR has regularly visited the SMG centre to ensure documented asylum-seekers
are not being deported, that undocumented asylum-seekers are taken to Showgrounds and to ensure
that unaccompanied minors are not detained with adults.
The conditions of this facility have been widely reported in the media and human rights organisations.
They included lack of access to toilets, poor ventilation systems, detention of unaccompanied
children together with adults and no access to medical services.
In February 2009, LHR launched an urgent application for the closure of the facility. Subsequent
to launching the application, Home Afairs announced a moratorium on the deportation of
Zimbabweans on 1 April 2009. LHR was successful in its legal challenge of detention conditions at the
facility.
Preventing unlawful deportations from Musina
During April 2009, a group of around 650 Zimbabwean nationals were detained at the SMG facility
by police for deportation. Home Afairs refused to authorise their deportation and the police
attempted to efect the deportation directly with Zimbabwean ofcials.
Zimbabwean ofcials refused to accept the deportees without Home Afairs’ authorisation. The
detainees were not released by the police but returned to SMG. LHR launched an urgent high court
application for their release, which was settled between the parties on 21 April 2009.
On 15 May 2009 an order was granted declaring the facility unlawful and directing it be immediately
closed down. Despite this order police continued use the facility to detain Zimbabwean nationals.
16
L
A
W
Y
E
R
S
F
O
R
H
U
M
A
N
R
I
G
H
T
S
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
2
0
0
8
/
9
International Detention Coalition
On 4 May 2009, LHR was appointed as the regional representative for Southern Africa with the
International Detention Coalition (IDC).
The IDC is a network of more than 150 organisations, academics, faith-based groups and individuals
working around the world providing legal, social and other services, carrying out research and
reporting, and doing advocacy and policy work on behalf of refugees, migrants and asylum-seekers,
who have come together to network and share information on immigration detention in their
countries and to promote greater respect for the human rights of detainees.
As part of its role, LHR will assist the IDC Secretariat and advisory committee to approve
membership from the region, identify new members, act as the contact point for receipt and
dissemination of information and work with its members in the regions to identify regional priorities
relating to detention and work with the IDC Advisory Committee and director to determine what
work to do relating to those priorities.
Rioting in Lindela Immigration Detention Centre
In April 2009, riots broke out at Lindela against the conditions of detention, the detention of asylum-
seekers with documents and the length of detention of “illegal foreigners” awaiting deportation. In
response to the strike, it appeared clashes
ensued with Bosasa guards and detainees
were locked in their cells to quell rioting
after a number of assaults against detainees
and the use of pepper spray in the cells.
LHR was made aware of this from detainees
who had access to cell phones and
contacted the South African Human Rights
Commission (SAHRC), the only body with
the power to demand access into the facility.
The SAHRC visited Lindela a few days
later and met with a number of detainees
and immigration ofcials. Following this,
a number of the detainees formed a
committee to meet regularly with the head
of Lindela. These meetings took place but it
was unclear how efective they were.
Detention Monitoring Report
On 10 December 2008, International Human
Rights Day, LHR launched a report entitled
Monitoring Immigration Detention in South
Africa.
17
L
A
W
Y
E
R
S
F
O
R
H
U
M
A
N
R
I
G
H
T
S
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
2
0
0
8
/
9
SHOOT TO KILL: A CAMOUFLAGED REVIVAL OF THE DEATH
PENALTY AND REVERSAL OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS?
The level of crime in South Africa has
evidently sent government into emotional
bewilderment. This is more so as a result
of the violent crimes whose perpetrators
are apparently merciless and recognise
no boundary. Everyone, excluding the
perpetrators and those with whom they
act in cahoots, is under siege. Obviously
any responsible government would want
to do something to curb or rid its popula-
tion of such a scourge. Taking the fight to
the criminals! The question is how?
It would seem from the repeated and
currently famous utterances by govern-
ment officials, that the immediate option
at hand is that of introducing further
amendments to sections 26 and 49 of
the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) 51 of
1977 (as amended by the 1998 Act),
so as to afford police officers the clear
power to “shoot to kill” criminal suspects
who pose imminent threat to them or to
other members of the public. A reason
given for the proposed amendment was
that the Act deprives police of the neces-
sary powers to execute their job. Lately,
however, the argument has shifted to
say that the Act is not clear to the police
and therefore it requires clarification and
simplicity. The latter was echoed by Advo-
cate Tseliso Thipanyane, chief executive
officer of the South African Human Rights
Commission and another panellist during
the recent South African Broadcast-
ing Corporation (SABC) discussion and
debate programme, Asikhulume.
The killing of Captain Charl Scheepers by
a thug, whom he allegedly warned three
times to drop his gun; portrayed evidence
of the police’s misunderstanding of the
provisions targeted for amendment.
Coincidentally and ironically, on the day
of the Asikhulume programme, members
of public travelling in a car fell prey to
reckless lethal use of force (shoot to kill)
by members of police in Mabopane, near
Pretoria. Olga Kekana unnecessarily lost
her life in this tragedy.
Given these two incidences, it is evident
that there was no threat to the police
or the victims. Based on this, one could
innocently believe in the claim that the
Act is unclear to members of the police. I
totally disagree.
Prior to its amendment after being ruled
by the Cape High Court and affirmed by
the Constitutional Court to be unconstitu-
tional in State v Walters, the Act allowed
police and members of the public to use
lethal force against criminal suspects.
This applied regardless of whether it
meant killing the suspect for pinching,
for example, a loaf of bread or an apple
from a store. What mattered was whether
the suspect ran from the alleged crime
scene and refused to stop when ordered
or warned to do so. The effect of such an
open-ended authority to the use of lethal
force, was that it deprived suspects their
human rights guaranteed in the Bill of
Rights, which inter alia, includes the right
to the due process of law and the right
to life which the Bill of Rights guaranteed
and still does. The amendment was
applauded by civil society groups and
generally by the larger population of the
previously oppressed which had been
the main victims of the open-ended
provisions.
