You are on page 1of 56

ANNUAL REPORT 2012

2
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012
01
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012
National Directors Message
Refugee and Migrant Rights Programme
Strategic Litigation Unit
Land Reform and Housing Programme
Environmental Rights Programme
Note of Thanks
Financials
Contents
PG 02
PG 04
PG 16
PG 45
PG 26
PG 38
PG 48
02
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012
National
Directors
Message
Lawyers for Human Rights have done
extensive work in its various programmes
during 2012, including the Refugee and
Migrant Rights Programme, Strategic
Litigation Unit, Land and Housing
Programme and Environmental Rights
Programme.
Running through each of these
specialised programmes are common
crosscutting themes of non-discrimination,
gender equality, child protection and
socioeconomic rights advocacy.
Refugee and migrant rights
The Refugee and Migrant Rights Programme continues
to be the largest legal service provider to refugees
and asylum-seekers in South Africa. Through our
law clinics in Pretoria, Durban, Musina and Johannesburg,
LHR has assisted almost 7 000 refugee clients. There
were some challenges, though. It was a frustrating year
for the Programme who, despite litigation successes, saw
a noticeable deterioration in the refugee adjudication
process. Of particular concern is the governments
refusal to comply with various court orders to re-open
urban refugee reception offices and its plans to relocate
asylum processing to the borders, which has created an
unprecedented crisis in refugee protection in
South Africa.
LHRs special initiative on the prevention and reduction
of statelessness in South Africa expanded its advocacy,
public awareness and legal assistance in 2012. The
Project actively lobbied government to ratify the UN
statelessness conventions that led to the Home Affairs
minister making a public pledge at the UN in Geneva
to ratify the convention.
On page 4 of this report, Kaajal Ramjathan-Keogh
highlights the successes and challenges of the
Programme.
Land reform and housing
The Land Reform and Housing Programme has had
an exceptional year undertaking strategic litigation
in the field of housing and land reform. In doing so,
LHR has represented a large number of people faced
with unlawful evictions or removals in urban and peri-
urban areas across the country. In 2012, a number of
landmark unlawful eviction cases were litigated in the
Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal.
In the Schubart Park judgment, the Constitutional Court
found the eviction of 5 000 people in the Pretoria city
centre unlawful and ordered that the municipality make
arrangements for the tenants to move back following
the upgrade of the buildings. In the Marlboro matter,
the court ordered that the City of Johannesburg provide
alternative accommodation to several hundred families
who were unlawfully evicted from private land.
The slow pace of land reform and the insecurity
of farmworkers in South Africa has underscored the
importance of public interest law organisations such
as LHR in representing communities in land reform and
restitution processes as well as farmworkers threatened
with eviction.
Environmental justice
Closely related to our land reform work is the
Environmental Rights Programme that provides expert
legal advice to individuals and communities who seek to
protect their constitutional right to an environment that
is not harmful to their health. This is particularly true
of communities who have been adversely affected by
extractive industries such as mining.
This year, the Programme was involved in a number
of high-profile environmental cases. LHR has been
assisting communities affected by polluting coalmines
to obtain access to information to mining permits and
environmental impact assessments for coalmines located
next to the Wesselton community in Mpumalanga.
03
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012
Strategic litigation
LHR uses strategic and constitutional litigation as a
means of providing access to the basic rights of the
Constitution and protecting hard-won precedents. The
Strategic Litigation Unit has been very active in terms
of its own litigation projects as well as supporting the
litigation from other projects. On page 16 , David Cote
reports on the successes and challenges of the SLU.
In 2012, the Unit was involved in a number of cases with
international significance. LHR submitted a complaint to
the National Consumer Commission on behalf of Open
Shuhada Street, regarding the mislabelling of cosmetic
products from Occupied Palestinian Territories as
Products of Israel.
In the Zimbabwe torture docket case, LHR represented
the Southern African Litigation Centre and Zimbabwe
Exiles Forum with a high court application to review the
decision of the SAPS and the NPA not to investigate
allegations of torture by Zimbabwean officials against
opposition party members in 2007. This case was
successfully argued in terms of the states obligations
in accordance with the South Africas Implementation of
the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Act.
Recent events, such as the Marikana massacre, have
underscored the importance of a strong and independent
civil society and, in particular, public interest law
organisations to uphold the rule of law and to protect
the democratic space. In this regard LHR will continue
to use the law as positive tool for change and to deepen
the democratisation of the South African society.
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012
04
Refugee
and Migrant
Rights
Programme
Due to its political and economic
stability, South Africa remains a
viable and safe destination for
asylum-seekers fleeing persecution
and insecurity.
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012
05
Refugees and asylum-seekers queue outside the Marabastad reception office in Pretoria.
06
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012
6 678
According to the United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees, 106 904 new asylum applications were
received in 2011.
Unlike most African states that accommodate refugees
in camp facilities, South Africas asylum system allows
asylum-seekers to integrate into society.
Yet, the refugee legal system is undergoing reform.
Recent changes in practice within the asylum system in
South Africa, as well as statements concerning intended
shifts in policy, are cause for concern. These changes
represent a major shift in South Africas urban-based
asylum policy - the most significant since the asylum
system was established in the mid to late-1990s. New
measures to restrict access to the asylum-process
caused increasing numbers of asylum-seekers to remain
without documentation and protection against danger
of refoulement - in contravention of domestic and
international law.
LHRs Refugee and Migrant Rights Programme
is the biggest legal service provider to refugees
and asylum-seekers in South Africa. LHR
provides legal assistance and advice through
its law clinics in Pretoria, Durban, Musina and
Johannesburg. In 2012 LHR assist more than
6 000 refugee clients.
LHR offers free legal services to indigent and vulnerable
asylum-seekers, refugees and migrants. Litigation is
used to advance clients rights and to develop African
jurisprudence in the field of refugee and immigration
law. Our legal advocacy focuses primarily on unlawful
arrest, detention and deportation practices; facilitating
access to asylum and socio-economic rights of refugees
and migrants. LHR also carries out vigorous detention
monitoring throughout South Africa at detention centres,
police stations, airports and prisons.
TOTAL
NUMBER
HELPED
LHR LAW CLINICS DETENTION
MONITORING
STATELESSNESS
PROJECT
5 829 113 736
During 2012, LHRs law clinics assisted 5 829 people on asylum and immigration matters.
Also in 2012, the Programme assisted 113 people being held in detention.
07
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012
KEY PRIORITIES 2012
Keeping urban refugee reception
offices open
Securing financial and banking
services for refugees
Assistance with high court
review applications
Helping people in detention
Legal assistance to rejected
asylum-seekers
Monitor xenophobia and assist
in the aftermath
Access to social assistance
Advocating on policy development
Access to health and education
Enforcing refugee traders right
to operate businesses
LHR HAS MADE SIGNIFICANT
INROADS ON SEVERAL CHANGES
TO POLICY REGARDING
IMMIGRATION MONITORING
AND DETENTION. THESE ISSUES
INCLUDE:
Closures of urban refugee
reception offices nationally
Home Affairs recently announced its intention to relocate
all existing refugee reception offices (RRO) to South
Africas borders with additional plans to construct
reception facilities at Lebombo in Mpumalanga, near
the Mozambican border. So far, R28.8-million has been
earmarked for the establishment at Lebombo while the
project, as a whole, is estimated at a staggering cost of
R110-million.
LHR, together with other civil society organisations,
have taken Home Affairs court numerous times in a bid
to halt this process and wasteful expenditure that would
be better spent on more pressing issues like resolving
RRO staffing shortages, long queues and stamping
out widespread corruption to which Home Affairs has
admitted in its 2011/2012 annual report.
Home Affairs has systematically closed several RROs
illegally and has blatantly ignored several court rulings
to reopen and to engage in a meaningful consultation
process on the closures.
The closures have negatively impacted access to
asylum for new and existing asylum-seekers. The
court challenges to these closures are essential for
the protection of the asylum space in South Africa.
There are now only four urban refugee offices that are
open to new asylum-seekers - Durban, Musina and two
in Pretoria.
This decision has caused severe prejudice to the asylum-
seeker and refugee community, considering that in the
case of Cape Town, the closest office is over 700km
away. Statistics recorded by Home Affairs indicate that
in 2011, 22 000 people were assisted by the Port
Elizabeth office. This is a clear indication of a significant
need for a refugee office in the Eastern Cape.
08
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012
REMAINING RECEPTION OFFICES
Marabastad reception office
Cnr DF Malan Drive and Struben Street
Pretoria West
Tshwane interim refugee reception office
203 Soutter Street, Pretoria Showgrounds
Pretoria
Durban reception office
137 Moore Road
Durban
Musina
8 Harold Grenfell Street
Musina
PROPOSED RECEPTION OFFICES
Komatiepoort
Musina
OLD RECEPTION OFFICES
Johannesburg refugee reception office
19 Planet Avenue
Crown Mines
Marabastad reception office
Cnr DF Malan Drive and Struben Street
Pretoria West
Tshwane interim refugee reception office
203 Soutter Street, Pretoria Showgrounds
Pretoria
Durban reception office
137 Moore Road
Durban
Cape Town reception office
Sturrock Building
18 Montreal Road
Airport Industria
Nyanga, Cape Town
Musina
8 Harold Grenfell Street
Musina
Port Elizabeth
KIC 5 Sidon Street North End
Port Elizabeth
09
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012
10
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012
Social grants for refugees
Several years ago, LHR was instrumental in facilitating
access to social grants for disabled refugees in South
Africa. In 2011, LHR intervened again with the Social
Development Department who agreed to promulgate
legislation realising the constitutional right of refugees
to access social grants.
