Johannesburg, South Africa – At age 74, Johanna Motlhamme finds herself battling a decades-long struggle to reclaim her family home in Soweto, after a legal oversight linked to apartheid-era laws allowed her ex-husband to sell the property, stripping her and her four children of their inheritance. This plight underscores a systemic issue faced by numerous Black families amid South Africa’s complex history of racially skewed property laws.
During apartheid, harsh laws barred Black individuals from owning land, a restriction that lingered symbolically into the dawn of democracy. Although the post-apartheid era brought about reform aimed at correcting historical injustices, the initial legal frameworks inadvertently imposed gender biases that complicated, rather than eased, land tenure for many.
The Upgrading of Land Tenure Rights Act of 1991 was meant to convert precarious land leases for Black occupants into full ownership rights. However, the legislation recognized only men as heads of households, thus sidelining women like Motlhamme from registering property claims, according to a report by the Socio-Economic Rights Institute (SERI). Despite having equitably owned the home with her husband before their divorce, Motlhamme lost her claim when the property was registered solely under her ex-husband’s name in 2000.
The subsequent developments in her life illustrate the ongoing impact of these laws. After her ex-husband passed away in 2013, his new wife assumed ownership and sold the property, leaving Motlhamme’s family disenfranchised. “It was a shocking turn for us, being forced out of our home without having any legal recourse,” commented Elliot Maimane, Motlhamme’s eldest son.
The distorted implementation of property rights sparked numerous litigations. In 2018, the matter reached a constitutional dimension when South Africa’s high court acknowledged the gender discrimination embedded within the Upgrading Act, mandating amendments to include a more inclusive property adjudication system.
Despite legal advancements, many, like Motlhamme, whose cases predate such amendments, still find themselves entangled in bureaucratic and legal complications. This has led to distressing outcomes where families grapple with eviction threats and homelessness.
The University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, which provides legal assistance and social services to impacted residents, noted an uptick in housing disputes involving women. “The prevailing legal framework has often overlooked the unique property rights challenges faced by women in our townships,” stated Busisiwe Nkala-Dlamini, head of the university’s social work department.
The SERI further elaborates that the system has invariably favored patrilineal succession customs, disregarding women’s rights and contributions in maintaining family homes. In regions like Soweto, the issue of home ownership is palpable, with some residences boldly marked “Not for Sale” in defiance of unwanted property claims that could disrupt family legacies.
Government efforts to rectify historic wrongs include the Land Rights Restitution Act of 1994, which established mechanisms to return lands to their rightful claimants. However, these processes have been slow and fraught with administrative delays, leaving many claimants in limbo.
Recent legislative changes, including the proposed Deeds Registries Amendment Bill, aim to modernize property records and secure rightful ownership more transparently. Yet, the bureaucratic pace has left many disillusioned.
As legal battles drag and the government scrambles to update flawed policies, families like Motlhamme’s hold onto hope. “We still believe justice can prevail, and our family home can be returned to us,” Maimane insists.
For many South Africans, the fight for rightful land and home ownership remains emblematic of broader struggles against historic inequalities – an ongoing battle for justice, recognition, and stability in the post-apartheid era.