For nine years our movement has boycotted elections. We have been clear that no political party represents the interests of the poor and that it was necessary for us to build our own power in order to present our own needs and demands to society. In these nine years we have won many victories but most of us remain in shacks. Twenty years of shack life is a disgrace in a democracy.
Corruption is also a disgrace. In Durban you get nothing without a membership card for the ANC. All development goes through the councillors and their ward committees and ANC branch executive committees. Development is there to make ANC leaders rich and to control the rest of us by only making it available to ANC members. Development is not for the people. This kind of corruption is a disgrace in a democracy.
But an even bigger disgrace is the repression that we have faced from the ANC, its members, its leaders and its assassins. They have banned our marches; attacked our marches; arrested us on trumped up charges; assaulted us in detention; used armed men to drive us from our homes with police support; used death threats, attacks in our homes and torture in police stations to intimidate people to manufacture evidence against us; detained us for months and months while we wait for a trial that gets thrown out of court because there is no evidence against us; used their anti-land invasion unit to evict us for political reasons and beaten and shot us in our communities. Senior members of the ANC and the Municipality have made public death threats against us. Two activists were assassinated in Cato Crest last year and another, an unarmed teenage girl, was executed by the police.
We cannot go on with this level of repression. As everyone knows we are not the only people who face this kind of repression. We all know about Andries Tatane and all the others murdered by the police on protests. We all know about the Marikana Massacre.
In Durban court orders are just ignored by the Municipality and so the courts cannot protect us. Mostly the media and civil society tend to agree that because we are poor and black we are automatically violent and criminal and too stupid to think our own politics and so we do not get that much protection from the media and civil society either. We have some valued comrades on the left among the middle classes but mostly this left just wants to bus us into its meetings so that it can look credible without having any interest at all in our struggles, our ideas or our safety. NUMSA asked us to support their march in Durban but they have not shown any concern to support us when we face repression. The EFF also asked us to support their march in Durban but, like NUMSA, they have not supported us when we face repression. So far our experience of both these organisations is that they are operating like the left NGOs – we are treated as if our only role is to provide the large numbers of people that they need to be bussed in to justify their politics.
Because we cannot carry on like this we took a decision to vote against the ANC. We did not want to split our vote. We decided to collectivise our vote in order to make it stronger. Our main priority was that the ANC must be removed from office. We knew that this will not happen in this election but we were still clear that if we can weaken the ANC then we must do that. Also we knew that if we collectivise our vote all the political parties will know that there is a large bloc of votes that will be available at the next election for the party that does the best job in opposing repression and takes the best position on shack settlements.
We decided that all political parties except the ANC would be invited to make a presentation to the movement. Some of our members did not want to invite the DA to make a presentation as they are known to represent the rich and, in Cape Town, they are no different to the ANC when it comes to illegal and violent evictions. However we debated this at length and decided to invite them to make a presentation on the grounds that the removal of the ANC was our first priority and the weakening of the ANC was our second priority.
The DA, EFF, NFP and WASP all accepted the invitation to make a presentation to our members at the Diakonia Centre on 25 April and they all came and made their presentations.
The delegates to that meeting then returned to their branches to discuss the presentations there. We met again on 2 May and held a general meeting. At this meeting the general leadership did not vote as their role was to facilitate the meeting. The rest of the delegates voted and the results were as follows:
2 - undecided
2 - WASP
16 - EFF
26 - NFP
146 – DA
The DA and the EFF returned to witness the voting. WASP did not return. The NFP arrived three hours late with lots of car, bodyguards and their senior people. But by that time we were already dispersing.
The whole meeting was recorded on video and this video can be made available. Even those who were very disappointed with the results agree that it was a highly democratic process. The collective discipline of a democratic organisation requires that we all accept this outcome. Of course this decision is only for this election and it does not bind our members in Cape Town. When the next election comes we will again decide whether or not to vote and, if so, which party to vote for.
The main reason why the majority of the delegates supported the DA was because they wanted to have the strongest possible opposition to the ANC to put the maximum pressure on the ANC and to prevent it from doing what it pleases – which includes murdering us. We negotiated a legal agreement with DA which commits them to support some of our more basic demands. We hope that they will stand up for these issues and that they, and all other parties, will realise that if they want the support of the shack dwellers they will have to support us rather than see us as a problem to be eradicated or forcibly removed from the cities and taken to the human dumping grounds.