Challenges accessing
Section 23 asylum-seeker
transit permits
Asylum-seekers entering South Africa are not being
issued with the necessary documents to apply for
refugee status most notably a so-called Section 23
permit. This has resulted in them being turned away from
RROs and denied the chance to legalise their stay in the
country. The permit is normally given to anyone entering
the country and wanting to apply for asylum. It also
provides them with a 14-day period within which to lodge
the asylum application.
LHR intervened in a case of a Zimbabwean woman who
was detained in Musina and denied access to apply
for asylum for not being in possession of a Section
23 permit. In January, LHR challenged the policy and
succeeded in having her released. The case also seems
to have resolved the problem and asylum-seekers are
assisted to apply for asylum even if they are not in
possession of this permit.
Resumption of deportations
to Zimbabwe
In October 2011, Home Affairs resumed deportations
to Zimbabwe following the implementation of the 2010
Zimbabwe Dispensation Project (ZDP) that was rolled
out to regularise the immigration status of Zimbabweans
living in South Africa. LHR raised many concerns with
Home Affairs about the poor implementation of the
ZDP process but despite these concerns, deportations
resumed before applications were finalised. LHR
continues to receive reports of individuals having lodged
applications for the ZDP and never receiving their
permits. Home Affairs also indicated permits would be
renewable but attempts to renew by Zimbabweans have
been unsuccessful.
Lindela Repatriation
Centre interventions
In May, a group of organisations comprising Mdecins
Sans Frontires, SECTION27, LHR and People against
Suffering, Oppression and Poverty wrote to the South
African Human Rights Commission, asking for an
urgent investigation into the state of healthcare service
provisions at Lindela. The request details a long and
shameful history of human rights abuses at Lindela.
These abuses have been documented throughout
Lindelas existence. Despite its history, Lindela continues
to operate in secrecy and with impunity. This request
has resulted in a joint project by all the organisations
concerned and led by the SAHRC to investigate health-
related concerns at Lindela.
11
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012
Home Affairs has admitted to problems
with the standards of service at
ports of entry that are exacerbated
by congestion, illegal entries, lack of
capacity and training and the detection
of fraudulent IDs.
However, Home Affairs has noticed
a decline in the numbers of refugees and
asylum-seekers.
According to figures
obtained by the UNHCR,
new applications have
declined steadily since 2009.
2009 2010 2011 2012
341000
220 000
106 000
85 000
DECLINE
IN THE
NUMBERS OF
REFUGEES
AND
ASYLUM-
SEEKERS
Preventing statelessness
In 2011, LHR announced the Statelessness Project. Its
aim is to prevent and reduce statelessness by addressing
complex issues around citizenship, nationality and birth
registration.
In 2011, LHR was successful in getting South Africa to
deliver a pledge to the UNHCR indicating its intention
to sign the two statelessness conventions. In 2012
the Project focused on advocacy, awareness, case
development and strategic litigation.
In 2012, the Project made submissions on draft
regulations to the Births and Deaths Registration Act and
Citizenship Act, met with the legal advisor to the minister,
held a roundtable with Home Affairs and foreign mission
officials on access to nationality and made presentations
before the Parliamentary Committee on Home Affairs
regarding signature and ratification of the international
treaties.
The latter part of 2012 saw an increased focus on
strategic litigation when the project launched its first
court case on behalf of a stateless person seeking
protection and nationality.
The Project has begun preparations for a photographic
exhibition on statelessness for 2013 that will coincide
with the launch of a report entitled, Statelessness and
Nationality in South Africa.
In 2013 LHR will also address the issue of documentation
for persons deprived of nationality, access to birth
registration and access to nationality for persons born to
South Africans citizens abroad.
12
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012
STATELESSNESS
A HUMAN RIGHTS CHALLENGE
IN SOUTH AFRICA
Written by LHRs Jessica P. George
Some people actually advocate for a stateless
society: a world undivided by territorial boundaries
and unhindered by bureaucratic red tape. Some see
this as the ultimate freedom.
In reality, the life of a stateless person is a nightmare.
A stateless person is someone who does not meet
any States legal requirements for citizenship; or who
is a citizen under the law but cannot prove his or her
citizenship, or is denied citizenship by a State.
STATELESS PERSONS LACK
A SENSE OF BELONGING
AND ARE EXCLUDED FROM
A NATIONAL COMMUNITY.
BUT THEY ALSO SUFFER ENDLESS
PRACTICAL BARRIERS IN IMPROVING
THEIR LIVES.
If stateless, you are unlikely to have a birth certificate
without which you cannot get an ID document
which means few jobs are open to you. You cannot
write matric or go to university, open a bank account,
apply for a loan or buy property. You cannot register
your marriage or your childrens births. You cannot
vote. If you leave your country of birth, you cannot
travel or immigrate legally and you must border-
jump to return. Since no country recognises you,
you cannot be deported. You may be detained
indefinitely. Only your human rights, presumed by
your birth into the human race, can protect you.
Such rights offer weak protection in todays world.
The UNHCR estimates that at least 12-million people
are stateless worldwide. In Africa, statelessness
is increasing. A number of post-independence
constitutions, citizenship laws and later amendments
included discriminatory provisions which added racial
requirements; prohibited dual nationality;

prevented women from passing citizenship to their
children; and in some cases made it impossible for
African migrants who came during colonisation, and
their descendants, to claim citizenship. These legal
provisions have made many people stateless.
Further, as African national economies develop,
access to wealth, government services and personal
advancement become increasingly dependent on
administrative systems and documentation. This
means that those who are not documented as
citizens are unable to access human rights.
Stateless persons in South Africa fall into two main
categories: those born in South Africa and those
born abroad.
For those born in South Africa, Home Affairs local
offices have become a battleground for access to
citizenship. While birth on the territory alone does
not automatically confer citizenship, the late
registration of birth process is being treated as an
application for citizenship. Suspicions that foreigners
are using birth registration to access citizenship
are resulting in ever stricter procedures for late
registration of birth. Many unregistered adult South
Africans simply cannot convince Home Affairs of
their birth on the territory due to migrant pasts;
mixed nationality families and/or deceased parents.
Those who live in border regions are likely to be
suspected as foreigners in both South Africa and its
neighbouring country.
The unintended consequence is that South Africans
are being deprived of their citizenship.
As for those born abroad: undocumented migrants
in South Africa may be stateless due to conflict of
laws, among other reasons. Changes to Zimbabwean
citizenship laws in 2001 resulted in an estimated
over 100 000 people of foreign descent losing their
citizenship. Malawi and Zambia require children born
to citizens born abroad to claim citizenship by age
22. Unaware or incompliant, many born to migrants
in Zimbabwe became stateless.
While South Africa has a well-established system
to recognise and protect refugees, no such system
exists to protect stateless persons.
13
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012
Every country has the right to regulate immigration
and to determine who is a citizen but this right
cannot exist to the exclusion of fundamental human
rights. The Constitution may protect such rights,
but in practice these rights are meaningless without
nationality.
If South Africa truly believes in human rights, it
should take every measure to prevent and reduce
statelessness. As this year is the 50th anniversary
of the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of
Statelessness, it would be an apt time to take up
this challenge.
To look the other way will only perpetuate poverty
and denial of nationality, threatening the human rights
framework that South Africans have fought so hard
to achieve.
THE SCALE
OF THE PROBLEM
ESTIMATED NUMBERS
OF STATELESS PERSONS
IN SOUTH AFRICA
Zimbabwean-born migrants
with foreign parentage
100 000-200 000 in Zimbabwe; thousands may have
come to South Africa, given the difficulty this group
faces in accessing citizenship in Zimbabwe.
Orphans and vulnerable children
3.7-million orphans
150 000 children living in child-headed
households
Over 2 000 children are abandoned yearly
in South Africa, according to Child Welfare
Stateless migrants
With estimates ranging from 1.5-million to
3-million foreigners in South Africa and 200 000
asylum-seekers a year, there are surely many
stateless migrants in South Africa. However,
broader studies are required to gather accurate
statistics on this group.
Children of migrants
Again, there are no statistics for this group in
South Africa but there are reports of 1.5-million
to 3-million foreigners in the country so this group
is undeniably large.
Children of single fathers
1.3-million maternal orphans exist in South Africa
as of 2011
Victims of ID fraud
Nearly 600 000 cases of duplicate IDs were identified
by Home Affairs in March 2011. Home Affairs states
that 164 000 cases remain unresolved.
Communities in border areas
Unknown numbers; conservative estimates may
be thousands affected in border towns and regions
close to Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Swaziland, Lesotho
and Botswana where migration and cross-border
communities are common.
Unaccompanied foreign minors
No statistics exist capturing the number of
unaccompanied foreign minors in South Africa but
many service providers and non-profits can attest
to the significance of this population group.