In its amended form, the new provision
curtailed the use of lethal force and intro-
duced a requirement of reasonableness
and proportionality. This required that
other alternative measures be consid-
The Strategic Litigation Unit focuses litigation on strategic and public interest cases that have the
potential to develop the law and make a diference in people’s lives. It ofers free, high-level legal
services to vulnerable, marginalised and indigent individuals and communities in cases involving
constitutional and human rights violations.
There have been a number of these cases since May 2008, largely due to the fall-out from the
xenophobic violence. These cases included urgent litigation surrounding the conditions of camps, an
urgent application to stop the deportation of clients involved in an application to halt deportations
and a case surrounding the arrest and possible deportation of a number of Zimbabwean nationals
who were protesting outside of the Chinese Embassy in May.
STRATEGI C LI TI GATI ON UNI T
18
L
A
W
Y
E
R
S
F
O
R
H
U
M
A
N
R
I
G
H
T
S
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
2
0
0
8
/
9
...CONTINUED
ered and employed before using such
force and reserving its use to worst kind
situations. An apple or loaf thief would
consequently no longer, by mere theft
alone, face a possible or imminent threat
to life or limb by police or members of
the public. This would be so even if the
perpetrator ran from a crime scene.
If the suspect produced a lethal weapon
and despite being warned to drop it per-
sists and threatens the arrestor, the latter
may use the force that is proportionate to
the threat. He may have stolen an apple
or a loaf of bread, but the act of produc-
ing and directing a lethal weapon (e.g. a
gun) against the arrestor would warrant
an immediate countering. This is so even
if it later turns out that the gun was not
loaded with ammunition. The same would
be the case if the weapon clearly looked
like a legitimate gun but later turns out to
be only a toy gun. However, if for exam-
ple, the suspect produces a knife and is a
safe distance away from the arrestor and
does not in so doing charge towards the
arrestor or does not keep anyone hostage
or pose imminent threat to anyone, there
would be no need to employ lethal force.
The same applies if the running suspect
can be later traced through investigative
procedures.
To the extent that members of police may
not understand the amended provisions,
that could in my view be attributed to
lack of education and training of police
(especially of those who are not-office
bound and are patrolling the streets)
about its provisions and not as such
ambiguities in the Act. Therefore, if it is
true that Captain Charl Scheepers gave
his murderer three warnings before he
was himself shot and because he did
not understand when he should apply
the necessary force, then that leaves
the Police Ministry’s education and
training processes wanting rather than
alleged defects in the Act. For that, I
would implore government to invest more
resources in achieving that objective.
The history of the ‘formal’ criminal justice
system in this country has shown that
no amount of force has ever deterred
violent crimes. During the reign of the
Apartheid regime, for example, police had
all the powers to shoot to kill actual and
sometimes imaginative criminal suspects,
at times willy-nilly. I am tempted to claim
that the government of the time invested
more resources in creating an emotive
and provocative police force that was
meant to counter, then so-called ‘black
terrorism’. The police then did not belong
to the entire population but to the minor-
ity government and for the preservation
of interests of a designated minority
population. Such police was inevitably
bound to gain neither legitimacy nor
support from the marginalised part of the
population.
The post 1994 police authority is by vir-
tue of the democratic Constitution meant
to belong to the country’s population as a
whole and to therefore legitimately expect
and get its support in crime prevention,
investigation and curbing. But does it get
such support and if not, why?
What immediately springs to mind as a
probable cause is the lack of effective
and reliable or trusted witness protection
mechanisms. If arrested criminals walk
out of courts because witnesses were
unavailable or unwilling to testify that
should be a serious cause for concern
to police authorities, and demoralising to
the arresting and investigating officers.
Arrest of homeless Zimbabweans in front of the Central Methodist Church in Johannesburg
19
L
A
W
Y
E
R
S
F
O
R
H
U
M
A
N
R
I
G
H
T
S
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
2
0
0
8
/
9
...CONTINUED
Furthermore, since suspects of criminal
offences at times include elements within
the police service itself, how safe and
trusting is it for witnesses to cooper-
ate with the investigators? To assume
witnesses’ unsuspecting and unqualified
cooperation with investigators would be
reckless and tantamount to undermining
their intelligence.
Then there are still the language and
attitude factors to take into considera-
tion. In my personal experience, I have
witnessed police officers who come from
communities which seem to consider
their languages to be superior above
others, even against the clear provisions
of the democratic Constitution. In other
sectors (e.g. security), members of such
communities would foolishly and una-
shamedly tell you that they do not hear
you and that you should explain yourself
in their ‘human’ language, as if yours is
that of an ape. Come on, come out of the
closet and get civil!
In the police sector, however, there are
those who would say it indirectly and a
few who would openly say that they can’t
hear your language – thereby suggest-
ing that you speak theirs. Fortunately for
me and knowing my rights and neither
feeling inferior nor superior to any
language group for that matter, I always
persist speaking in my language to the
police. The question is how do you entice
local community members to work with
police whom they consider alien and ‘too
superior’ linguistically?
The approach, mannerism and attitude
of some police officers only widen their
alienation from community members.
Imagine walking with your wife and
children in the street and all of a sudden
a police van pulls up in front of you and a
police officer starts fondling you – while
also smelling of a fermented substance.
This would leave one feeling feel humili-
ated and degraded. Some of us do not
shun committing crimes out of fear of
police. We just don’t commit the filths
because of the nature of our cultural and
religious upbringings. We therefore do
not need policing to be our good selves!