We will vote, as one bloc, for the DA tomorrow. We will not take membership of the party, we do not endorse its policies and we will continue to insist that no one can hold a position as an elected leader in our movement if they join a political party. We do not love or trust the DA. Already they are telling lies about our choice and we are not surprised. We have made a purely tactical choice. We will certainly continue to organise against all and any attacks on the poor in Cape Town by the DA government there.
One of the lies that is being told is that the DA are saying that we have endorsed them for this election in the Western Cape. This is not true. Our Western Cape branch has endorsed our decision to make a tactical vote for the DA in KwaZulu-Natal. Our Western Cape branch has not decided to make any collective vote for any party in this election.
Over the last nine years we have protected our autonomy from NGOs very carefully even though we do work with some NGOs. Now that we feel that it is necessary for our safety and our ability to continue to organise to use our numbers to make deals with political parties we will protect our autonomy from political parties in the same way.
Our politics puts people first. We cannot do nothing but wait for socialism to come one day in the far distant future. Our children are dying from diarrhoea right now, our old people and disabled people are dying in shack fires right now, we are being evicted and disconnected right now and we are being beaten and shot during evictions and disconnections right now. We been repressed, and even murdered, right now. We have to act to do what we can to make our members’ lives better right now. We have to act to protect our ability to organise and to sustain our living politics right now. This does not mean that we have given up on our vision of a world where land, cities, wealth and power are shared fairly. We call this a living communism and we remain committed to it. But we also remain committed to the human beings that we are now and to our families, neighbours and comrades. We will make what deals we have to make to protect our politics and improve our members’ lives right now but we will not give up on our political vision. We represent thousands of people who live in shack settlements. Those people who sit in university offices and NGO offices only represent themselves. Their children are safe. Their lives are not at risk. They are free to put ideology before people because they are not accountable to oppressed people and because they are not themselves oppressed people. But the fact that we do not enjoy that freedom does not mean that we have given up our politics. It means that we are searching for a practical way forward in a difficult and dangerous struggle.
The new Abahlali electoral position has offered us a lot to learn about. There is a lot to learn about party politics and its dirty campaigning tactics. There is a lot to learn about the deeper politics of our time. And, yes, there is a lot to learn about who cares and doesn't care about the struggles of the poor and the working class.
Ideology and principle are vital but if they both fail to house the homeless and rescue the repressed and recognise the humanity of the inhumanized then the oppressed are not doing any harm to anyone in trying to emancipate ourselves by taking practical action now to keep people safe and to make their lives better while always keeping a bigger vision of freedom and justice in mind.
We share a sadness that we have had to make this decision. Very few people outside the movement have been witness to what we’ve been going through in the hands of the ANC. We do not have words to explain the pain many of us have gone through. We do not have words to explain our pain of twenty years of shack life and all the state repression that has come to us when we stood up for our humanity. Last year we came to the ceiling of hopelessness. It was clear that we are people that can be freely killed. The stress that this created led to some intense internal conflicts. We knew that we could not carry on with our old politics. Our new position has enabled us to rethink our struggle. It may not be the perfect way but it brought a robust discussion about us that was seriously trying to find ways of creating a new hope from no hope.
We are not surprised at the way some people on the so called left have reacted on our position. We are not surprised at the usual lies from the usual people on the internet. Many people and organisations on the left do not accept that we have the right to think our own struggle and to make our own decisions. They think that because they are on the left they have the right to tell us what to do. We do not accept this. These people see our decision as stupid and as a sell-out while they are nowhere to be seen in our times of great difficulty. It makes us to think that such people enjoy our suffering or even benefit from it. Why will people who claim to be in our support judge us instead of contacting us to first understand our decision? It may be a wrong decision but the reality is that we cannot deceive ourselves purposefully on our pain. Why should we be made to struggle in a way that is only designed to try and impress other people simple because they say that they are on the left? We will never do this. Our members must live in shacks and they must try and survive repression. Their organisation is theirs and it will be directed by their decisions. We have never compromised on this and for this we have always been attacked by the regressive left that only want us to take their money so that in exchange we can arrange for people to be bussed into their meetings. This is not emancipation. It is another kind of oppression.
