The content on this page is not written by Polity.org.za, but is supplied by third parties. This content does not constitute news reporting by Polity.org.za.

The SACP welcomes the Constitutional Court decision concerning a case brought by Western Cape activist groups against the Western Cape provincial government.

The judgment affirms the responsibility of government to provide housing, confirms the responsibility of the government to institute policy that intervenes to redress the apartheid legacy of spatial planning and upholds the responsibility of government towards the people rather than to the private sector and real estate bourgeois elites. The judgment also articulates the important principle that housing is not merely about making housing available but is also about the location of the housing relative to the social and economic needs of the people.

The case related to the decision of the Western Cape government to put on sale land in the Tafelberg Sea Point area in contravention of public interest. The sale was challenged by the Reclaim the City and Ndifuna Ukwazi activist groups, among others, representing working-class residents. The activist groups correctly argued that the land should be utilised for social housing to redress the legacy of apartheid spatial planning rather than be disposed of to balance government books and deepen gentrification of the area while promoting commercial interests of the real estate companies.

The case dealt with the interpretation and application of the Government Immovable Asset Management Act 19 of 2007 (GIAMA) and the Western Cape Land Administration Act 6 of 1998 (WCLAA), which regulate the actions of government in administering land under its ownership. The court had to determine whether the sale of the land, as proposed by the government of the Western Cape, was in line with the legislation and its policy intent and whether the sale was aligned with the constitutional obligations of the state regarding land use and public interest, specifically as it related to access to land and housing.

In its judgment, the Constitutional Court held that the sale of the property was in contravention of the provincial and local government’s constitutional and statutory obligations, especially the fulfilment of the rights of access to land and housing for the purpose of addressing the past spatial inequalities in central Cape Town.

Apartheid was a system of racial capitalism. Its key feature in cities was the forced removal of the black working class and poor to the urban periphery, far from jobs, transport, and services. This is "spatial apartheid". Sea Point is a well-located, amenity-rich asset in the inner city from which the elite have consistently sought to remove the ordinary citizens utilising a mirage of policies. The attempt to sell it to a private school instead of using it for social housing was a continuation of apartheid geography by market means. The Constitutional Court is correct to rule that adequacy of housing includes location. Confining the working class to the periphery while well-located state land is liquidated is to reproduce apartheid by other means, which is both unjust and incompatible with the redress objectives of the constitution.

The state must be developmental, not an auctioneer. The GIAMA and WCLAA are post-apartheid laws enacted to ensure state assets serve transformation rather than private-sector interests. The Western Cape government’s conduct reflects a DA-led, neo-liberal tendency to treat the state as a property trader, not as the custodian of public assets. Selling land to balance a budget is a right-wing fiscal approach.

The court also found that the cooperative government principle was violated in the processing of the sale of the land. The failure to consult the National Minister of Human Settlements constitutes a breach of the constitutional scheme. As the SACP, we insist on a strong, integrated, and capable developmental state whose responsibility includes transformative administration of land, taking a national posture rather than a narrow provincial one. In addition to these issues, the provincial government of the Western Cape is guilty of provincial parochialism that blocks national social housing objectives.

The judgment is also significant for municipalities, who are equally obliged to formulate and effectively implement appropriate policies aimed at facilitating and promoting access to land and affordable housing

This victory, however, is a tactical gain with some strategic limit. The judgment is a victory for Reclaim the City, SERI, and the housing movement in that it establishes an important precedent that location matters. The SACP welcomes this as part of advancing socio-economic rights. However, courts cannot build houses. The ruling does not expropriate, does not fund, and does not compel construction, and this still requires the positive actions of the state. The court orders "plans" and "timelines" in line with laws. Under a capitalist fiscal framework, these often remain paper commitments.

The Tafelberg case confirms that our constitution can be a site of struggle against apartheid geography. However, a judgment is not a house. The working class, through the Alliance and mass movements, must now ensure that the state uses this victory to build homes, not just write reports. Land in the city must serve the people, not the market. As the SACP, we seek, among others, to use the democratic state to advance working-class interests within the current stage of our struggle. The constitution and the statutory and policy regime must be appropriately employed to achieve transformation in South Africa. Spatial inequality cannot be addressed without fundamentally linking spatial planning and social housing development. The Adonisi judgment crucially clarifies the enforcement of rights and opens opportunities for judicial oversight over spatial transformation-related issues.

The SACP calls for a moratorium on disposal of well-located state land until a public audit against the transformation and spatial justice criteria is done. Land is not "surplus" if it can be used to reverse spatial inequality.

Issued by the South African Communist Party