Extracted from LHRs Statelessness and Nationality in South Africa report
14
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012
STATELESS CLIENTS
The majority of stateless clients come from
Lesotho, the Democratic Republic of Congo,
South Africa and Zimbabwe. The variation of
clients, however, is not restricted to these areas.
Zimbabwe 279
Mozambique 10
Somalia 2
Burundi 1
Malawi 3
Ethiopia 2
Uganda 1
Democratic Republic of Congo 45
Swaziland 1
Zambia 2
South Africa 150
Lesotho 231
15
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012
Detention
Monitoring Unit
The Detention Monitoring Unit monitors the arrest,
detention and deportation of foreign nationals from
South Africa by the provision of direct legal advice and
assistance at detention centres with a primary focus on
the Lindela Repatriation Centre. Detention monitoring
services are also extended to police stations, prisons and
OR Tambo International Airport.
LHR has been litigating for the release of persons
unlawfully held in detention since 2006 with a high
success rate - launching at least seven high court
applications each month. In 2012,LHR assisted 114
detainees. The main grounds are the detention and
deportation of asylum-seekers and refugees; denial of
opportunities for asylum-seekers to apply for asylum and
detention beyond the legal limit of 120 days. LHR litigated
on behalf of 19 detainees who were arrested before they
could apply for asylum.
The Refugees Act is the only applicable legislation
when dealing with asylum-seekers and refugees and it
prohibits their arrest and detention until they have had an
opportunity to lodge an asylum application and had a fair
chance to have it evaluated.
Where a foreigner is encountered without any
documentation and expresses an intention to apply
for asylum, they should not be dealt with in terms of
the Immigration Act but should be treated as an asylum-
seeker in terms of the Refugees Act and afforded an
opportunity to apply for asylum.
Despite the clear interpretation of the Act, LHR still sees
asylum-seekers being arrested at the border because of
expired permits, at reception office, and asylum-seekers
and refugees detained over 120 days.
LHR brought 50 urgent high court applications throughout
2012. Many cases, however, were resolved without the
use of litigation through consultation with immigration
officers who, in some instances, were not aware that
asylum-seekers with expired permits should be charged
criminally and appear before a magistrate.
LHR has also intervened in several cases of minors in
detention and managed to secure their release.
In September, LHR launched the 2012 Detention
Monitoring Report detailing detention work. The report
made recommendations for those involved in immigration
detention including Home Affairs and the Human Rights
Commission. The report can be found on the LHR website
(www.lhr.org.za).
In a recent report by Wits African Centre for Migration and Society, Home Affairs is reported to
have spent over R5-million on detention, transportation and legal fees for defending unlawful detentions
in court between 2010 and 2011.
COSTS INCLUDED
OF FOREGONE EXPENDITURE
OPPORTUNITY COSTS
R4 700 000
DETENTION COSTS
R2 630 805
LEGAL COSTS RECOVERED BY LHR
R1 253 686
COST OF TRANSPORTING
INDIVIDUALS TO LINDELA
R82 350
LEGAL COSTS INCURRED BY HOME AFFAIRS
R783 284 R1 253 686
Breaking the law, breaking the bank: The cost of Home Affairs illegal detention practices by
Roni Amit from the African Centre for Migration and Society at Wits University.
16
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012
Strategic
Litigation
Unit
The Strategic Litigation Unit
uses the law as a positive
instrument for change and to
deepen the democratisation
of South African society.
17
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012
Refugee community leaders outside the Eastern Cape High Court supporting the legal challenge
against the closure of the Port Elizabeth refugee reception office.
18
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012
The Strategic Litigation Unit focuses litigation
on strategic and public interest cases that have
the potential to develop the law and make a
difference in peoples lives. It offers high-level
legal services free of charge to vulnerable,
marginalised and indigent individuals and
communities in cases involving constitutional
and human rights violations. The Unit is active in
its own litigation projects, as well as supporting
the litigation of LHRs other projects.
In 2012, LHR was involved in a number of cases of
international significance. For instance, LHR submitted
a complaint to the National Consumer Commission on
behalf of Open Shuhada Street, regarding the mislabelling
of cosmetic products from Occupied Palestinian
Territories as Products of Israel.
In the torture docket case, LHR represented the Southern
African Litigation Centre and Zimbabwe Exiles Forum
with a high court application to review the decision of
the SAPS and the NPA not to investigate allegations of
torture by Zimbabwean officials against opposition party
members in 2008. This case was successfully argued in
terms of South Africas obligations in accordance with
South Africas Rome Statute Act.
Also in 2012, the South African Human Rights
Commission invited LHR to make a presentation dealing
with the rights of foreign nationals regarding the closure
of RROs and court decisions finding these closures
unlawful.
LHR has been asked to contribute to a textbook on
refugee law, produced by Juta Publishers and edited by
the UCT Refugee Rights Project. The books release is
expected in 2013.
2012 SAW A NUMBER OF HIGH
PROFILE CASES BEFORE COURT:
Emmanuel Tsebe
and Jerry Phale
Emmanuel Tsebe and Jerry Phale fled Botswana under
threat of the death penalty after being accused of murder.
Both were arrested and an extradition process was
attempted but the process couldnt continue because the
Botswana government refused to issue an undertaking
not to impose the death penalty. Despite this, efforts
were made to deport them.
LHR opposed their extradition and a high court judgment
found in our favour but the state appealed directly to the
Constitutional Court. They argued they had an obligation
to deport Tsebe because he was an illegal foreigner but
the court disagreed.
While Tsebes case was in court, LHR was separately busy
with the case against Jerry Phale.
He had been originally charged with being in the country
illegally and with fraud. In January 2012, the charges were
provisionally withdrawn against him but charges of giving
false particulars on the ID book were reinstituted in May.
The matter was postponed several times and was put
down for March 2013.
19
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012
IS SOUTH AFRICA REVISITING
ITS COMMITMENT AGAINST
THE DEATH PENALTY?
Written by LHRs David Cote
The governments appeal to the Constitutional Court
on 23 February 2012 appears to suggest so despite
President Jacob Zumas speech at Pretoria Central
Prison on 15 December 2011:
Given the pain South Africa experienced,
it should not be surprising that in the
democratic state, through a most progressive
Constitution, the death penalty was outlawed.
The right to life and dignity are the most
important of all human rights in our country.
Government is appealing the South Gauteng High
Court decision that two Botswana nationals could not
be deported or extradited to stand trial in Botswana
- where they face the death penalty if convicted -
without the assurance that the death penalty would
not be imposed or carried out. LHR brought the case
in recognition that sending someone to a country
where they may face the death penalty was the
ultimate denial of human rights.
In one of its first landmark decisions, the
Constitutional Court effectively abolished the death
penalty in 1995. In 2003, the Mohamed decision
confirmed it was unconstitutional to execute people
in South Africa and that they could not be handed
over to a country that may execute them unless
the requesting country provides assurances to the
contrary. These constitutional protections apply
equally to every person in South Africa regardless of
their citizenship or status.
To be clear, it has never been envisaged that South
Africa should become a safe haven for criminals
and fugitives from justice. The solution dictated by
our Constitution is this: Where a retentionist state
requests the return of a person from an abolitionist
state, the requesting state must provide an
assurance that the death penalty will not be imposed
under any circumstances.
This achieves multiple purposes. For South Africa,
it is in keeping with the decision we took in 1994
to be a constitutional state that upholds the right
to life and human dignity. It further serves the
purpose of regional advocacy of the rights we have
enshrined in our Constitution towards abolition in our
neighbouring countries. Demanding and obtaining
an assurance also ensures that people charged with
criminal offences will stand trial and, if convicted,
serve an appropriate sentence - just not a capital
one. In short, it ensures that South Africa does not
compromise its own values or law.
Assurances of this kind are common in international
law. Even the United States knows it cannot request
an extradition from the United Kingdom without the
requisite assurance. So, too, in the present case, the
Minister of Justice sought an assurance from the
government of Botswana for one of the parties in
this matter. Botswana, however, refused - and from
this point, government sought to compromise the
integrity of our Constitution.
The ministers of Justice and Home Affairs sought
a ruling from the Constitutional Court that if a
requesting state refused to give an assurance against
the death penalty, they may still extradite or deport.
The high court dismissed this approach emphatically.
In the Constitutional Court appeal, the government
urged the court to overturn the Mohamed rule and
to replace it with a balancing exercise, effectively
giving government the discretion to extradite without
the requisite assurance on a case-by-case basis.
Government argues the individuals right to life ought
to be weighed against various policy considerations.
Whether one is personally for or against the death
penalty, governments approach undermines our
Constitution and ought to alarm every South African.
It is worrying when government argues that our
Constitution be compromised to bend to a country
that is out of sync with international law. And it is
extremely concerning that Home Affairs attempted to
deport one of the parties despite an order from the
Minister of Justice that he could not be surrendered
without an assurance, prior to the court hearing this
matter.
20
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012
Zimbabwe torture
docket case
In the Zimbabwe Torture Docket case, LHR acted on
behalf of the Southern African Litigation Centre and the
Zimbabwe Exiles Forum in an application to review the
decision of the SAPS and the NPA not to investigate
allegations of torture by Zimbabwean officials against
opposition party members in March 2008.