Is the left doing enough to care about our struggle? Or do they see our struggles as projects from which they can prove and debate their findings and analysis rather than as a struggle to genuinely confront the forces of darkness? Our decision aims at trying to keep the space open for us to liberate ourselves by making a tactical move. We do not love the DA or agree with its policies. Why do people who failed to condemn the ANC attacks on us get so angry with us when we try to punish the ANC by making a tactical vote for its enemy? Maybe for these people it is better for us to be oppressed by the ANC than the DA. For us it is better not to be oppressed. Some of the left is just like some of the development NGOs and some of the state. They want to experiment on us, to use us for their own projects. We say no. On this there is no compromise. We continue to say ‘talk to us, not for us’ and ‘think with us not for us’.
Our position remains honouring those who have supported and who continue to support us. Since we all don't know the answers in this struggle to humanise the world we will keep hunting and trying. Sometimes we will make wrong decisions but at least we offer debate and learning for ourselves and all our friends and comrades.
The ANC are a serious threat to society and to right of the poor to organise freely in this society. They must be removed from office and until we can remove them we must do all that we can to weaken them.
For further information and comment please contact:
Mnikelo Ndabankulu on 081 263 3462
Zodwa Nsibande on 082 902 2960
Thembani Ngongoma on 084 613 9772
Nono Majola on 074 803 1986
Source: Abahlali baseMjondolo
Showing posts with label Evictions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Evictions. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
Sunday, December 9, 2012
Land redistribution proposals to be implemented
Proposals for the redistribution of land found in the government's land reform green paper would come into effect as early as March next year.
"All these new land reform policies will come into effect during the first quarter of the year next year", Rural Development and Land Reform Minister Gugile Nkwinti said.
He was speaking to the Transformation of Certain Rural Areas Act and the Rural Areas Act (Trancaa) consultative workshop in Cape Town.
The new policies included a four-tier land tenure system, which accounted for leased land to farmers, land redistribution, foreign ownership of land and the implementation of a democratic communal land system.
Nkwinti said cabinet had approved the proposal to establish the office of the valuer-general, which would control land prices involving government land purchases for public interest.
He emphasised that the willing-buyer-willing-seller principle would continue for individual citizens who would be selling land to each other.
A land rights management board along with its district committees would also be set up next year to protect farm workers against unfair evictions.
The land management commission would be responsible for all registration of private and public land. – Sapa.
Source: Mail & Guardian
"All these new land reform policies will come into effect during the first quarter of the year next year", Rural Development and Land Reform Minister Gugile Nkwinti said.
He was speaking to the Transformation of Certain Rural Areas Act and the Rural Areas Act (Trancaa) consultative workshop in Cape Town.
The new policies included a four-tier land tenure system, which accounted for leased land to farmers, land redistribution, foreign ownership of land and the implementation of a democratic communal land system.
Nkwinti said cabinet had approved the proposal to establish the office of the valuer-general, which would control land prices involving government land purchases for public interest.
He emphasised that the willing-buyer-willing-seller principle would continue for individual citizens who would be selling land to each other.
A land rights management board along with its district committees would also be set up next year to protect farm workers against unfair evictions.
The land management commission would be responsible for all registration of private and public land. – Sapa.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Uganda: Human Rights Defenders and Land Ownership
Northern Uganda is rising from the debris of a long conflict involving the rebel Lord's Resistance Movement. Many challenges remain especially on land issues. But human rights defenders are trying to help.
Lira Town, situated some 350km from Kampala to the north, is an area deeply affected by the Lord's Resistance Army conflict that wrecked Uganda from 1986 until the Juba talks (2006-2008), marking the beginning of the end for Joseph Kony and the rebels in Uganda.
It was the start of a peace process that ultimately led to the creation of South Sudan in 2011 and also marked the beginning of a decline of the LRA in northern Uganda, forcing them out of the bases they had been occupying in southern Sudan, last seen in the Eastern Congo or the Central African Republic.
