ConCourt Hears the Bromwell Matter and Questions whether the Poor are Being Driven Away from the inner City.

Press statement: 28 February 2024

For eight years the Bromwell families have been challenging the City of Cape Town's approach to emergency housing. Yesterday, 27th of February, 9 Justices of the Constitutional Court heard the matter and tested the parties arguments.

The Court considered whether this case was of a special nature because it deals with the issue of people being evicted and displaced as a consequence of the City's deliberate policy of gentrification, which consequences the City has repeatedly acknowledged needs to be mitigated against yet doesn't appear to have done anything about, and which policy essentially exacerbates spatial apartheid.

Showing an understanding of the lived reality of poor people in Cape Town and the pervasive spatial injustice that persists, the Court asked the City’s counsel:

“Isn’t this a kind of modern day type of District Six displacement?....isn’t the effect of what is happening because of the lack of provision for emergency housing, is that the poor, which is exactly what happened in District Six and Sophiatown, the poor are being driven away from the inner-city with all the attendant costs and expense that that brings about?...15km for a poor person who has to travel by taxi or whatever form of transportation, even R10 to a poor person, R20 return-rate. That is a lot of money.”

The City argued that it cannot provide emergency housing in the inner-city, Woodstock and Salt River areas due to a “limited” available land and financial constraints. The City maintained that it is reasonable for it to prioritise social housing over, and at the expense of emergency housing - an approach which the Bromwell families argued is unreasonable as it excludes the most vulnerable persons needs. The City appears to take an either or approach that effectively pits poor people against one another.

The Court asked why people in Pine Road were given transitional housing but the people from Bromwell street were being offered housing several more kilometres away:

Why were these occupiers entitled to transitional housing and not emergency housing? And why were they not offered, for instance, the Kampies offer, why would they be entitled to locational considerations, whereas the applicants are not entitled to locational considerations?

SERI representing Abahlali baseMjondolo as the Amicus Curiae "friend of the court” made submissions supportive of the Bromwell families case. It drew on international human rights treaties that South Africa has ratified, and are bound by, to argue the importance of location in providing emergency housing and assessing the reasonableness of the City’s housing programme and conduct.

The City, after initially denying it had an obligation to provide the Bromwell families with emergency housing in a location as close as possible, offered the families emergency housing in Wolwerivier and Kampies which are 30km and 15km away from their homes and support structures. The City had also proposed emergency housing in Maitland, but later retracted this stating that existing residents on the proposed site rejected the City's proposal presumably fearing that an influx of new residents would strain their already limited resources, which is not an uncommon response from under-serviced communities.

We argued that the rights of Bromwell families were violated; they were not able to access adequate housing due to the City’s poor planning and policies which exacerbate apartheid spatial planning and injustice.

Charnell Commando, lead applicant reflected after the hearing:

“What we want as the Bromwell Families is for the City to come forward and make a change, because evictions is something that breaks up families, breaks up communities, it breaks up how you feel inside. The anxiety, the stress, not knowing where you are going next, being thrown on the outskirts where you can’t come to your job or where the children can’t come to school the whole week. It’s not just about the case, it’s what actually is happening with the people in the case. It’s real people's lives being touched by the case.”

Disha Govender, Head of the Ndifuna Ukwazi Law Centre said:

“It was a long but important day as the Constitutional Court heard the parties arguments and we are leaving here hopeful that our clients’ rights will be vindicated.”

As the Court grapples with these issues, we stand firm to set the right tone and position ourselves on the right side of history by addressing the injustices experienced by Bromwell families and many other persons. This moment offers us a chance to urge the City to reshape its housing policies, practices, and implementation in accordance with our collective vision for a fair and inclusive city.

END//

Notes: The judgment on the Bromwell Street matter was reserved.

See less