As a husband and father, how does one
wipe the humiliation and degradation by
such a police from my own, my wife’s
and children’s disturbed memories? In
my case, my recipe would be to disown
police generally and not come to their
aid in the investigation and prevention
of crime - by the same measure that I
would disown criminals and not come
to their aid in their commission and
perpetuation of crime. The moral of this is
that police must treat law abiding citizens
with sensitivity and dignity.
There should also be better control of
ports of entry and documentation of all
people within the South African borders
– these are self-explanatory and in fact,
much been said about it before. Lack of
all of the latter is probably the reason
why some bank or business robbers
would look and laugh at the surveillance
cameras. One cannot help but assume
that they do so because they know that
they will not be easily identified.
Returning to the subject, my view is that
in the absence of any ambiguity in the
CPA above (which as I said there is no
substance to such a claim) and the failure
of the government to provide serious
education and training to police about
their entitlement and limitations in terms
of the Act, any further public and populist
uttering and threats on the use of lethal
force, would create a state of uncertainty
and tension in the society. Police and
members of the public would be isolated
from each other. As it is usually said, ‘the
more things are changed, the more they
remain the same’.
Considering some opposition parties
and some members of civil society have
always and persistently been calling for
a referendum on the return of the death
penalty into South Africa’s criminal justice
system, with mixed reactions from the
ruling party, one cannot help but wonder
whether current attempts on amending
the Act are not directed towards indirectly
reviving the death penalty through blood-
ing the hands of the police and not those
of the would be hang man. President
Jacob Zuma stated prior to his election
that a referendum into the death penalty
would not be a problem if South Africans
wanted it.
While one understands the frustrations
and responsibilities of government to
protect law abiding citizens that must not
however, come at any cost. Emotional
and populist uttering are certainly not
a way to go in solving this scourge – in
contrast, this may put the lives of the
intended beneficiaries (law abiding police
and the public) at serious risk even more.
Government must more than before,
extend more partnerships with some
not so formal crime busting civil society
structures, who may prove more experi-
enced in detecting and spotting crimes. It
is not a sign of weakness to do so – it is
making everyone feel relevant and part of
the bigger picture.
Alternatively become clearer and tell
us that government wants (at any cost)
to revive the death penalty; render the
Constitution and the Bill of Rights redun-
dant; and multiply police roles further
into court orderlies, prosecutors, judges
and hang men. So far government has
only achieved ‘raising its voice’ and still
has to ‘develop its argument’ to persuade
right thinking South Africans as to what
informs the proposed further amendment
of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Lesirela Letsebe is an attorney with the
Refugee and Migrant Rights Project at
Lawyers for Human Rights
20
L
A
W
Y
E
R
S
F
O
R
H
U
M
A
N
R
I
G
H
T
S
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
2
0
0
8
/
9
Cases
Lawyers for Human Rights versus Minister of Home Affairs
As reported in the Refugee and Migrant Rights Programme on page 11, this case involved a group
of 208 men arrested at the Glenanda protection camp for not registering and taken to Lindela and
subsequently released the following day only to be arrested later that week for allegedly creating a
nuisance on the road.
During the entire exercise, Home Afairs first tried to have everyone withdraw their asylum or
refugee claims, rendering them open to deportation. When this did not work, they underwent
expedited refugee status determination procedures and were subsequently found not to be
refugees. Most were immediately deported despite an urgent court interdict that none of the
detainees should be deported pending the outcome of the application.
It appeared at least 30 people were deported in violation of this order.
Disability grants for refugees
LHR represented a number of individual disabled refugees and two refugee organisations with
disabled refugees.
Prior to LHR’s intervention, disabled refugees in South Africa were excluded from accessing social
assistance grants.
LHR assisted them in launching an application to challenge the constitutionality of the exclusion.
The Ministers of Social Development, Finance, Home Afairs and the Director-General of Social
Development were cited as respondents.
Subsequently, an interim settlement agreement was concluded with government that provided
that these refugees be allowed to apply for social relief of distress grants and that government file
a comprehensive social assistance plan for refugees. The plan, among other things, provided that
disabled refugees would receive disability grants to the same value as social grants received by
South African citizens. It stipulated that the government intended to have access to disability grants
generally available for all disabled refugees within eight months.
LHR’s David Cote consulting with Moutse community
LHR’s David Cote and Leka Lebelo
21
L
A
W
Y
E
R
S
F
O
R
H
U
M
A
N
R
I
G
H
T
S
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
2
0
0
8
/
9
In July 2007, the government reverted back to LHR with minor amendments to the proposal, the
most significant being that it would be necessary for recognised refugees who wished to apply for
disability grants to obtain a refugee identity document.
At the time, the Social Development Department was in the process of finalising the regulations to
the Social Assistance Act. LHR was advised these regulations would make reference to disabled
refugees and clearly state disabled persons with refugee status would be entitled to apply for a
disability grant.
The regulations were published on 22 August 2008. Regulation 3 (a) lists South African citizens,
permanent residents and refugees, as persons eligible for a disability grant should they meet the
relevant criteria. The definition of an identity document was also expanded to include an identity
document issued to a refugee in terms of Section 30 of the Refugees Act, 1998.
Generals’ Report
The Southern African Litigation Centre (Salc) is supporting the South African History Archives
(SAHA) and the South African Centre for Survivors of Torture in an application for a review of the
decision by the presidency to refuse to grant access to a report made by South African generals
regarding post-election violence in Zimbabwe in May and June 2008.
The refusal was made in response to two requests for access to information made in terms of PAIA
to which the presidency denied that the reports existed despite over R600 000 being spent on the
trip.