These days there is a lot less urgency for those internally displaced who had fled rural villages to seek sanctuary in towns from the violence. Lira town now thrives with bustle of commercial trade in its compact town centre.
The most talked about issues I encountered focussed on one central problem that's on the rise right across Uganda: land ownership.
In discussion with the Deputy District Police Commander and the District Office of Prosecutions it emerged that land ownership or land disputes were behind nearly all of the criminal cases and violations of human rights in Lira district.
This may not come as a surprise when Uganda's population has risen tenfold to since independence in 1962. The issue has been exacerbated by the discovery of oil reserves in Hoima District and new cases of forced evictions and land grabbing are reported on an almost daily basis.
The throngs of men and women I witnessed seated outside the Lira courts pending hearings on land issues, particularly over ownership by people displaced during conflict, all seek to reclaim land they previously worked on.
The court system is simply unable to cope with the demands on it. The Officer of Prosecutions bemoaned the lack of human resources at his disposal.
The state is bound to provide lawyers to represent the deceased in any court case but its failure to pay lawyers for their work has led to many refusing to take up these positions, bringing the justice process to a grinding halt.
Faced with a flailing system, a number of individuals seek alternative solutions which are not always legal.
Mob justice - where citizens take the law into their own hands - is on the rise in Uganda and it may increase as land disputes keep happening and formal crime and punishment structures fail to address them.
Just as mob justice can never be a workable alternative, removing rights, such as the right to a fair trial in the process, the same could be said of a failing judicial system.
Lobbying for its reform and greater accountability from the authorities is where human rights defenders (HRDs) are concentrating their efforts in looking to overcome this huge challenge.
WHAT IS A HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDER? AND WHY DO THEY MATTER?
A Human Rights Defender (HRD) was formalised as a concept at the international level by the 1998 UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, which guarantees every individual's right to promote and to strive for the protection and realisation of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels.
In practice HRDs extend from individuals, such as lawyers and social workers, to organisations that work on issues relating to human rights and even to instruments of the state.
In fact the chief HRDs in Ugandan society, at least in theory, are the police, prison service and judiciary, as they are mandated by the Constitution to protect and promote human rights. However they are often involved in abuses in the Ugandan case.
The key message for governments is that HRDs are legitimate actors, working in the interests of the state to promote and protect fundamental freedoms that all citizens should be entitled to.
The state should recognise this and create an enabling environment for their work, which includes protection where required and facilitation where it is mandated to so
The case studies that follow are based on interviews with men, women and persons with disabilities that I encountered, outlining just some of the challenges and success stories of HRDs in Lira.
CASE STUDY 1: LIVING WITH HIV AND AIDS
Semmy Apili, sharing her experience during a training workshop, said she won a court case and regained her land because of the will her late husband was able to write.
Even on issues such as HIV and AIDS the issue of land could not be avoided. Martin Ongune, Project Coordinator at the Lira Development Network for People Living with HIV Aids (LIDFOPHAN), remarked upon the need for support in 'will writing' in order to support the families of victims:
'There is a need here for legal advisers to assist the poorer members of society in writing wills. It will ensure a degree of security for families who may lose relatives because of HIV and AIDS.
We would also welcome training that would empower members of the community with these skills and enable a more sustainable solution.'
The organisation has, through its own networks, over 8,000 members and it works not only to provide support to victims of HIV and AIDS but also to the families of those victims. Ensuring that livelihoods can be guaranteed is an important part of this support process and while there is a need, the challenge of bringing about that change remains.
CASE STUDY 2: PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
Uganda suffered both physical and mental trauma; issues that still need to be addressed. In meeting with Joseph Kasungo at the Freidis Rehabilitation and Disability Centre I encountered anger at the lack of support that directly targeted the issue of disability.
He remained frustrated that it continues to be something of a side issue, incorporated into other projects or initiatives but not given the priority that it should be. Social stigma remains attached to disability in Uganda and mental health issues are seen as human weakness rather than health issues that require treatment.
The Centre has the facilities to tackle these issues, with a fully equipped clinic and on-site psychologist, but its major challenge is reintegrating people back into society as equals.