The International Criminal Court Act gives South African
courts extraterritorial jurisdiction to prosecute individuals
accused of having committed crimes against humanity.
Both SAPS and the NPA refused to investigate the
allegations relying mainly on the argument that because
the perpetrators are not presently in South Africa,
a court would not have jurisdiction to conduct a trial.
LHRs clients argued that the investigation stage would
not be affected by the perpetrators current absence from
South Africa.
Days before the hearing in March, the head of the
Priority Crimes Litigation Unit at the NPA wanted to file
an affidavit supporting LHRs position regarding the
investigation stage of the dossier. The court found in
LHRs clients favour.
New rules for judicial review
In 2009, LHR filed an application challenging the new
rules for judicial review. The new rules were intended
to replace Rule 53 of the Uniform Rules of Court that
deals with the procedures for reviewing administrative
decisions. Of particular concern were changes regarding
the record of decision. Under the current rule, the
administrator who takes a decision is obliged to deliver
a copy of every piece of paper, recording, etc. that was
before him or her when the decision was taken. According
to the new rules, the record of decision would have been
limited to only those parts of the record relevant to the
applicants grounds of review. This would have severely
limited access to all relevant documentation and would
have obliged the applicant to conceive of every ground of
review before having had sight of the relevant documents.
The Rules Board filed an answering affidavit defending the
new rules but also filed a notice to abide by the judgment.
The matter was heard in February 2012. The state argued
the new rules were necessary to reduce the burden on
administrators to compile the record of decision and
to reduce costs. The court found the new rules infringed
the right to just administrative action as well as the
right to access information held by the state and to
access courts.
THE ONLY CONCERN OF
GOVERNMENT THAT MERITS
DISCUSSION IS WHETHER
FUGITIVES FROM JUSTICE MAY
BE ABSOLVED FROM STANDING
TRIAL, IF THE REQUESTING
STATE REFUSES TO PROVIDE
AN ASSURANCE. BUT AS THE
HIGH COURT PUT IT, THIS ONUS
LIES ON THE REQUESTING
RETENTIONIST STATE TO
PROVIDE THE REQUISITE
ASSURANCE.
For exceptional instances when a country, such
as Botswana, refuses to provide an assurance,
there is no bar to South Africa implementing
legislation for the people in these limited
circumstances to be tried domestically. If a
requesting state refuses to provide an assurance,
this represents the only viable alternative that
does not compromise our Constitution and
ensures that people are still tried before a court.
The compromise can never be, as government
suggests, re-interpreting the decisions of our
Constitutional Court, or tweaking a decision
inconvenient to government because it may
cause embarrassment diplomatically or because
there may be cost implications in trying matters
locally when assurances are refused.
That South Africa has made the commitment
to abolition means that it must further play
a fundamental role in promoting abolition
regionally by refusing to send people back to
countries where they may face the death penalty.
South Africa has a duty to ensure that no-one
is executed because of a decision that our
government has taken and irrespective
of whether or not that individual is a South
African citizen.
21
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012
Closure of refugee
reception offices
One of the major focuses of 2012 was the continued
closure of the countrys RROs. These cases were
conducted in coordination with the Refugee and Migrant
Rights Project as detailed on page 7 of this report.
The Strategic Litigation Unit was instrumental in providing
technical guidance on this issue and continues to do so.
Nyakunhuwa
LHR took on the case of Nyakunhuwa - a Zimbabwe
national and holder of a Zimbabwe Dispensation Project
work permit - after he was unfairly dismissed from his
job as a sous chef at the Department of International
Relations and Cooperation headquarters in Pretoria.
In June 2012, he was escorted from the building and told
he could no longer work at the department based solely
on being a foreign national. He had been working in the
same canteen for three years and his status as a foreign
national had never been an issue. Additionally his former
employer told prospective employers that he had been
removed for criminality.
A referral was filed in the Labour Court for automatic
unfair dismissal based on unfair discrimination. He was
not afforded a hearing nor severance. The matter remains
unopposed and an application for default judgment in
chambers was filed in January 2013.
Appeal to the SCA
LHR sought leave to enter as amicus curiae in the matter
of an appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal declaring
the sale and alienation of a public park by the eMalahleni
municipality to the Witbank Jamaat for the purposes of
building a mosque. The eMalahleni area only has one
mosque in the former Indian township while the Muslim
community has spread throughout the town.
LHR sought to lead evidence regarding the number
churches in the area and the number of Muslim homes
the new mosque could have served.
Head of the Strategic Litigation Unit David Cote is interviewed by the SABC
in the Constitutional Court.
22
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012
WHILE THE CORE OF THE
UNITS WORK RESTS IN DIRECT
LITIGATION, SEVERAL NOTABLE
CASES HAVE BEEN RESOLVED
OUT OF COURT. SOME OF THESE
INCLUDE:
Constitutionality of detentions
The Unit, in working with the Refugee and Migrant
Rights Programme, is challenging the constitutionality of
detentions under the Immigration Act. The application will
challenge the practice of failing to bring detainees before
a court within 48 hours of their arrest as required by law.
Refugee Appeal Board
The Unit has been assisting LHRs various clinics with
judicial reviews of decisions by the Refugee Appeal
Board (RAB). After nearly two years of no hearings, the
RAB has again begun issuing decisions of appeals by
asylum-seekers whose applications for refugee status are
rejected as unfounded.
Many of these reviews are challenges to decisions not
to grant a pardon for late filing. Access problems have
worsened the already daunting task of submitting a notice
at reception offices. Unfortunately, many of these notices
were lost and only when the officials refused to re-issue
an asylum-seeker permit would the client know that the
notice had not been noted on their file. This resulted in
many people filing late. LHR has taken three of these
reviews so far.
230 486
86 833
58 000
TURNAROUND
TIMES FOR ASYLUM
APPLICATIONS AND
RAB APPEALS ARE
EXTREMELY SLOW.
Home Affairs, during
the appeal of Czech
national Radovan
Krejcir, revealed that
there are:
PENDING ASYLUM APPLICATIONS
PENDING RAB APPEALS
CASES PENDING BEFORE THE STANDING
COMMITTEE FOR REFUGEE AFFAIRS
23
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012
REFUGEES IN SOUTH
AFRICAN COURTS
Written by LHRs David Cote
FOREIGN NATIONALS AND
REFUGEES ARE OFTEN LEFT
WITHOUT A POLITICAL VOICE
IN SOCIETY. THEY ARE RARELY
ASKED FOR THEIR OPINION ON
PUBLIC MATTERS AND HAVE NO
WAY OF EXPRESSING AN OPINION
THROUGH VOTING.
When they do attempt to put across an opinion, they
are labelled as ungrateful and told to go back to
where they came from. A natural consequence of
this is that when a refugees rights are violated, they
have no power in stopping the abuse. This is where
South Africas courts have stepped in to ensure the
law applies to everyone and protects refugees and
asylum-seekers from unlawful abuse and unjust
treatment.
In dealing with refugee litigation, our courts are
dealing with issues brought before them from across
the globe. Last year, the Supreme Court of Appeal
was faced with the case of two Somali nationals who
were detained in the so-called international zone
at OR Tambo International Airport. After reviewing a
number of cases from both foreign and international
tribunals, the court came to the conclusion that
the airport was in fact in South Africas jurisdiction,
meaning South African law had to be applied.
In passing the Refugees Act, the South African
government made a courageous and long-expected
move toward reconciling South Africas international
obligations with its own internal law. This was
coloured by the particular reality that many of South
Africas leaders were once in exile themselves and
experienced this sense of vulnerability. Our courts
are tasked with ensuring the law is upheld and
respected. A notable example from LHRs work is
the urgency with which courts are now willing to deal
with unlawful immigration detention of documented
refugees. In fact, in the past two years, LHR has been
forced to bring over 120 cases of unlawful detention
of foreign nationals to the courts attention. For
anyone who has ever been wrongfully arrested, and
South Africa has seen far too many unlawful arrests
and detentions in its past, this role of the court is of
fundamental value.
The role of our courts in protecting refugee rights
must be seen as a means of protecting all of our
rights. Abuses going unchecked are only a symptom
of a larger problem that could affect all South
Africans.
Fines issued under Section 37
Fines issued under section 37 of the Refugees Act are
another issue of concern. Asylum-seekers and refugees
whose permits have been expired for over a week are
fined R3 000 with no option of appearing in court to
challenge the fine.
Through consultations, the chief magistrates office in
Pretoria has assured LHR that a fines scale has been
approved and only allows an admission of guilt fine
of R1 000.
The practice of issuing the fines remains unlawful. LHR
is working to deter the practice of accepting such fines
without the proper procedures in place. We will also
engage regarding the high amounts being imposed.
Centre for Child Law
Earlier in the year, the Centre for Child Law approached
LHR to act as amicus curiae in an application relating
to the operations of the Coal of Africa mine near the
Mapungubwe heritage site. The centre wanted to make
submissions regarding inter-generational rights of
children to access and enjoy their heritage.
