Johannesburg - Land owners may have to fork out money to ensure their properties are adequately fenced and will have to erect visible signs warning trespassers if proposals to the new Unlawful Entry on Premises Bill are Gazetted.
But while this may be on the cards and still a while off, political parties reacted with mixed feelings to plans by the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development to make proposed changes to the Bill.
The Freedom Front Plus (FF Plus) did not mince its words and slammed the proposals as being “out of touch with reality and to the detriment of land owners”. Parties also expressed concern over SAPS’ abilities to deal with trespassers.
The new act, if gazetted, will mean that land owners must approach an unlawful trespasser and request them to vacate the premises. That could result in direct conflict, considering the high crime rate as well as the alarming number of house and farm attacks on South Africans.
But the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development said the main purpose of the Bill is to repeal and replace the Trespass Act, No. 6 of 1959 and to prohibit unlawful entry on premises. The department’s Steve Mahlangu said a person found guilty of an offence under the Bill is, on conviction, liable to a fine or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years or to both the fine and imprisonment.
“It is important to note that the penalty to be imposed for a charge of unlawful entry is over and above the penalties to be imposed for other charges e.g. housebreaking, theft, robbery,” he said.
The proposal reads: “The Trespass Act has been identified as a piece of colonial/apartheid era legislation as it was originally designed to combat trespass, publications and conduct engendering hostility between certain population groups. The Trespass Act has therefore lost its relevance in our constitutional democracy.
The Bill aims to prohibit unlawful entry on premises, and to provide for matters connected therewith. Among other things, it provides for the offence of unlawful entry and the penalties to be imposed if a person is found to be guilty of the offence; the duty to inform an intruder of unlawful entry; the powers of the police and defences to the offence of unlawful entry”.
The part of the new proposed act that has the FF Plus hopping mad reads: “This Act, unless the context otherwise indicates – "enclosed land" includes any land that is (a) surrounded by a fence; (b) surrounded by a natural boundary; (c) surrounded by a fence and a natural boundary; or (d) posted, in accordance with section 6(1), with signs prohibiting trespass.”
FF Plus MP and chief spokesperson: Justice and Correctional Services, Jaco Mulder said the Bill is in direct conflict with, among other things, the rural safety strategy, as developed by the police, which provides for the implementation of a protocol to manage access to farms. He said the proposed amendments can also not be reconciled with the Extension of Security of Tenure Act (ESTA legislation).
“These amendments make it easier for trespassers to occupy land and erect unlawful structures, which could seriously violate landowners’ rights. In fact, the proposed amendments are protecting trespassers, seeing as such a person could argue in their defence that they truly believed they were authorised to enter the property. Barricades, fences and notices must now explicitly and visibly indicate the terms and conditions on which a particular property may be entered. The police also lack the ability and resources needed to respond swiftly to incidents of unlawful trespassing,” he said.
But the DA has taken a different view saying the right to defend yourself and your property will not be impacted, should your life be threatened.
DA member of the Parliamentary Committee for Justice and Correctional Services in the National Assembly, Werner Horn said the new proposals also offer more directives to SAPS to deal with intruders.
“SAPS can now act more decisively. It will mean that anyone who enters a property must have authority to do so. There are some loopholes but these will be dealt with at a later stage. But they must also fix the police. We will be keeping a close eye on developments,” he said.
The ANC and EFF did not reply to queries for comment.
The public participation process for comments on the proposed Bill closed yesterday.
Mahlangu said all comments are evaluated and the Bill amended accordingly.
“The Bill then has to be sent for preliminary certification and go to various committees before it is finally introduced in Parliament. The Parliamentary process includes further extensive consultation in both the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces, where the Bill gets amended again. These processes can take up to two years or more,” he concluded.
SAPS spokesperson, Colonel Athlenda Mathe said their protocol for access to farms, specifically, is in place and must be adhered to when members of the SAPS and officials from other Government Departments visit farms.
“A phone call must be made from an official telephone, prior to the intended visit, to secure an appointment in view of the fact that several criminals have been impersonating police officials. This is essential to enable confirmation that the call was in fact from an official police station/ police member,” she said.
On arrival at farms police officers must produce an appointment certificate.
“This arrangement will obviously not be applicable if the land owner is the subject of a police investigation or operation, or where the police have reason to believe that keeping to the protocol would jeopardise the investigation or operation.SAPS should further assist in the visit if the safety of the official is a concern,” Mathe said.