CASE STUDY 3: EMPOWERING WOMEN
Diana Oroma of Women's Peace Initiative (WPI) passionately outlined the challenges facing women in Lira District but suggested that progress was being made.
Her organisation has played a key role in encouraging women to seek medical attention to be treated for victims of sexual abuse. In 2010 over 600 women were treated by a WPI initiative. Fifty of these women had such serious afflictions they required surgery.
There is no shortage of challenges facing the women who do come forward for treatment:
The stigma attached to being sexually violated or raped can often led to exclusion or people being ostracised from the community.
Cultural issues with regards to relationships between men and women are problematic. A lack of education about female sexual health, inclusive of men, means that cultural norms of women being the bearer of children remain strong and this can impact on recovery after treatment.
Women Peace Clubs have been set up by WPI in an effort to change the attitudes of the community. They have been successful in utilising women who have been treated talk to come and tell other women about their positive experiences.
Efforts have also been made to engage men in the education process. Progress, however, is slow as Diana outlined an example of a man coming to a workshop and agreeing that he would show more respect for his wife's sexual health. Yet a week later WPI learned that the woman had been heavily beaten by her husband for bringing shame upon him and their family.
This kind of example shows that changing (and challenging!) attitudes will be a gradual task, but initiatives being run by WPCs are the kind of projects best suited to bring about that change.
Where to from here for human rights defenders: some reflections on the local, national and international dimensions
At the local government level in Lira officials are working with civil society groups (such as the Lira NGO Forum) to enhance and protect human rights. Disputes over land and an ill-equipped judiciary for dealing with complaints being brought to its door, however, are challenges facing all Ugandan HRDs rather than just in Lira.
While some freedoms are being afforded to Ugandans there are still restrictions being placed on journalists in carrying out their work, women are still often regarded as second class citizens and rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Ugandans are almost non-existence.
In recent weeks a number of members of parliament have come out in support of the retrogressive Anti-Homosexuality Bill, touted by the Speaker of Parliament as a "Christmas gift" to Ugandans, which would make engaging in homosexual activities punishable by death. This is incredibly worrying for human rights standards and protections in Uganda.
Parliamentarians are voting on this bill in the coming days before 15th December, despite that Uganda holds a seat on the UN Human Rights Council until the end of 2013.
In her remarks addressing the UN Assembly in New York, the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights, Margaret Sekaggya, emphasized the constraints faced by defenders of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights due to criminalization of same-sex relations in over 75 countries worldwide, as well as recent legislative moves to purportedly curb promotion of homosexuality.
Although the recent decision of Malawi to suspend its anti-gay legislation is a small ray of hope it should be recognised and applauded as a step forward. www.developmenteducation.ie will be following these stories more closely in the months ahead.
Lastly, the creation of a Human Right Committee, made up of members of the Uganda parliament and tasked with the monitoring and evaluation of the government's compliance with human rights standards and protections is a very positive step. In theory, this should support the promotion and protection of those working to protect and stimulate human rights at the community level too.
Overall then, this is a refreshing turn for Ugandans struggling for a better life and looking to hold their politicians and public officials to a higher standard.
Throughout my field visits in Lira and elsewhere I have found the enthusiasm and commitment to such values remains undiminished. There are, of course, many challenges left but changes in attitudes at the community level are being observed.
This is welcome as the region gradually turns it focus away from a past ravaged by conflict to one embracing social and economic growth and development.
- Jamie Hitchen currently lives and works in Kampala, Uganda. Having obtained a Masters in African Politics from the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) he now works for the Human Rights Centre Uganda (www.hrcug.org). This article was first published by Irish global education website www.developmentEducation.ie
Source: All Africa
Lira Town, situated some 350km from Kampala to the north, is an area deeply affected by the Lord's Resistance Army conflict that wrecked Uganda from 1986 until the Juba talks (2006-2008), marking the beginning of the end for Joseph Kony and the rebels in Uganda.
It was the start of a peace process that ultimately led to the creation of South Sudan in 2011 and also marked the beginning of a decline of the LRA in northern Uganda, forcing them out of the bases they had been occupying in southern Sudan, last seen in the Eastern Congo or the Central African Republic.