24
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012
CHILDREN WHO
CROSS BORDERS
Written by LHRs Samantha Mundeta
South Africa has seen a rise in the number of
children migrating from countries as far off as
Somalia, the Democratic Republic of Congo,
Burundi and Zimbabwe who cross borders without
parents, relatives or caregivers. Referred to as
unaccompanied minors, these children leave their
countries of origin for several reasons - some
flee war and conflict, forcible recruitment as child
soldiers, forced marriage, harmful cultural practices
and economic and social challenges. They embark on
long and risky journeys in a desperate attempt to eke
out a better life.
OUR PROGRESSIVE
CONSTITUTION AND THE
CHILDRENS ACT PROTECT
UNACCOMPANIED MINORS
TO THE SAME EXTENT AS
SOUTH AFRICAN CHILDREN
BUT, DUE TO IMPLEMENTATION
CHALLENGES, UNACCOMPANIED
MINORS TEND TO FALL
BETWEEN CRACKS.
Two fundamental measures, essential for the
protection of foreign unaccompanied minors,
are access to legal documentation and entry
into the countrys care and protection system.
Unaccompanied minors need an immigration or
refugee permit to legalise their stay in the country
and to protect them against arrest and deportation.
This permit also enables them to access basic
services such as education, healthcare and social
assistance.
An inter-departmental framework is in place that
requires unaccompanied minors to be referred
to a social worker for assistance with undergoing
Childrens Court processes and obtaining an order
setting out the care arrangements for the child.
Despite this arrangement, many asylum-seeking
children are not helped. Home Affairs refuses to
issue an asylum-seeker permit to children who
cannot produce such Childrens Court orders and
will routinely turn children away. An absence of
uniformity or consistency in the way this process is
being implemented across the country has created
confusion among government officials who have
decided to rather do nothing. In some centres, like
Johannesburg, the process works and with a certain
amount of cajoling a child will be assisted and
eventually issued an asylum permit. In centres like
Pretoria the process has never worked and officials
are resistant to any kind of pressure to change this
state of affairs. The two government departments
involved tend not to interact with one another,
resulting in a difficult situation for foreign children to
get documented and enter the care and protection
system. This has led to cases where children
are forced to live on the streets or in inhumane
conditions and are unable to attend school or feed
themselves. This leaves them in a highly vulnerable
situation as a result of the states inability to provide
the necessary care and assistance.
Social workers are hesitant to commence Childrens
Court processes for unaccompanied foreign minors
as they cannot finalise them without an identity
document for the child. Simultaneously, a child
cannot acquire an identity document until the
Childrens Court process has been finalised and a
court order granted. Unaccompanied foreign minors,
over the age of 15, end up being sent from one
official to another between the two departments,
each official shifting responsibility to the next. In the
meantime, children live in perpetual fear of arrest for
being unable to produce a document proving that
they are in the country legally. They are excluded
from access to education as most public schools
refuse to enrol undocumented children. When they
fall ill, public hospitals refuse to treat them because
they have no identification documents.
There is a problem in the system of protection
offered to foreign unaccompanied minors as it offers
little protection and instead renders them more
vulnerable. Foreign unaccompanied minors are a
voiceless, disenfranchised group who need greater
intervention from civil society actors and policy
makers in order for their plight to be adequately
addressed by government officials who should
assume this responsibility for these children.
25
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012
Open Shuhada Street
LHR was approached by Open Shuhada Street, an NGO
advocating on behalf of peace in Palestine and the
Occupied Territories for help after submitting a complaint
to the National Consumer Commission regarding the
mislabelling of cosmetic products from Occupied
Palestinian Territories as Products of Israel.
The Trade and Industry minister published a notice
in the Government Gazette indicating his intention to
issue directives relating to the proper labelling of these
products.
The importer of those products, SDV Pharmaceuticals and
the South African Zionist Federation, filed an application
to challenge the notice. It was eventually decided the
notice carried no legal effect and was unnecessary to
pursue. The minister ultimately issued another notice
giving the public a chance to make submissions.
26
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012
Land and
Housing
Programme
The Land and Housing Programme
represent a large number of people
faced with evictions or removals
in urban and peri-urban areas.
27
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012
LHRs Joe Shivambu consulting with labour tenants in the Roossenekal area in Limpopo.
28
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012
In 2012, LHR brought several landmark
eviction cases to the Constitutional
Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal.
In the Schubart Park judgment, the Constitutional
Court found the eviction of 5 000 people in the Pretoria
city centre unlawful and ordered the municipality to
make arrangements for tenants to move back after
upgrading the buildings. In the Marlboro matter, the City
of Johannesburg was ordered to provide alternative
accommodation to several hundred families unlawfully
evicted from private land.
LHR also assists communities across the country involved
in the land reform and restitution process, including post-
settlement support for communities who have been given
land through this programme.
In the North West, the Baphiring community successfully
appealed a Land Claims Court decision. The case dealt
with the states inadequate post-settlement support that
communities get when land was restored to them.
Shortly after 1994, the government identified a target
of 25-million hectares for transfer to Africans. This was
apparently done in conjunction with the World Bank and
represented 30% of agricultural land. At the time, land
prices were typically between R2 000 and R4 000 per
hectare. Averages would suggest the estimated total
cost would be around R75-billion. Inflation adjusted, that
would be about R165-billion.
Around 5 to 6-million hectares of land has been
transferred to land claimants and land reform
beneficiaries. But most of this was state land and not
really part of the 25-million hectares originally envisaged.
Only about 2.5-million hectares of private land has been
transferred, 10% of the original goal.
Next year marks the centenary of the Natives
Land Act of 1913. This effectively excluded
members of an aboriginal race or tribe of Africa
from occupation or ownership of about 90% of the
countrys land. Under the Act, and more than
17 000 subsequent pieces of legislation, many
millions were forcibly relocated to black townships
and Bantustan homelands an estimated
3.5-million people in 1960-1980 alone. In 1996, two
years after the end of apartheid, some 60 000 white
commercial farmers owned almost 70% of land
classified as agricultural and leased a further 19%.
About 13-million hectares are classes as arable
in South Africa. Two-thirds of the land mass is
suitable only for livestock farming. By May 2012,
ownership of 7.95-million hectares of and had been
transferred under he programme about one third
of the original target of 24.6-million hectares.
THE HISTORY OF DISPOSSESSION
Africa Research Institute Briefing note 1301
OF REDISTRIBUTED
LAND WAS DEEMED
BY THE GOVERNMENT.
IN 2010,
NO LONGER
PRODUCTIVE
29
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012
LAND RESTITUTION CASES
RURAL OCCUPIERS
SCHUBART PARK EVICTION
GROOTKRAAL COMMUNITY
MARLBORO EVICTIONS
TSWELOPELO ST
MATABANE COMMUNITY
SEKWAYI COMMUNITY
MAKHUVA COMMUNITY
BAPHIRING COMMUNITY
PIETERSEN FAMILY
ELIZABETH ISAKS
KANANA VILLAGE
ROODEPOORT COMMUNITY
EVICTIONS
30
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012
LHR also deals with the increasing number
of cases concerning urban housing issues
and communal land disputes, including
mining rights issues.
In 2012, LHR spent a lot of time ensuring Constitutional
Court orders obtained in the Skurweplaats, Mooiplaas,
Bapsfontien and Schubart Park cases were executed
properly.
LHRs Security of Farmworkers Project has been
brought into the land and housing fold due to their
many overlapping activities, streamlining its work.
FIVE ISSUES WERE
THE FOCUS OF 2012:
Restitution
LHR often helps communities finalise land restitution
claims. These issues are used to test the validity of claims
and processes. LHR assisted in many of these cases in
2012. Some examples include:
Baphiring
The Baphiring case has been punted as one of the first
to set a precedent for how communities will be settled
in the future on land restored to them through the
restitution process. It is LHRs hope that this case will
set the precedent so that future land claims will not
be settled without a proper plan in place.
In a far-reaching judgment of the Supreme Court
of Appeal on land claims, the SCA upheld the appeal
of the North West community.
The Baphiring community, who bought some 7 500
hectares of land near Koster between 1908 and
1913, were forcibly removed from their land during
apartheid under the 1913 Native Land Act. The
community - a thriving farming community until they
were relocated - was resettled in 1971. The forced
resettlement destroyed the communitys agricultural
activities because the compensation land was not
suited for their type of farming.
In 1998 the community launched proceedings in the
Land Claims Court for the return of their land. After
a number of court hearings spanning 2001 to 2010,
the Land Claims Court rejected their claim for the return
of their land and held the community should receive other
redress for their loss. LHR then approached the SCA.
In 2012, the SCA overturned this decision and referred
the claim back to the Land Claims Court to deal with
the claim.
LHR had led evidence about the requirements and
standard of such plans, which differ remarkably from
what the Department of Rural Development and Land
Reform is offering. As it stands, expert evaluators have
estimated necessary post-settlement support at R40-
million while the Department is only offering R2.6-million.
At the heart of this legal bid is the issue of the feasibility
of restoration.
31
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012
Sekwayi community
The Sekwayi community is claiming land in the Graskop
and Blydepoort Canyon area. One of the claimed farms
is known as a Barloworld farm. A court order found that
government was obliged to buy the farm. The commission
is meeting with a group called the Pilgrims Rest
Development Trust to take transfer of the property.
