Property owners must have right to self-defence

THE South African Hindu Dharma Sabha, a national Hindu religious and cultural organisation, welcomes the proposed Unlawful Entry on Premises Bill as a step in the right direction.

The dharma sabha, however, respectfully submits that the problematic requirements of clear signage, oral or written warning to intruders and their apprehension being restricted to the SAPS will be advantageous to and exploited by criminal elements. This is due to a vague formulation only leading to increased brazen lawlessness in South Africa, which is already bleeding from rampant crime.

Where else in the world are such disingenuous and unacceptable measures imposed on owners/occupiers of premises as broadly defined in the bill?

The dharma sabha further argues that in any civilised country, legislation is consistently promulgated in favour of law-abiding citizens, with zero tolerance towards criminals. Property owners/ occupiers should always have the right to necessary self-defence in whatever manner is deemed appropriate to protect life and property.

In pursuance, we request that the ill-conceived and fatally flawed clauses cited above be duly deleted.

The right to life is the most fundamental right of all human beings. In most cases of trespassing, intruders have injured and even killed vulnerable law-abiding citizens.

So-called trespassers or intruders are not casual, lost or innocent people seeking entry, but are armed thugs, hardened criminals, hijackers or merciless killers. They maraud in gangs after surveillance in an orchestrated, deliberate and pre-meditated manner, with the definitive intent of committing a crime.

For example, on September 9 intruders broke into a house in Foresthaven in Phoenix, Durban, stole items and then strangled 67-year-old Rajanee Devi Reuben Murray to death.

Lawmakers must take due cognisance of this gruesome reality. Millions of South Africans are living fearfully like prisoners trapped in their own homes.

A property owner/occupier, who pays his/her rates and taxes, clearly has the inalienable right to enjoy the privacy, peace, comfort and safety of his/ her own home, regardless of whether the property is fenced and has signage displayed or not.

No one has a right to abrogate unto himself/herself entry into someone else’s premises without permission. People at large must be properly educated that it is a criminal offence to trespass. While suffering from financial distress, it is unfair to expect property owners/occupiers to incur extra and unnecessary costs to erect fences and post signage.

How will this law be enforced? Will the owner/occupier of a property without signage be fined or prosecuted or be disadvantaged in the case of a burglary or violent attack?

The stipulation of signage will send out the wrong signal to criminal elements that the absence of compulsory signage grants them the automatic right to intrude and commit crime with impunity. Making signage compulsory will facilitate and fuel crime.

The requirement of “clear” signage triggers many legal issues, inter alia, the question of subjectivity as to what exactly constitutes “clearly” visible signage. Signage may become concealed due to various natural circumstances. In any event, an intruder can easily remove the signage or falsely claim that he/she does not understand the language used on the signage.

The language barrier, which is a substantive impediment to communication among South Africans, is also relevant to oral or written warnings. Would a verbal or written warning suffice if an intruder claims, most probably falsely, that he/ she does not understand the language used by the property owner/occupier?

The legal question also arises as to what content constitutes a verbal or written warning?

Furthermore, the issuing of a written warning exposes the vulnerable property owner/occupier to imminent danger, inter alia, of being captured or kidnapped, of being inflicted with grievous bodily harm, of being subjected to intimidation, of being chased away, and of being tortured or killed.

The right to apprehend intruders should not be limited to members of the inadequately resourced SAPS. There may be inordinate delays for various reasons, which may result in the loss of property or life.

For the law to be implemented efficiently and effectively, it is essential for the right to apprehend to be pragmatically extended to legitimate security companies, members of community policing forums, neighbourhood watch groups, neighbours, friends, etc, all acting within the framework of the law.

Furthermore, to maintain law and order, it should not be construed or misconstrued by anyone that criminals are either, through omission or commission, overtly or covertly, favoured over victims. Criminals should be proportionately punished because they have directly catalysed the crime situation, including encounter, confrontation, conflict, etc.

According to Risenga Maluleke, the statistician-general, in 2021/22 an estimated 1.4 million incidents of housebreaking by so-called trespassers or intruders in 983 000 households occurred across South Africa.

The apex lodestar priority of our government should be to stop crime. It is vital that provisions enshrined in the bill become more stringent, fair, reasonable and implementable to ensure justice as well as law and order prevail – enhancing peace, safety, security, prosperity, social cohesion and nationbuilding in South Africa.