These days there is a lot less urgency for those internally displaced who had fled rural villages to seek sanctuary in towns from the violence. Lira town now thrives with bustle of commercial trade in its compact town centre.
The most talked about issues I encountered focussed on one central problem that's on the rise right across Uganda: land ownership.
In discussion with the Deputy District Police Commander and the District Office of Prosecutions it emerged that land ownership or land disputes were behind nearly all of the criminal cases and violations of human rights in Lira district.
This may not come as a surprise when Uganda's population has risen tenfold to since independence in 1962. The issue has been exacerbated by the discovery of oil reserves in Hoima District and new cases of forced evictions and land grabbing are reported on an almost daily basis.
The throngs of men and women I witnessed seated outside the Lira courts pending hearings on land issues, particularly over ownership by people displaced during conflict, all seek to reclaim land they previously worked on.
The court system is simply unable to cope with the demands on it. The Officer of Prosecutions bemoaned the lack of human resources at his disposal.
The state is bound to provide lawyers to represent the deceased in any court case but its failure to pay lawyers for their work has led to many refusing to take up these positions, bringing the justice process to a grinding halt.
Faced with a flailing system, a number of individuals seek alternative solutions which are not always legal.
Mob justice - where citizens take the law into their own hands - is on the rise in Uganda and it may increase as land disputes keep happening and formal crime and punishment structures fail to address them.
Just as mob justice can never be a workable alternative, removing rights, such as the right to a fair trial in the process, the same could be said of a failing judicial system.
Lobbying for its reform and greater accountability from the authorities is where human rights defenders (HRDs) are concentrating their efforts in looking to overcome this huge challenge.
WHAT IS A HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDER? AND WHY DO THEY MATTER?
A Human Rights Defender (HRD) was formalised as a concept at the international level by the 1998 UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, which guarantees every individual's right to promote and to strive for the protection and realisation of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels.
In practice HRDs extend from individuals, such as lawyers and social workers, to organisations that work on issues relating to human rights and even to instruments of the state.
In fact the chief HRDs in Ugandan society, at least in theory, are the police, prison service and judiciary, as they are mandated by the Constitution to protect and promote human rights. However they are often involved in abuses in the Ugandan case.
The key message for governments is that HRDs are legitimate actors, working in the interests of the state to promote and protect fundamental freedoms that all citizens should be entitled to.
The state should recognise this and create an enabling environment for their work, which includes protection where required and facilitation where it is mandated to so
The case studies that follow are based on interviews with men, women and persons with disabilities that I encountered, outlining just some of the challenges and success stories of HRDs in Lira.
CASE STUDY 1: LIVING WITH HIV AND AIDS
Semmy Apili, sharing her experience during a training workshop, said she won a court case and regained her land because of the will her late husband was able to write.
Even on issues such as HIV and AIDS the issue of land could not be avoided. Martin Ongune, Project Coordinator at the Lira Development Network for People Living with HIV Aids (LIDFOPHAN), remarked upon the need for support in 'will writing' in order to support the families of victims:
'There is a need here for legal advisers to assist the poorer members of society in writing wills. It will ensure a degree of security for families who may lose relatives because of HIV and AIDS.
We would also welcome training that would empower members of the community with these skills and enable a more sustainable solution.'
The organisation has, through its own networks, over 8,000 members and it works not only to provide support to victims of HIV and AIDS but also to the families of those victims. Ensuring that livelihoods can be guaranteed is an important part of this support process and while there is a need, the challenge of bringing about that change remains.
CASE STUDY 2: PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
Uganda suffered both physical and mental trauma; issues that still need to be addressed. In meeting with Joseph Kasungo at the Freidis Rehabilitation and Disability Centre I encountered anger at the lack of support that directly targeted the issue of disability.
He remained frustrated that it continues to be something of a side issue, incorporated into other projects or initiatives but not given the priority that it should be. Social stigma remains attached to disability in Uganda and mental health issues are seen as human weakness rather than health issues that require treatment.
The Centre has the facilities to tackle these issues, with a fully equipped clinic and on-site psychologist, but its major challenge is reintegrating people back into society as equals.
