The proposed 2026 PIE Amendment Bill is facing criticism due to concerns that it expands eviction protections beyond the original intent of the law.
Source: Pexels.
Introduced to prevent arbitrary evictions and protect vulnerable squatters, the Prevention of Illegal Evictions and Unlawful Occupation of Land (PIE) Act was intended to replace apartheid-era anti-squatting measures with a constitutional framework based on dignity, housing rights and judicial oversight.
Critics argue that broad interpretations of the law have created unintended consequences for housing access, investment, and the supply of affordable rental housing.
Due to faulty drafting the PIE text went far beyond its apparent purpose. Because “unlawful occupier” was defined broadly and in the present tense, courts held that PIE did not apply only to people who entered land unlawfully. It also applies to those who originally occupied legally – tenants, mortgagors and owners – but whose legal right to remain was extinguished.
This was the result in Ndlovu v Ngcobo; Baker and others vs. JICA. The Supreme Court of Appeal held that ex-tenants and similar “holders” fall within the scope of PIE according to the plain language of the Act. As a matter of statutory language, the court's interpretation was understandable. But as a housing policy, it was highly problematic. The amendment fixes that problem.
2026 amendment bill
If the 2026 Amendment Bill is passed in its current form, the situation will worsen.
However, there is a 2006 amendment bill that contained language to clarify that PIE does not apply to a person who has occupied land as a tenant, under another agreement, or as an owner where the legal basis of occupation has ceased.
Its memorandum clearly records that the PIE was not originally intended to apply to tenants, mortgagees and owners who occupied under prior agreements, and requires amendment to clarify the scope of the Act following Ndlovu v Ngcobo and Baker v Jika.
South Africans need to fight to get that language into the 2026 Amendment Bill.
This is not an attack on housing rights. This is their better understanding.
New eviction bill aims to protect small landlords, empower municipalities
Section 26 of the Constitution protects access to adequate housing. But housing access is not achieved simply by making eviction harder for those already inside the formal housing market, who are, on average, a relatively affluent minority. This is also done by ensuring that landlords, lenders and investors are willing to provide housing in the first place.
access to adequate housing
When the law makes it too risky, slow or expensive to recover and reset a property after a lease, mortgage or rights of occupancy expires, the results are predictable: tighter screening, higher deposits, higher rents, less credit, more vacant units and less appetite for the supply of affordable rental housing.
And in the 23 years since Ndlovu and Baker, we have seen it result in a stifling affordability crisis and a serious lack of housing access in the market, particularly at the lower end of the market, where the risks associated with PIE were greatest.
The people who suffer the most from bad eviction laws are not those already in possession. Often, they are ordinary South Africans who are still trying to reach out – the disenfranchised outside the system. This is the moral point.
Before this clarification, the effect of applying the PIE Act to squatters was that the legal system systematically favored the haves over the have-nots.
One tenant had access. A mortgagor had access. One owner had access. An occupier under contract had access. Their rights must be respected, but they are not in the same position as those who never had lawful access to land or housing, or who are waiting for access but have been forced out by holders.
unfair removal
PIE should protect vulnerable occupants from arbitrary or procedurally unfair evictions.
It should not be used to give extraordinary procedural protections to holders at the expense of future renters, first-time buyers and low-income households trying to enter the formal housing market. And it certainly should not be used to restrict the housing market, as this is contrary to the constitutional mandate in section 26.
The amendment should restore PIE to its proper purpose. As a law it is designed to regulate the eviction of a vulnerable group, namely encroachers.
And while the 2026 Amendment Bill is open for comments, the Rational Alliance should insist on bringing back the corrective wording of the 2006 Amendment Bill and implementing it into law.
Making this change provides additional protection to the disadvantaged, those who have inadequate housing access or who may never have lived in formal housing, and not just the wealthy who have already passed through the doors of formal housing markets.
It promotes housing access by reducing unnecessary regulatory risk, thereby increasing capital available for housing supply expansion. And it brings the law closer to the real promise of section 26: more South Africans gaining access to adequate housing, not less.