LHR’s legal team deliberating during the Moutse demarcation hearing in the Constitutional Court
22
L
A
W
Y
E
R
S
F
O
R
H
U
M
A
N
R
I
G
H
T
S
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
2
0
0
8
/
9
BLIND DAD REUNITED WITH BABY
PRETORIA NEWS, 16 FEBRUARY 2008
A blind father has finally been reunited
with his nine-month-old daughter after
a bitter legal battle. And now lawyers
want the courts to prevent social work-
ers from taking children away from their
biological parents on flimsy grounds.
The girl was taken away from her father
in November last year, shortly after her
mother’s funeral. The father, who can’t
be named to protect the child, looked
after his sickly wife during the months
preceding her death and also cared for
the baby and his wife’s two teenage
children.
A social worker, however, decided to
remove the children ostensibly because
the father is blind. It was stated during
children’s court proceedings that he did
not have the financial means to look
after the children.
The father said the two teenagers
could make up their own minds about
whether they wanted to return to him,
but he wanted his baby back.
The children were placed into the care
of his sister-in-law.
“I may be blind and I may not be rich.
But I love my child with all my heart and
I make ends meet as I am a first-class
handyman. I can do anything, even fix
computers,” he said. The man said that
during the children’s court proceedings
an official commented: “He can’t even
walk into court on his own, how can he
take care of his baby?”
Lawyers for Human Rights and local
attorney Louise du Plessis, with the
financial help of the SA National Council
of the Blind (SANCB), took on the
father’s case.
SANCB also arranged for an assess-
ment of the blind father’s ability to func-
tion independently. This was done by
two social workers - a blind professor
and an occupational therapist.
SANCB said it opposed any attempt to
discriminate against the human rights of
blind people.
Judge Pierre Rabie at the time com-
mented that financial difficulty was
never a reason for keeping the child
from her biological father. He also said
there was nothing to suggest that the
man was a bad father.
He turned down an application by the
baby’s relatives, who tried to keep the
baby from returning to her father.
Experts met before the child was
handed over to her father to make the
process easier for the child. It was
decided that the parties would all attend
counselling and that the relatives may
visit the baby.
“I am delighted. I can’t believe my baby
is back. She is happy and coping well.
The fight to get her was worth it,” the
father said.
He has remarried in the meantime to a
woman he met through his church. She
is helping to look after the child. The
father said his new wife worked with
children at an aftercare centre every
day.
Meanwhile, Du Plessis said she had
received instructions from her client to
lay a charge against the social worker
who removed the child. She said the
discretion of social workers in terms of
the Child Care Act is extremely wide.
“While it may be necessary to remove
children from the care of their parents in
most cases, there are instances where
they exercise this discretion very poorly
- like in this case. “We would like the
council governing social workers to
investigate this matter,” Du Plessis said.
The lawyers are also looking into the
possibility of approaching the court to
establish guidelines on how social work-
ers should exercise their discretion. Du
Plessis said the moment a social worker
was confronted with something differ-
ent - blindness in this case - the first
reaction is to remove the child.
She said first ordering an investigation
in the matter would be a lot less painful
for all concerned.
23
L
A
W
Y
E
R
S
F
O
R
H
U
M
A
N
R
I
G
H
T
S
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
2
0
0
8
/
9
The Land and Housing Unit represents a large number of people faced with evictions or forced
removals in urban and peri-urban areas.
LHR also assists communities involved in land reform and restitution processes, including post-
settlement support for communities.
Shortly after 1994, the government identified a target of 25-million hectares for transfer. This was
apparently done in conjunction with the World Bank and represented 30% of agricultural land. At the
time, land prices were typically between R2 000 and R4 000 per hectare. Averages would suggest
the estimated total cost would be around R75-billion. Inflation adjusted, that would be about R165-
billion.
Around five to six million hectares of land has been transferred to land claimants and land reform
beneficiaries but most of this was state land and not really part of the 25-million hectares originally
envisaged.
Land restitution
LHR often helps communities finalise land restitution claims. These issues are used to test the validity
of claims and processes.
Richtersveld
LHR played a small but important part in the settlement of the Richtersveld land claim. The Legal
Resources Centre had been working on the case since the 1990s and had brought a number of cases
to reach a final settlement.
The century-long narrative of the Richtersveld community involves a semi-nomadic people who
were dispossessed of their land and boxed into reserve settlements by a succession of South African
governments during the pre-apartheid and apartheid eras. Their displacement was a result of a
number of factors. The discovery of diamonds and the complete lack of respect for the land rights of
indigenous people lie at the heart of their dispossession.
LHR assisted with the final implementation and agreement to the settlement, which involved 180 000
hectares of land and a settlement of approximately R300-million.
LAND AND HOUSI NG UNI T
24
L
A
W
Y
E
R
S
F
O
R
H
U
M
A
N
R
I
G
H
T
S
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
2
0
0
8
/
9
TEARS OF JOY AS RICHTERSVELD LAND CLAIM IS SETTLED
MAIL & GUARDIAN
The Security of Farmworkers Project has made
significant inroads in Stellenbosch.
People unlawfully evicted from the Lanseria area were
moved to the nearby Adelaide Tambo transit settlement
The “R28” group of refugees
and asylum-seekers stranded
next to the road outside Lindela
following their release
Tears of joy flowed on Tuesday when the
Richtersveld community finally won back
the diamond-rich land taken from them
almost a century ago.
The restoration of the land was part of a
settlement agreement confirmed by Land
Claims Court Judge Antonie Gildenhuys,
sitting in Cape Town.
His order, handed down just after 4pm,
ended a decade-long legal battle that
went all the way to the Constitutional
Court.
“I am overwhelmed with joy. I can’t hold
back my tears,” said community leader
Willem Diergaardt afterwards, as other
Richtersvelders sang and hugged each
other around him.
“This is a big moment in the history of
the Richtersveld and of South Africa ...