CASE STUDY 3: EMPOWERING WOMEN
Diana Oroma of Women's Peace Initiative (WPI) passionately outlined the challenges facing women in Lira District but suggested that progress was being made.
Her organisation has played a key role in encouraging women to seek medical attention to be treated for victims of sexual abuse. In 2010 over 600 women were treated by a WPI initiative. Fifty of these women had such serious afflictions they required surgery.
There is no shortage of challenges facing the women who do come forward for treatment:
The stigma attached to being sexually violated or raped can often led to exclusion or people being ostracised from the community.
Cultural issues with regards to relationships between men and women are problematic. A lack of education about female sexual health, inclusive of men, means that cultural norms of women being the bearer of children remain strong and this can impact on recovery after treatment.
Women Peace Clubs have been set up by WPI in an effort to change the attitudes of the community. They have been successful in utilising women who have been treated talk to come and tell other women about their positive experiences.
Efforts have also been made to engage men in the education process. Progress, however, is slow as Diana outlined an example of a man coming to a workshop and agreeing that he would show more respect for his wife's sexual health. Yet a week later WPI learned that the woman had been heavily beaten by her husband for bringing shame upon him and their family.
This kind of example shows that changing (and challenging!) attitudes will be a gradual task, but initiatives being run by WPCs are the kind of projects best suited to bring about that change.
Where to from here for human rights defenders: some reflections on the local, national and international dimensions
At the local government level in Lira officials are working with civil society groups (such as the Lira NGO Forum) to enhance and protect human rights. Disputes over land and an ill-equipped judiciary for dealing with complaints being brought to its door, however, are challenges facing all Ugandan HRDs rather than just in Lira.
While some freedoms are being afforded to Ugandans there are still restrictions being placed on journalists in carrying out their work, women are still often regarded as second class citizens and rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Ugandans are almost non-existence.
In recent weeks a number of members of parliament have come out in support of the retrogressive Anti-Homosexuality Bill, touted by the Speaker of Parliament as a "Christmas gift" to Ugandans, which would make engaging in homosexual activities punishable by death. This is incredibly worrying for human rights standards and protections in Uganda.
Parliamentarians are voting on this bill in the coming days before 15th December, despite that Uganda holds a seat on the UN Human Rights Council until the end of 2013.
In her remarks addressing the UN Assembly in New York, the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights, Margaret Sekaggya, emphasized the constraints faced by defenders of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights due to criminalization of same-sex relations in over 75 countries worldwide, as well as recent legislative moves to purportedly curb promotion of homosexuality.
Although the recent decision of Malawi to suspend its anti-gay legislation is a small ray of hope it should be recognised and applauded as a step forward. www.developmenteducation.ie will be following these stories more closely in the months ahead.
Lastly, the creation of a Human Right Committee, made up of members of the Uganda parliament and tasked with the monitoring and evaluation of the government's compliance with human rights standards and protections is a very positive step. In theory, this should support the promotion and protection of those working to protect and stimulate human rights at the community level too.
Overall then, this is a refreshing turn for Ugandans struggling for a better life and looking to hold their politicians and public officials to a higher standard.
Throughout my field visits in Lira and elsewhere I have found the enthusiasm and commitment to such values remains undiminished. There are, of course, many challenges left but changes in attitudes at the community level are being observed.
This is welcome as the region gradually turns it focus away from a past ravaged by conflict to one embracing social and economic growth and development.
- Jamie Hitchen currently lives and works in Kampala, Uganda. Having obtained a Masters in African Politics from the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) he now works for the Human Rights Centre Uganda (www.hrcug.org). This article was first published by Irish global education website www.developmentEducation.ie
Source: All Africa
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Where is the grace? Where is the compassion?
I am haunted by this picture. It is of a woman unsuccessfully trying to stop a bulldozer from demolishing her home in Lenasia. No one seemed to have thought of asking the woman her name. The newspapers said she was “unidentified”: Like so many other black woman in South Africa she is literally treated as being without an identity, without a history, without a personality. Why did the Gauteng government want to demolish this woman’s home and why did a court grant an order allowing the demolition?
