City defends 7de Laan evictions

The City of Windhoek defended their decision to evict and demolish the 7de Laan shacks of at least 15 applicants in the Windhoek High Court on Friday, claiming they were preventing an attempt at aggressive, unlawful occupation of land.

City Police Senior Superintendent Gerry Shikesho stated in his affidavit that he had not needed a court order because “I am obliged by law to prevent the actual commission of an offence and since the illegal occupants, who I believe included the applicants, were in the process of erecting structures which were in any event incomplete, I was duty bound to stop their unlawful activity there and then.”

His affidavit was submitted after 15 applicants brought an urgent application before High Court Judge Shafimana Ueitele last week, asking that the court order their eviction illegal.

The case has attracted widespread public interest, and the Affirmative Repositioning (AR) activist group decided to assist the affected parties in bringing the case to court, including costs.

Lawyers acting on behalf of the City told the judge that the frequency of illegal land occupation had increased in the past months and in order to prevent the erection of more illegal homes, the City had posted security guards at key locations and had compiled a list containing the names of 13 occupants who were already living in that particular area of 7de Laan.

The affidavit of Benedictus Ngairorue, the legal advisor to the City of Windhoek, states that on 28 March at 04:00 a security guard became aware “that a rather sizeable number of people were descending on Erf 3162, 7de Laan, Otjomuise, with the intention of occupying the land.”

He alerted the authorities, who responded by stopping the erection of shacks.

Ngairorue said none of the 13 people who had been documented to live there previously were affected by the police operation.

Kadhila Amoomo, one of the AR lawyers acting on behalf of the applicants, pointed out that one of the applicants, Alex Bering, was on the City's list and had signed up as one of the applicants who claimed his house was demolished.

Thom Frans, the security guard who alerted City officials, testified in his brief affidavit that his job was to “ensure that no new illegal occupiers came to the land in question”.

He told the court that on the morning in question “there were attempts by, among others, people who I believe included the applicants herein, who attempted to occupy the land in question…”

Amoomo argued that all of the applicants had been living in the 7de Laan shacks for longer than the police alleged, some of them more than three years, including the first applicant, Christine Likuwa.

He argued that photographs submitted by the City, showing what the City alleged were incomplete shacks, were not evidence that they were unoccupied.

Amoomo also argued that the City had offered the applicants the return of the shack building material that was initially confiscated from the scene.

He argued that if the applicants had committed an offence, why had the City offered to return their belongings. “It means there was no offence. It boggles the mind,” he argued.

Thabang Phatella, arguing on behalf of the City, said the City's policies on illegal land occupation were clear and as such the City had taken steps to ensure they knew how many houses and people were at the site before 28 March.

He said the City Police had not acted maliciously but were merely upholding the law.

He explained that the City had offered to return the building materials, and not laid criminal charges, in an attempt to “extend an olive branch”, because the City was aware of the dire circumstances in which some of the city's most vulnerable residents had to survive.

Judge Ueitele warned the lawyers for the applicants that he would base his decision on the facts of the case and not on the emotions surrounding the case.

He postponed the case until 7 April for judgment.

JANA-MARI SMITH