To wait 80 years for your land is not
easy.” The order came after the state,
community representatives and a dis-
sident Richtersveld Action Committee
reached agreement on Monday on the
terms of a settlement.
The community in 1998 lodged its claim
to the land, which included compensation
for diamonds extracted from it since the
1920s.
The settlement will see the state hand
over to the community 194 600ha,
including an 84 000ha coastal strip of
diamond-bearing land currently being
mined by the ailing state-owned Alexkor.
The state will make an “extraordinary
reparation payment” of R190-million to a
community-owned investment company,
a R50-million development grant and
also transfer Alexkor’s farming operations
to the community.
Alexkor and the community will enter into
a joint mining venture, in which Alexkor
will hold a 51% interest, to which the
state will contribute up to R200-million
in capitalisation. The mine-owned town
of Alexander Bay will be transferred to
the community, and Alexkor will pay R45-
million to continue housing its staff there
for the next decade.
Handing down the order, Gildenhuys
said it would not immediately undo the
injustice that had been inflicted on the
community. For that, the Richtersvelders’
own hard work and mutual cooperation
would be necessary.
“The community is entitled to a better life,
and this court order puts that within their
reach,” he said. Gildenhuys paid tribute
to the lawyers who worked on the claim,
singling out attorney Henk Smith of the
Legal Resources Centre, who he said had
pursued the community’s case with great
determination over the years. Diergaardt,
who heads the Richtersveld’s Communal
Property Association (CPA), said some
aspects of the agreement were already
being implemented. The CPA committee
would now report back to the community,
begin further planning, and on December
1 hold a celebration. “And I can promise
you it will not be a little celebration. It will
be a celebration like South Africa has
never seen before,” he said.
The action committee, which entered the
fray only as the CPA and the state were
seeking Gildenhuys’s approval of the
settlement, was represented in court by
Lawyers for Human Rights (LHR).
It claimed the terms of the settlement,
signed by CPA leaders and Public Enter-
prises Minister Alec Erwin in April, were
problematic and that the document had
not been properly approved by the com-
munity. LHR national director Rudolph
Jansen said the main concession made
to the committee was that all Alexkor’s
obligations were now underwritten by
the state.
This was particularly important for
rehabilitation of decades of environmental
damage caused by mining operations. In
addition, a range of “good governance”
clauses had been inserted in relation to
the myriad community trusts and com-
panies that were being established. It
is estimated that the state has spent in
excess of R50-million in legal costs in
fighting the Richtersveld case.
25
L
A
W
Y
E
R
S
F
O
R
H
U
M
A
N
R
I
G
H
T
S
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
2
0
0
8
/
9
Urban housing
Urban growth not only places pressure on occupiers on the peripheries of urban areas but also on
housing availability, especially within the lower income bracket. The large number of people afected
by the lack of adequate housing and suitable alternative accommodation, places responsibility on the
government to ensure the availability of low cost housing in urban areas through adequate housing
policy in sharp focus.
The aim of LHR’s intervention is to ensure both governmental and private persons follow due process
and to compel local government to properly manage and administer the rental housing under their
control.
Pomfret
LHR assisted the Pomfret community against threatened evictions. The community was an extremely
vulnerable group of South Africans of foreign descent. Although presently South African citizens,
they were originally Angolans who had joined the South African Defence Force during the Angolan
Civil War and the war for the liberation of Namibia.
Due to their political and military history, as well as recent events involving some members of the
community in the attempted coup in Equatorial Guinea, the community was viewed with suspicion by
authorities and was regarded as a security risk.
The community was settled at Pomfret in the early 1990s and the government wished to integrate
them into townships in the North West. Pursuant to these plans, the government began a range of
actions to constructively evict the community. Services were cut of and a number of buildings were
damaged and demolished.
LHR obtained a number of court orders in the Pretoria High Court and the Mmabatho High Court in
2008 interdicting the government from unlawful activities.
Schubart Park
The Schubart Park apartments were managed by the Tshwane Municipality to provide housing to
low-income families.
The provincial housing department transferred management to the Tshwane Municipality in 2000.
The municipality did not have the necessary skills or resources to manage the building and this led to
the building becoming dilapidated. As a result tenants stopped paying rent. Tshwane sought to evict
people from the building.
In July they brought in metro police ofcers and Red Ants to evict a few people who they obtained
eviction orders against for outstanding rent. The majority of tenants resisted the eviction. One of the
buildings was set a light, leading to the death of six people.
Sana Mahlangu, also from Lanseria area, was
threatened with unlawful eviction
26
L
A
W
Y
E
R
S
F
O
R
H
U
M
A
N
R
I
G
H
T
S
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
2
0
0
8
/
9
PRETORIA FLAT DWELLERS GET INTERDICT
PRETORIA NEWS, 22 JULY 2008
LHR launched an urgent application on the day of the eviction to set aside the order. LHR made
submissions to the committee investigating the deaths. A letter of demand was sent to the
municipality about their plans to revamp the buildings.
Residents of the Schubart and Kruger
Park flats in Pretoria obtained an urgent
Pretoria High Court interdict on Tuesday
to stop their eviction.
This followed an outbreak of violence and
the death of at least six residents when
a fire broke out in the Kruger Park flats
during protests against forced evictions.
Judge Ferdi Preller granted an interim
order to stop evictions from continuing at
the flats for now.
Residents who claim they were not aware
of eviction orders against them will have
until Friday to place facts before the
court.
Preller granted an interim interdict
against four of the residents - who
claimed to be leaders of the Residents’
Committee - to stop them from inciting
violence.
Preller said he was reluctant the allow
people who ignored eviction orders
granted against them because they were
not paying their rent to “enjoy the fruits of
their illegal actions”.
