Press statement: LHR welcomes Constitutional Court’s stance on failure to adhere to court orders

Lawyers for Human Rights (LHR) welcomes the Constitutional Court’s scathing judgment lashing out at officials who willfully disregard its orders – this time in the case of the Bapsfontein community.

In August last year, the court called the Ekurhuleni Municipality and its attorney to answer why it had failed to enforce two previous orders on the evicted community.

In its judgment, the court wrote that “disobedience towards court orders or decisions risks rendering our courts impotent and judicial authority a mere mockery”.

In December 2011, the court found that the municipality unlawfully evicted and relocated the community. The municipality was ordered to find land for the community and provide reports to the court on steps taken. The Bapsfontein community had been evicted, ostensibly due to dolomite-rich land that had resulted in several sinkholes, jeopardising their safety. However, the community – that had lived on the land for decades – had never experienced any dangers previously, negating the need for “emergency evacuation”.

Before the report was filed, the community split into two groups – the Mayfield community and N12 Highway Park community.  The municipality was ordered to find land near the original area for the community to be relocated to and report back on the steps taken. However, this report was not submitted despite several requests from the court.

During the contempt proceedings, the justices lambasted the failure to adhere with its 2013 order. In their judgment, the court explained that “non-compliance with court order and decisions would, inevitably, lead to a situation of constitutional crisis”.

They also noted the worrying trend of disregard for judicial order, saying “what they show is not merely that state parties are failing, in a very serious way, to meet their constitutional obligations, but that these failures have real and serious consequences for those whose interests they are there to serve.”

The Constitutional Court has ultimately found that the municipality is not in contempt as their counsel had argued that he had changed offices and failed to update the Registrar.

Both the mayor and municipal manager have also been joined to proceedings to ensure adherence to its order.

LHR applied to the court that the case should rather be referred back to the High Court to oversee the implementation of the court’s order. The Court directed the parties to file written submissions on issues relating to the ongoing exercise of supervisory jurisdiction over the court order of 6 December 2011.