Makhuva community
The Makhuva community is claiming significant
portions of land in the Kruger National Park and the
area surrounding Phalaborwa. Government is opposing
the claims. The Land Claims Commission refused to
gazette the area shown on maps and has gazetted the
less than five farms mentioned by their current property
descriptions. An extensive report commenting on the
commissions report regarding competing claims was
filed with the Land Claims Court. The Majeje Traditional
Authority has taken the commissions decision to refuse
it legal funding on review, which has delayed the main
application.
Matabane community
The Matabane community claim was lodged in the
Roossenekal area in Limpopo. The community was
forcefully removed in the 1970s from the valley and
relocated to the Nebo plateau a short distance away.
The community suffered a gradual reduction of rights
and at the time of their removal most community
members had been reduced to labour tenant families.
The current landowners are disputing that the claim
was lodged on behalf of the community.
THE DISTRIBUTION OF LAND IN SOUTH AFRICA
THE INITIAL TARGET IN 1994
BY 2012,
was to redistribute 30% of South Africas
agricultural land (24.5-million hectares)
only 7.5% (7.95-million
hectares) had been
transferred through
redistribution and
restitution.
AND BY 1999 THIS WAS ADJUSTED TO 2014.
Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies
30%
7.5%
32
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012
Urban Evictions
Urban growth not only places pressure on occupiers on
the peripheries of urban areas, it also places pressure
on housing availability, especially within the lower
income bracket. The large number of people affected
by the lack of adequate housing and suitable alternative
accommodation, places the states responsibility to
ensure the availability of low cost housing in urban areas,
through adequate housing policy, in sharp focus.
The aim of LHRs intervention in this sector is to ensure
both governmental and private persons follow due
process and to compel local government to properly
manage and administer the rental housing stock under
their control.
There has been a rise in large-scale housing
disputes where local authorities fail to follow
due procedure - precipitating housing disputes
through failure to administer, allocate clearly
or maintain the properties suitably.
LHR HAS DEALT WITH SEVERAL
HIGH PROFILE CASES UNDER THIS
TREND, INCLUDING:
Schubart Park
The highly publicised eviction of Schubart Park residents
in Pretoria. Schubart Park is an apartment building
managed by the City of Tshwane to provide low cost
housing to families. When the building began falling into
disrepair, residents stopped paying rent. This situation
continued for years until July 2008, when the municipality
brought in metro police and Red Ants to evict those
living in the high rise. Residents found themselves on
the street and with no alternative accommodation,
many returned to the apartments. In September 2011,
another protest broke out after the City cut the water
supply. Tshwane evacuated the buildings and alleged the
buildings were unsafe to return to. An urgent application
by the residence to be allowed to return to the buildings
was dismissed. All this resulted in approximately 4 000
people being rendered homeless and put on the street.
Tshwane gave accommodation to 170 families.
Leave to appeal was refused but the Constitutional
Court eventually heard the matter and found that the
evictions were unlawful. It declared residents had a right
to return and ordered the parties to engage on a wide
range of issues.
The parties have met intensively since October 2012,
under the guidance of Reverend Frank Chikane. A
registration process to identify former residents has been
opened and the parties are close to reaching agreement
on a plan for alternative accommodation pending the
residents return to Schubart Park.
33
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012
Evictions resulted in approximately
4 000 people being rendered
homeless and put on the street.
THE EVICTIONS
WERE UNLAWFUL
34
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012
Marlboro
The Marlboro evictions concerned the unlawful eviction
of several hundred families. Many of the families had
previously rented abandoned warehouses from the
owners for a number of years. The Johannesburg Metro
Police Department evicted the families with no court
orders or instructions from the owners. Metro police
claimed existence of homes in an industrial area was a
violation of the citys planning laws.
As the city failed to provide any alternative
accommodation most families were forced
to find shelter in large communal tents
supplied by local NGOs.
A high court order found that the citys had acted lawfully.
An application to appeal directly to the Constitutional
Court was accepted and the matter was set down for
hearing. The day before the hearing the city made an offer
to settle and the parties entered into an agreement
similar to the previous order of Schubart Park. This draft
order was made an order of the Constitutional Court.
Tswelopelo
The Tswelopelo case has a long history. People (many
non-South Africans) occupied vacant land in the east of
Pretoria. After the metro police, SAPS and Home Affairs
torched their shelters and belongings, LHR brought an
application to ask for a spoliation order. The case was
successfully argued in the SCA and a judgment was
handed down that the municipality must provide the
squatters with alternative shelter similar to that which
they had lost. This was previously not possible in law.
The squatters stay on vacant land surrounded by affluent
estates. The case entailed a range of political and social
issues. The estates and shopping malls in the vicinity
brought an application requesting the court to order
Tshwane to evict the squatters. After a few days in court
it was agreed that all the squatters would move to one
camp with access control, water, sanitation - Tshwane
was given a year to find a permanent solution.
Marlboro residents are left homeless after the Johannesburg Municipality unlawfully
demolished their houses.
35
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012
Rural occupiers
Roodepoort
The Roodepoort community concerned an informal
settlement in Bronkhorspruit. The land is located in a rural
area and had a number of farm worker families living on
it. The previous landowner sold the property to the local
municipality that re-settled a number of farm workers,
evicted from surrounding farms, on the land.
Surrounding landowners formed an association and
brought an application to compel the municipality to
evict the community. LHR opposed this application and
brought a counter application for the formalisation of the
settlement. The City of Tshwane, which has since become
the responsible municipality elected to support the
residents application and undertook to commence the
formalisation process.
Kanana Village
The Kanana Village was formed when evicted farm
workers settled on rural farmland. The previous
landowner gave permission to settle on the farm although
his neighbour objected to an informal settlement on the
property and sought an order interdict.
The previous landowner then passed away and his
neighbour bought the property with the specific purpose
of eviction. The municipality attempted to expropriate the
land but failed due to technical reasons. LHR opposed
the eviction and brought a counter application for the
expropriation of the property and the establishment of
a formalised agri-village. Most households living on the
property work on surrounding farms.
Grootkraal
The Grootkraal community consists of farmworker
families who work on different farms outside Oudtshoorn.
For the last 140 years, a small portion of one of the
farms has been used as a church for the community and
more recently as a school. The buildings are also used
for community functions like sing song evenings and
festivals. The farm was recently sold and the new owner
plans to develop it for tourism. They have brought an
application to evict the school from the land.
LHR brought an application on behalf of the broader
community and the church to be joined as parties in the
proceedings. No existing law will protect the interest
of the community but we believe we have an arguable
case and that we can develop the common law based
on various constitutional principles so as to protect the
interest of the community.
LHRs Louise du Plessis consulting with Llewelyn Metembo, principal of the Grootkraal
Primary School near Oudtshoorn in the Eastern Cape.
36
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012
Women and
land rights
Communal land rights and womens rights are
often interlinked and have their roots in the
discriminatory laws of apartheid.
LHR has increasingly encountered communities who
bought land but due to the discriminatory laws of the
past, were forced to register it in the name of the native
commissioner or tribal authority. This land is now being
allocated and administered by the tribal authority with no
concern to the needs or interests of the rightful owners.
There is little consultation or benefit derived from the
land for the original owners and very little in the way of
co-operation of tribal authorities. These disputes very
often involve mining rights, the arbitrary nature of the
inclusion into tribal authorities for which the communities
feel little affiliation and transparency on the part of
government, tribal authorities and private corporations.
These cases deal with the fact that under the apartheid
government women were excluded from being rights
holders because they were regarded as minors.
Thlabane female hostels
LHR was admitted by the Constitutional Court as amicus
curiae in the Thlabane Female Hostels case. The case
deals with a number of women allocated houses in the
1970/1980s but which were coloured in as hostels.
The municipality decided to upgrade the hostels
without dealing with the womens peculiar history. LHR
made submissions dealing with the history of housing
rights in the old black townships and more specific
Bophuthatswana.
Emma Ngcongolo
Emma Ngcongolo has lived in her house in Soweto for
more than 20 years. Houses in this area were occupied in
terms of the regulations set out in Proclamation 1036 of
1968. The Johannesburg municipality is converting these
rights into ownership in terms of the Conversion
of Certain Rights to Leasehold and Freehold Act, Act 81 of
1988. This Act prescribes a process that must be followed
in determining who is entitled to ownership of the house.
Emmas matter was heard by the Housing Tribunal, which
found she had no right to the property despite the fact
that she had lived there for a number of years.
Farmworkers
Through 2012, the project dealt with evictions,
unfair dismissals, unlawful deductions of money
from salaries, unlawful termination of services
and deprivation of access to farms by farm
workers relatives in the Western Cape and
Northern Cape.
The project acted in 51 cases and held workshops with
communities about tenure security and labour rights.
LHR represented a substantial number of farm dwellers
and communities in evictions. The primary aim of LHRs
work in eviction matters is to prevent eviction orders
being granted which lead to homelessness.

Pieterson family
In a high court matter in Stellenbosch, LHR acted on
behalf of Gert Pieterson, his family and the Women on
Farms Project in a test case regarding the obligations of
local authorities to provide temporary emergency shelter
to evicted farmworkers in the Cape Winelands District
Municipality.
In 2010, Pieterson and his family were evicted from
Bloemendal Farm in Stellenbosch after working and living
on the farm for 21 years. The eviction order was carried
out after Pieterson was dismissed and the Stellenbosch
Magistrates Court granted a subsequent application for
his eviction.