INNOCENT PEOPLE PROTECTED
However, the violence had to be stopped
and hundreds of innocent people
protected.
The CEO of the administrators of the
buildings, Matome Gaffane, in court
papers accused the four of being the
“ringleaders” who incited other residents
to join them in causing mayhem.
“They have appointed themselves as
‘The Resident Committee’ and have
been collecting rent from other tenants,”
Gaffane said.
“Should any of the tenants refuse to pay
them, they intimidate the tenants and
threaten them with their lives.”
While residents brought an urgent
application to stop the evictions, the
Tshwane City Council in turn asked for
the “ringleaders” to be prohibited from
entering the buildings and to incite vio-
lence or interfere with the management
of the building.
MAYOR BLAMED
The chair of the residents’ committee,
Aubrey Ramotlhale, in court papers ac-
cused Tshwane Mayor Gwen Ramokgopa
of making “extremely irresponsible and
inflammatory statements” in the media.
He said these statements were to the
effect that the city would evict all the
residents and was under no obligation to
provide alternative accommodation.
He claimed most residents had stopped
paying rent due to the complete deterio-
ration of the buildings, with lifts that no
longer worked; an intermittent electricity
supply and the whole place becoming
“dangerously unhealthy”.
Counsel for the residents, Rudolph
Jansen, said the eviction of 38 residents,
against whom eviction orders had been
obtained, happened in the context of the
clearing of the whole building.
It would be best for the council to step
back for a while as further evictions
would only result in more violence.
‘LOOKING FOR TROUBLE’
He said there had been a march to the
mayor’s office last week, where certain
undertakings (regarding mediation) were
given, which were not complied with.
“To start with evictions under the circum-
stances was looking for trouble... There
is no urgent, pressing need for the City
Council to evict people today (Tuesday).”
Counsel for the city, Advocate Nicolene
van Nieuwenhuizen, said only 38 of the
occupants had been listed for eviction
because they were not paying their rent.
Court orders were granted against them,
and the rest of the 1 338 units’ residents
were not being evicted.
A process would be put into place and
time given for the others to move out or
find alternative accommodation, she said.
The Mamelodi hostels were partially demolished while people
were still living there. The Tshwane municipality said the
hostels were going to be upgraded.
27
L
A
W
Y
E
R
S
F
O
R
H
U
M
A
N
R
I
G
H
T
S
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
2
0
0
8
/
9
Communal land rights
These cases involve people of rural communities who do not have proper land use or lost some of
their land because the chief took it from them.
In many cases chiefs entered into agreements with mining companies without consulting with the
people using the land. Although the Communal Land Rights Act (Clara) would apply to these cases it
would be too late for clients to protect their current land use rights.
Women and land rights
Communal land rights and women’s rights are often interlinked and have their roots in the
discriminatory laws of apartheid.
LHR increasingly encountered communities who bought land but due to the discriminatory laws of
the past, were forced to register it in the name of the native commissioner or tribal authority.
This land is now being allocated and administered by the tribal authority with no concern to the
needs or interests of the rightful owners. There is little consultation or benefit derived from the land
for the original owners and very little in the way of co-operation from tribal authorities.
These disputes often involve mining rights, the arbitrary nature of the inclusion into tribal authorities
for which the communities feel little afliation and transparency on the part of government, tribal
authorities and private corporations.
The women and housing cases deal with the fact that under the apartheid government women were
excluded from being rights holders because they were regarded as minors.
LHR consulting with evicted residents of Itireleng in Pretoria
28
L
A
W
Y
E
R
S
F
O
R
H
U
M
A
N
R
I
G
H
T
S
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
2
0
0
8
/
9
EVICTION CASE MAY SOW SEEDS OF REFORM
BUSINESS DAY, 11 JUNE 2009
The decision by the Department of Rural
Development and Land Reform to try to
evict emerging farmer Veronica Moos
again is probably a blessing in disguise.
Moos herself, of course, is devastated.
After winning a court order to be restored
to her farm, she set about securing
production credit with the backing of the
Gauteng branch of farmers’ union AgriSA,
and is being assigned a mentor to
provide her with technical and marketing
guidance. To be told she’s still in breach
of the department’s controversial “use it
or lose it” policy and faces fresh eviction
proceedings therefore came as a nasty
shock.
The Department’s decision has, however,
prompted Lawyers for Human Rights
(LHR) to prepare a case on behalf of
Moos against the government’s Proactive
Land Acquisition (Plas) policy.
Plas, under which Moos was awarded
her farm, was the government’s response
to widespread complaints that the pace
of land reform was too slow because
officials sat back and waited for land
grant applications to trickle in rather than
redistributing land themselves.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with
Plas or the “use it or lose it” principle.
Under Plas, officials are supposed to sit
around the table with municipal officers,
estate agents and representatives of
farmers’ unions and landless work-
ers, tenants or squatters. The idea is to
identify land available on the open market
and establish local land needs. The
government then buys farms and leases
them to suitable beneficiaries, who can
apply for grants to become outright
owners. It sensibly reserves the right to
cancel leases of unproductive emerging
farmers, or those who sublet the proper-
ties to others rather than getting down
themselves to the hard work of farming.
But several flaws immediately became
apparent. For a start, because it helped
show on paper that land redistribution
was speeding up, Plas gave officials the
incentive to go on farm-buying sprees
before actually identifying beneficiaries.
Second, by giving emerging farmers short
leases of three years, the Department
made it difficult for them to gain access
to production credit, effectively leaving
them dependent on handouts and sup-
port from notoriously inefficient provincial
land and agriculture departments.
In some ways it is a red herring to insist
farmers will only get bank loans if they
have full title to their properties, as for-
mer director-general of land affairs Glen
Thomas has remarked. Thomas, who
was a key architect and promoter of Plas,
rightly points out that many commercial
farmers prefer leasing land as it reduces
their risk exposure. They have no trouble
getting credit to make it productive.