37
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012
The eviction order rendered the family homeless. LHR
brought an urgent two-part application in the Western
Cape High Court on 9 November 2010. The first part
of the application sought an order directing the Cape
Winelands District Municipality and the Stellenbosch
Municipality to provide Pieterson and his family with
basic temporary shelter, pending the final determination
of the application. The second part of the application,
sought orders declaring the failure of the Cape Winelands
and Stellenbosch municipalities to provide alternative
shelter to be unconstitutional.
The matter was set down for hearing in November 2012,
however, before that date the Municipality had filed
supplementary affidavits detailing their new emergency
housing policy.
The parties agreed to postpone the matter once more,
in order to arrive at a settlement agreement.
Elizabeth Isaks
One of the most notable cases is that of Elizabeth Isaks
who faced eviction after her husband passed away.
Isaks lived with her first husband on the farm De Jager
Boerdery in Keimoes before he passed away in 2005.
A few years before his passing, Elizabeth was declared
unfit to work after becoming blind. After her husbands
death, Elizabeth moved in with her partner before he,
too, passed away in 2013.
The farm owner told Elizabeth and her two young children.
It was then that LHR became involved in the case.
The case boils down to the family not having a right
to stay in the house once the homeowner no longer
lives there.
LHRs Hlengiwe Mtshatsha taking instructions from a community threatened with eviction by
the Emalahleni Municipality outside Witbank.
38
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012
Environmental
Rights
Programme
The Environmental Rights Programme was
started four years ago to provide specialist
legal services to communities affected
by the socioeconomic and environmental
burdens of pollution.
39
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012
40
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012
The Programme has expanded its work and
increased its number of cases on behalf of
communities, NGOs and civil society concerned
with the impact of environmental degradation.
LHR focuses on two areas of environmental law:
access to clean water and sanitation and the impact
of the extractive inductries on poor communities.
The Programme addresses both themes through
a combination of legal interventions and advocacy
strategies with the participation of the affected
communities active community.
Strategic litigation
LHR HAS RECEIVED
INSTRUCTIONS AND INITIATED
LITIGATION IN SEVERAL
SUCCESSFUL PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION CASES, INCLUDING:
Carolina water pollution case
LHR first became involved with the Mpumalanga town
of Carolina in May 2012 after mounting frustrations over
inadequate access to water that led to service delivery
protests. LHR was invited to communty meetings to find
long-term solutions. They sought the basic delivery of
temporary water services during the upgrading of the
water treatment plant.
Carolina residents had been without water since January
2012 when potable water was declared unfit for human
consumption. The pollution of the towns water was
caused by a number of coalmines in the area - that
leaked high levels of manganese, aluminium, iron
and sulphate into the towns main water source, the
Boesmanspruit Dam. The municipality had water carted
in and stored in tanks while a sustainable solution
was sought. However, the temporary measures were
LHR legal team outside the North Gauteng High Court for Carolina water pollution case.
41
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012
inadequate and in violation of statutory provisions as
deliveries were irregular, leaving the community without
clean water for long periods of time.
Despite several appeals from the community, few
attempts were made to improve the situation. LHR,
in a joint application with the Legal Resources Centre
(LRC), approached the North Gauteng High Court in
Pretoria on 3 July 2012 to compel authorities to provide
temporary water supply. The court issued an order
compelling the Gert Sibande Municipality to deliver
temporary potable water within 72 hours. It also directed
the municipality to keep residents abreast of steps being
taken to ensure potable water would be supplied.
On deadline day, local government applied for leave to
appeal, which LHR and LRC opposed. Despite granting
leave for appeal, the court again found in residents
favour by forcing the municipality to adhere to the original
judgment pending the outcome of the appeal.
LHR was concerned about the fluctuating quality of
the water and kept monitoring it through tests by a
qualified laboratory. The date for the appeal was set
for January 2014.
In a follow up to the Carolina case, LHR - acting for the
Federation for a Sustainable Environment - has submitted
a number of Promotion of Access to Information Act
(PAIA) applications to access the directives the minister
issued to the five mines that are known to have polluted
the catchment area as well as tests results from the
mines for the last 10 years. These will be used to identify
the source of the pollution and to develop a plan for how
to prevent future pollution of the Boesmanspruit Dam and
the recurrence of the 2012 water crisis.
Temba-Babelegi Sewage Treatment Plant
This matter was brought as an urgent application
in the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria in 2011
but litigation continued into 2012.
In the 1980s, the previous Bophuthatswana homeland
government built a sewage treatment plant in the
middle of the Rockville community in Hammanskraal.
The plant was expanded in 1996 without consulting
the Rockville community. In 2008, residents were
told there would be another expansion and selected
residents were invited to take part in community
consultation. These residents were not representative
of the community living immediately around the plant.
Due to increased capacity at the plant, raw human
sewage began to bubble up from manholes and settled
in residents gardens, causing visible and unhealthy
damage to homes.
Only in July 2011 were residents told the expansion
of the project was approved in 2009 and that
construction would start immediately. LHR made
submissions to the Department of Environment
Affairs and Tourisms director-general for directives
to stop the flow of sewage into the streets. LHR also
commissioned an expert opinion on the Environmental
Impact Assessment for the sewage plant and filed
drafting papers for a Rule 30A and set down a
joinder application for the Water Affairs and Forestry
Department for the review of the matter. In the
meantime, LHR is keeping a close eye on blasting and
building activities to ensure they comply with required
conditions.
Platinum mining in Mokopane
The Mokopane matter remained a key focus of LHRs
operations in 2012.
In April 2012, members of the Mokopane community
approached LHR for legal assistance when Canadian
mining group Ivanplat Resources South African arm,
Platreff, began prospecting for platinum on communal
land.
Platreef has been prospecting for platinum in the
Kgobudi community area since 2000 and recently
expanded operations to start an open cast mine
with bulk sampling facilities. While residents initially
endured Platreefs presence, community members
have begun to confront the mine and question its right
to prospect in the residential area of Kgobudi and in
their grazing and maize fields - without regard to the
rights of each and every resident of the community.
During prospecting, Platreef operated drilling rigs
in front of residents homes without regard to their
safety. These drills operated virtually day and night
cause severe dust, noise and raised concerns about
water pollution. The community also disputed the
authority of the traditional leaders who signed the
consent agreements with Platreef relating to ongoing
prospecting. Notwithstanding customary law, each
person is still a deemed landowner in his own right.
The community lodged a complaint with the Mineral
Resources Department that Platreef was acting
unlawfully in terms of its prospecting permit and
that it was failing to consult meaningfully with the
community. The Department then ordered Platreef to
engage with all affected communities, also ordered
Platreef to refrain from conducting prospecting
activities on land compromising residential area or on
land being used for public purposes. Land being used
for public purposes include the grazing filed which the
42
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012
communities cattle graze on and the maize field on
which they plant and harvest maize.
After the order, Platreef discontinued its prospecting
operations but during the latter half of April, Platreef
brought its drilling rigs back to the residential area as well
as the grazing and maize fields. This caused mounting
frustrations within the community. Flowing from this,
a fraction of the residents, amounting to less than 1%
of the community, engaged in protest against Platreef
ostensibly leading to Platreef pursuing this interdict
against the Kgobudi.
LHR entered into negotiations with Ivanplats and
demanded the community be consulted directly.
It was during this process that LHR was told that Ivanplat
had obtained an interdict preventing the community from
entering areas where mining was taking place - these
areas included communal grazing land. LHR entered
into the rule nisi negotiations and prepared submissions
that the order was wrong by citing the whole community
and that the traditional authorities represented by the
chief were not authorised to make decisions on behalf
of community members. The order was set aside on 16
October 2012 with the judge saying the order, if granted,
would be flagrant disregard of our Constitution and
amount to collective punishment. LHR subsequently
challenged mining use agreement that were entered
into between the mine and the traditional authorities on
the basis that the individual community members were
excluded.
Acid mine drainage
and the Riverlea communities
The Riverlea communities live close to some of central
Johannesburgs super gold mine dumps. These hold
mine-waste - including uranium - from gold mining of
the 1950s and were partially rehabilitated. With improved
technology for gold mining and with uranium now
regarded as a valuable mineral, mining companies are
now re-mining super dumps for these minerals.
Ground and surface water contamination and dust
pollution are some of the detrimental environmental
and health impacts being exacerbated by re-mining. In
Riverlea, crops grow in the polluted ground and children
play in the contaminated surface water and on the dumps
that are not fenced off. They are inhaling the dust, which
also pollutes their crops and homes.

LHR, in collaboration with the Centre for Environmental
Rights (CER), intervened to help the community.
Applications for information pertaining to DRD Golds
mining activities in the area have already been filed but
have been rejected.
Meetings have been held with the Riverlea community
regarding the detrimental environmental impact of
Rockville residents facing constant overflow of human sewage from Temba-Babelegi
treatment plant.
43
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012
the mining and water and dust experts have been
commissioned to better understand the extent of
non-compliance with its Environmental Management
Programme. LHR and the CER have also commissioned an
expert report on water pollution.