But this obscures the fact that lending to
emerging farmers, as with any start-up
entrepreneurs, is risky. Banks don’t like
doing it at the best of times, let alone
when presented with a three-year lease.
The conditions attached to support are
also onerous. Rentals, set at 5% of the
land value, are hopelessly too high. A
poultry farmer I met is being charged
R250 000 a year for her farm bought for
R5m as a going concern. Her business
plan was premised on high demand
and prices for poultry products. With the
economic downturn, prices and demand
have dropped and she’s going under be-
cause she can’t afford her state rentals.
Plas also obliges the government to
provide beneficiaries with grants for basic
farm infrastructure. To access these,
they must supply three quotes for any
job, then remain at the mercy of officials
to appoint service providers to carry it
out. Quotes typically lapse by the time
subcontractors are eventually appointed,
which means the whole laborious pro-
cess must start from scratch.
Hopefully, the LHR case against Plas will
result in sorely needed reforms to Plas.
Farmers must be given leases that last
at least 10 years, charged a nominal
rental during the start-up phase of their
businesses, and get to appoint their own
contractors. Officials, on the other hand,
must be incentivised to provide support
and fired if they don’t.
Unfortunately, these reforms will come
too late for Moos, who has sunk her life
savings into her farm and now risks los-
ing everything because the department
wants to save face rather than confront
its own mistakes.
Hofstatter is contributing editor at Busi-
ness Day.
The Environmental Rights
Project was developed
in 2009 in response to
Before the evictions, people had been living in Itireleng for years
29
L
A
W
Y
E
R
S
F
O
R
H
U
M
A
N
R
I
G
H
T
S
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
2
0
0
8
/
9
requests from communities badly afected by environmental degradation. The project, based at
LHR’s Johannesburg ofce, complements existing environmental organisations and draws on their
extensive experience and expertise while providing professional litigation and advocacy services.
South Africa has a comprehensive legal framework for efective environmental governance but
the actual implementation of legislation is lagging. Also, an often overseen aspect of improved
environmental management is the undertaking to ensure the environmental rights of people are
protected in the process. LHR responds to these needs by putting pressure on government to
implement existing systems for environmental management within the broader framework of
human rights and democratic accountability.
The focus is on the disproportionate negative environmental burdens experienced by marginalised
groups, seeking to protect the environmental rights of these groups by engaging impoverished
communities in both rural and urban areas against environmental degradation in their immediate
surroundings.
Secondly, the relationship between environmental rights and socio-economic rights and seeks
to ensure fair and equitable access and control over natural resources as well as just and equal
ownership and utilisation of land.
Finally, it focuses on the relationship between environmental rights and procedural rights such
as the right to freedom and association, access to information, just administration and access
to courts and seeks to relate these rights to adequate implementation and enforcement of
environmental legislation.
ENVI RONMENTAL
RI GHTS PROJECT
LHR consulting in Ermelo, Mpumalanga
30
L
A
W
Y
E
R
S
F
O
R
H
U
M
A
N
R
I
G
H
T
S
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
2
0
0
8
/
9
LHR Pietermaritzburg
The LHR law clinic in Pietermaritzburg consists of two projects, focusing on child rights and HIV/Aids.
The Child Rights Project was started in 1995 as part of the Juvenile Justice Section of the Applied
Criminal Justice Project. The success of the project led to LHR creating a specific Child Rights Project.
It focused on lobbying for the adoption of the Child Justice Bill and the Children’s Amendment Bill.
More recently, the focus shifted to protecting the rights of orphaned and vulnerable children in
KwaZulu-Natal.
In addition to providing legal services, LHR participates in joint advocacy campaigns. In KwaZulu-
Natal, LHR established contact with the provincial social welfare portfolio committee, making
presentations on advocating for the extension of the Child Support Grant. LHR also joined ACCESS as
part of a nationwide campaign to provide awareness on school fee exemptions.
As a member of the Child Justice Alliance, LHR participated in the process towards the adoption of
the Child Justice Bill by the Justice Portfolio Committee and the National Assembly. The Act now has
to be passed by the National Council of Provinces.
In terms of litigation, LHR took on the case of a 14-year-old child who was injured by a test
hand grenade that detonated in his hand. The device was traced to the SAPS, SANDF and the
manufacturer, Denel Land Systems.
CHI LD RI GHTS PROJECT
31
L
A
W
Y
E
R
S
F
O
R
H
U
M
A
N
R
I
G
H
T
S
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
2
0
0
8
/
9
The HIV/Aids Project was founded in 1993 as a result of a growing recognition that discrimination
against people living with HIV/Aids, especially in KwaZulu-Natal where prevalence figures were high.
This became one of the key human rights issues facing the country. LHR aimed to create an enabling
environment that protected and promoted the rights of people infected and afected with HIV and
Aids in KwaZulu-Natal.
In 2008/9, LHR provided assistance and education to older persons caring for children afected/
infected by HIV/Aids to understand their rights and to assist in accessing their rights. LHR also
helped in accessing ART and educating communities on their rights in respect of ARVs.
Another example was the campaign to prevent the exclusion of HIV positive children from crèches in
KwaZulu-Natal.
HI V/AI DS PROJECT
32
L
A
W
Y
E
R
S
F
O
R
H
U
M
A
N
R
I
G
H
T
S
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
2
0
0
8
/
9
Lawyers for Human Rights would like to recognise the generosity of our funders, both from South
Africa and abroad, including:
Aulai Trust, Atlantic Philanthropies, European Union, Horizont 3000, Fastenopfer, Foundation for
Human Rights, Ford Foundation, Legal Aid South Africa, Open Society Foundation, Sigrid Rausing
Trust, Save the Children, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Development Bank SA,
HIVOS, NCHR, NIZA, Oxfam, Social Housing Foundation.