Coal mining in Ermelo
LHR is in the process of developing a strategy to
support the Gert Sibande Industrial and Environmental
Association regarding coal mining in Ermelo. The three
mines of particular concern are Mashala Resources,
Imbabala Mine and Silver Lake Trading 447 (Nooitgedacht
Farm). The associations concern regarding Mashala
Resources is that it recently applied for a closure
certificate for the Wesselton Colliery. This application
is still in process. The Association is concerned that
the mine has not adequately addressed issues such as
cracked houses, environmental rehabilitation and safety
concerns and sought legal assistance to object to the
granting of a closure certificate. In addition, the mine has
not been fenced during the rehabilitation process.
The associations concern regarding Imbabala Mine
is that on 11 April 2012 the mine was issued with an
order of suspension in terms of section 93(1)(b)(ii) of
the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development
Act (MPRDA). The mine was ordered to submit an
amended Environmental Management Plan. This has
been submitted to the Mineral Resources Department.
The mine has been issued with a pre-directive from the
Water Affairs Department for failing to obtain a water use
license while operating. Its owners abandoned the mine
in November 2012. The mine is not fenced and is being
used for illegal mining.
Silver Lake Trading was recently awarded mining rights
on the Nooitgedacht Farm. The Association is concerned
that the mining rights were awarded without adequate
community consultation. It is also concerned that the
right was awarded without the adequate zoning of the
land.
The situation in Ermelo has become urgent in the last
parts of 2012, with large parts of the town being without
potable water. LHR investigated the role of the mines in
diminishing the water source in the Douglas Dam.
Thys van As
LHR was involved in a strategic lawsuit against public
participation (SLAPP) case brought by a mining company
against Thys van As, a local environmental activist,
African Nickel applied for an interdict preventing van
As from furnishing false information concerning its
operations in the Magaliesberg to the media. LHR
considered the application unfounded and an attempt
by African Nickel to prevent van As from pursuing his
efforts to ensure that the mine comply with relevant
legislation. The case was dismissed and van As applied
for leave to appeal.
Toxic mine dust in Riverlea, has been created by mine dumps in the area.
44
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012
Policy Research and Advocacy
LHR spends significant time providing for
evidence-based lobbying for jurisprudence
that reflect the environmental and human
rights of marginalised people, liaising with
government authorities to ensure appropriate
implementation of environmental legislation and
active engagement with affected communities
on the appropriate tools for protecting their
environmental rights.
LHR has been involved in two research papers that assist
the development of our litigation strategy. The first was
a policy paper written by Professor McCarthy at the
University of Witwatersrand that examined the sources
of contamination of Carolinas water supply. The paper
supported the assumption that the water was polluted
by mining activities in the area.
Another example of an evidence-based policy paper
was a survey among residents in the Siyanda District
Municipality to verify reports that farmworkers and
settlements within the farming landscape in and around
Upington used river and irrigation water from the Orange
River and adjourning irrigation canals as drinking water.
A report of the findings from this survey was submitted
to the South African Human Rights Commissions
hearings on water in sanitation. The report addresses
the constitutional rights to water and environmental
health and well-being and the progressive realisation
of these rights as well the national legislation and policy
frameworks for providing water services and their impact
on service delivery in Upington.
On 12 July 2012, LHR - in collaboration with the Centre
for Environmental Rights and the Centre for Applied Legal
Studies - facilitated a strategic planning meeting around
environmental rights litigation with the Victoria Mxenge
Group of Advocates. At the meeting, LHR in conjunction
with the Centre for Environmental Rights, the Centre for
Applied Research Studies, Legal Resources Centre, Wits
Law School and the Victoria Mxenge Group of Advocates
developed a prioritised list of matters currently and
most urgently affecting the realisation of environmental
rights. Access to environmental litigation, substantively
bad environmental decisions or no decisions, lack of
implementation and rollout, inappropriate legislation and
cooperative governance are some of the problems that
were identified.
LHR Upington head Anthony Wyngaard, Andreas Motlanke and Emma Algotssen
at the Orange River.
45
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012
Note of Thanks
We at Lawyers for Human Rights
could not do any of the work that we
are doing if not for the generosity of
our funders, both from South Africa and
abroad, whose contributions are gratefully
acknowledged.
Aulai Trust, Atlantic Philanthropies, European
Union, Horizont 3000, Fastenopfer, Foundation for
Human Rights, Ford Foundation, Legal Aids South
Africa, Rights and Democracy, National Lotteries
Distribution Fund, Open Society Foundation, Sigrid
Rausing Trust, Save the Children, United Nations
High Commissioner for Refugees
LHR operates closely with a number of
social justice organisations and depend on
the expert support of a group of dedicated
advocates.
We wish to thank the following people and
organisations:
Advocates
Heidi Barnes
Janice Bleazard
Jason Brickhill
Steven Budlender
Geoff Budlender SC
Usha Dayanand
Irene de Vos
Myrone Dewrance
Max du Plessis
Kate Hofmeyr
Rudolph Jansen
Paul Kennedy SC
Nicole LewisThabo Seneke
Fezeka Magano
Gilbert Marcus SC
Mbuso Majozi
Nomzamo Mji
Inge Oschman
Nasreen Rajab-Budlender
Advocate Ram
Amelia Rawhani
Lindelani Sigogo
Carol Steinberg
Wim Trengrove SC
Attorneys
Chris Watters Attorneys (Johannesburg)
Webbers Attorneys (Bloemfontein)
Organisations
African Centre for Migration and Society
Centre for Child Law
Centre for Environmental Rights
Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation
Consortium for Refugees And Migrants in South
Africa
IDASA
International Detention Coalition
International Federation for Human Rights
Legal Resources Centre
Medecins Sans Frontieres
Ndifuna Ukwazi
NMMU Refugee Rights Centre
R2K Campaign
Open Shuhada Street
Restorative Justice Centre
Southern African Litigation Centre
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
Women on Farms
Zimbabwe Exiles Forum
Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights
46
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012
Assets
Non-current Assets
Other financial Assets 36 294,00
Current Assets
Trade and other Receivables 370 678,00
Cash and cash equivalents 1 361 287,00
Total Assets 1 768 259,00
Equity and Liabilities
Equity
Accumulated Surplus 1 035 254,00
Current Liabilities
Trade and other payables 733 005,00
Total Equity and Liabilities 1 768 259,00
Statement
of financial position
AS AT 31 DECEMBER 2012 (ZAR)
47
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012
Revenue
Donor Funding 12 861 356,00
Other Income
Rental Income 111 600,00
Vehicle-related Recoveries 144 016,00
Litigation Income 1 556 651,00
Interest 91 056,00
Total 14 764 679,00
Expenses
Administration and Overheads 1 782 536,00
Consultation and Litigation 1 921 894,00
Remuneration 8 115 094,00
Leases and Rentals 1 098 209,00
Printing & Stationery 322 575,00
Telephone, Email and Internet 390 947,00
Training, Research, Workshop
and Publications
464 269,00
Travel and Accommodation 1 108 381,00
Total Expenses 15 203 905,00
Net Deficit (439 226,00)
Statement
of comprehensive income
FOR YEAR ENDED 31 DEC 2012
48
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012
Project Funds
Atlantic Philanthropies 1 500 000
AULAI 291 000
European Union 2 117 050
Fastenopfer 529 542
Ford Foundation 1 300 205
Foundation for Human Rights 264 801
Horizont 3000 472 415
National Lottery Board (210 000)
Rights and Democracy 427 509
Legal Aid South Africa 542 607
Open Society Foundation 450 000
Save the Children Sweden 142 240
Sigrid Rausing Trust 1 566 279
UN High Commissioner for Refugees 3 261 749
World Vision 81 332
Refund to donors (67 817)
Total 12 668 912
Project funding
and donations
RECEIVED FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 DECEMBER 2012
49
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012
Other Income
Interest Received 91 056
Litigation income 1 321 904
Fuel and Oil Income 137 886
Office Rental 111 600
Other income 6 130
Total 1 668 576
50
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012
Pretoria Office and Law Clinic
Tel: 012 320 2943 | Fax: 012 320 2949/7681

Kutlwanong Democracy Centre
357 Visagie Street
Pretoria
0002
Johannesburg Office and Law Clinic
Tel: 011 339 1960 | Fax: 011 339 2665

4th Floor, Heerengracht Building
87 De Korte Street
Braamfontein, Johannesburg
Durban office and law clinic
Tel: 031 301 0531 | Fax: 031 301 0538

Room S104,
Diakonia Centre,
20 Diakonia Avenue,
Durban
4001
Cape Town Office and Law Clinic
Tel: 021 424 8561 | Fax: 021 424 7135

Cape Town Law Clinic
4th floor Poyntons Building
24 Burg Street
Cape Town
Musina Office
Tel: 015 534 2203 | Fax: 015 534 3437

No 18 Watson Street
Musina
0900
Upington Office
Tel: 054 331 2200 | Fax: 054 331 2220

Office 110 River City Centre
Corner Hill and Scott Street
Upington
8801
Contact LHR
51
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012
52
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012
LHR will continue to use the law as positive tool
for change and to deepen the democratisation
of the South African society.
@LHR_SA Lawyers For Human Rights
www.lhr.org.za
53
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012
54
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | Annual Report 2012