We are also extremely grateful for the incredible contributions made by LHR’s social justice partner
organisations as well as the dedicated group of advocates and attorneys who have assisted us.
NOTE OF THANKS
Advocates:
Jason Brickhill
Steven Budlender
Usha Dayanand
Irene de Vos
Myrone Dewrance
Max du Plessis
Bartho du Plessis
Isabel Goodman
Kate Hofmeyr
Nicolene Janse van Nieuwenhuizen
Rudolph Jansen
Anton Katz
Paul Kennedy SC
Andre Louw
Gilbert Marcus SC
Nomzamo Mji
Ann Skelton
Lindelani Sigogo
Carol Steinberg
Adriaan Vorster
Attorneys:
Chris Watters Attorneys (Johannesburg)
Webbers Attorneys (Bloemfontein)
Tani Cloete
Organisations:
African Centre for Migration and Society
Centre for Child Law
Centre for Environmental Rights
Centre for the Study of Violence and
Reconciliation
Consortium for Refugees And Migrants in South
Africa
IDASA
International Detention Coalition
Legal Resources Centre
Médecins Sans Frontières
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
Women on Farms
Zimbabwe Exiles Forum
Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights
LHR Patrons and Trustees
Trustees:
Seehaam Samaai, Arnold Tsunga, Ann Skelton,
Professor Benny Khoapa, Professor Christof Heyns
Patrons:
Justice Navanethem Pillay, Justice Fikile Bam,
Advocate Solly Sithole SC
33
L
A
W
Y
E
R
S
F
O
R
H
U
M
A
N
R
I
G
H
T
S
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
2
0
0
8
/
9
FI NANCI AL STATEMENTS
Project funds and donations received
for the year ended 31 December 2009
ZAR 2009 ZAR 2008
PROJECT FUNDS:
Atlantic Philanthropies 1 500 000 1 500 000,00
AULAI 413 574
Broederlyk Delen 351 099,00
CWCI 451 554,00
Fastenopfer 624 040 602 196,00
DKA 492 244
DBSA 68 750
Ford Foundation 895 946 931 052,00
Belgium 14 620,00
Horizont3000 19 158 543 386,00
HIVOS 1 058 166,00
KNH(CINDI) 443 187,00
NCHR 449 400
MIVA 77 000
Cindi 37 064
Legal Aid Board 384 324 116 975,00
NIZA 1 681 497,00
Open Society Foundation 425 000 100 000,00
Open Society Foundation 240 093,00
OXFAM GB 116 486 181 359,00
Social Housing Foundation 189 919
US Committee for Refugees 79 010,00
Save the Children (Sweden) 235 000 225 000,00
Save the Children (UK) 345 013,00
Sigrid Rausing Trust 1 467 420,00
UN High Commissioner for Refugees 1 924 080 1 983 479,00
Refund to donors (18 169)
Litigation Income 525 120
Total 8 358 936 12 315 106
OTHER INCOME: ZAR 2009 ZAR 2008
Interest Received 345 032 341 783,00
Facilitation Income 71 334,00
Litigation Income 250 409,00
Fuel and Oil Income 172 049
Other income 179 931
Total 697 012 663 526
34
L
A
W
Y
E
R
S
F
O
R
H
U
M
A
N
R
I
G
H
T
S
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
2
0
0
8
/
9
Statement of Financial Position
as at year ended 31 December 2009
ZAR 2009 ZAR 2008
ASSETS
Non-current Assets
Loans Receivable 36 294,00 36 294,00
Current Assets
Treade and other Receiables 624 480,00 546 221,00
Cash and cash equivalents 2 016 014,00 5 080 599,00
2 640 494,00 5 626 820,00
Total Assets 2 676 788,00 5 663 114,00
EQUITY AND LIABILITIES
Equity
Accumulated Surplus 2 226 081,00 5 085 523,00
Liabilities
Non- current Liabilities
Finance lease obligation 34 239,00 59 303,00
Current Liabilities
Finance lease obligation 24 348,00 20 587,00
Trade and other payables 392 120,00 497 701,00
416 468,00 518 288,00
Total Liabilities 450 707,00 577 591,00
Total Equity and Liabilities 2 676 788,00 5 663 114,00
35
L
A
W
Y
E
R
S
F
O
R
H
U
M
A
N
R
I
G
H
T
S
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
2
0
0
8
/
9
Statement of Comprehensive Income
for the year ended 31 Decemer 2009
ZAR 2009 ZAR 2008
Donor Funding 8 358 937,00 12 559 000,00
Other income 697 512,00 393 256,00
Operating Expenses (11 907 138,00) (9 306 404,00)
Operating surplus/(deficit) (2 850 689,00) 3 645 852,00
Finance cost (8 753,00) (13 514,00)
Deficit for the year (2 859 442,00) 3 632 338,00
DETAILED INCOME STATEMENT
Operating Expenses 11 907 138,00 9 306 404,00
Administration & Overheads 1 213 772,00 937 616,00
Consulting and Litigation 2 637 980,00 1 386 725,00
Remuniration 5 110 807,00 4 182 583,00
Lease and Rentals 605 617,00 557 654,00
Printing & Stationery 596 718,00 490 449,00
Telephone, Email & Internet 291 321,00 301 813,00
Training, Research, Workshop & Publication 785 402,00 483 381,00
Travel & Accommodation 665 521,00 966 183,00
36
PRETORIA (NATIONAL OFFICE):
Kutlwanong Democracy Centre,
357 Visagie Street, PRETORIA
Phone: 012 - 320 2943 Fax: 012 - 320 7581