The bulldozing of people’s homes is an emotionally laden issue in South Africa. Anyone with a passing knowledge of the apartheid past must recall the horrible images of bulldozers wrecking people’s homes in Fietas, Sophiatown, District Six and in many other parts of the country. It therefore came as a shock to hear that our government sought, and a South African court ordered, the demolition of houses in Lenasia.
The Gauteng local government and housing department began destroying the houses two weeks ago because the land they were built on was intended for government housing, and had been sold illegally. About 50 houses had been destroyed and another 113 were in line to be demolished before the South African Human Rights Commission went to court to try and stop this. The plots of land were apparently sold fraudulently for amounts ranging from R2500 to R95 000. The buyers were given forged deeds of sale with the department’s logo.
On 29 September last year, the South Gauteng High Court ordered the relevant residence of Lenasia to vacate their homes and to demolish the homes or structures erected on the property. In the event of failure to remove or demolish within the time period given, the City was granted the right to demolish the homes. The Order did not require the City to provide those evicted with alternative accommodation.
Given the Constitutional Court’s jurisprudence on forced evictions and the provisions of the Prevention of Illegal Evictions from and Unlawful Occupation of Land (PIE) Act, it is difficult to agree with the court for granting this court order – which in any case the Gauteng Government should never have asked for. I guess if one does not live at Nkandla, one’s home is not seen as either private or sacred by our government.
In terms of section 26(3) of the Constitution, when considering whether to order the forced eviction of unlawful occupiers from their homes, a court must take into account all relevant factors. As the Constitutional Court stated in Port Elizabeth Municipality v Various Occupiers, our Constitution “acknowledges that a home is more than just a shelter from the elements”. A home “is a zone of personal intimacy and family security” and the forced removal from a home “is a shock for any family”. It does not make any difference whether that home is lawfully or unlawfully occupied.
The PIE Act confirms that a court must take into account all the relevant circumstances under which people occupied the land. In the PE Municipality case justice Albie Sachs warned that a court should be slow to order the eviction of its citizens from state owned land as “the state generally has further land to meet its obligations”. The degree of emergency or desperation of people, who have sought a spot on which to erect their shelters, would always have to be considered. And persons “occupying land with at least a plausible belief that they have permission to be there” can be looked at with far greater sympathy than those who deliberately invaded land with a view to disrupting the organised housing programme and placing themselves at the front of the queue.
It is settled law that a court should be reluctant to grant an eviction against relatively settled occupiers unless it is satisfied that a reasonable alternative is available. In City of Johannesburg v Blue Moonlight Properties the Constitutional Court found – in slightly different circumstances than the present – that the City’s housing policy was unconstitutional to the extent that it excluded some people evicted from privately owned property from consideration for temporary accommodation. It found that such an exclusion was unreasonable. This does not mean that the City would always have to provide alternative accommodation, but if it failed to do so in circumstances where people would be left homeless the eviction would almost never be granted.
In the end a court must consider all relevant factors but should not do so in a mechanical way or in a way that gave too much weight to the bureaucratic needs and plans of the Municipality and too little weight to the needs of those who might be affected by the eviction. In PE Municipality Sachs explained the approach as follows:
In this case, the residents were defrauded. They built structures on government owned land believing that they had bought the plots. They built solid structures, using their own money, believing they had a right to do so. They did not do so because they wanted to jump the queue for land or housing. Those who committed the fraud are being prosecuted, but it is unclear why those who were duped must be punished for their crime.
It is unclear what constitutionally permitted purpose is being served by the eviction of such innocent people from their homes. How does the bulldozing of their homes demonstrates the Gauteng government’s commitment to a caring society, one which is animated by the principle of Ubuntu, which holds that we are all demeaned if some among us are treated without grace and compassion – all in order to pursue a coldhearted and bureaucratic housing plan without any consideration of the feelings of those affected?
I wonder if the Gauteng Premier and the judicial officer who granted the eviction and demolition order have had time to pause for a moment to consider the feelings of the unnamed woman in the picture. Have they asked themselves what must have gone through her mind as she desperately threw her body in the path of that bulldozer? Do they wonder about all the hopes and dreams she had about her new home and how these have now been shattered by the greedy fraudsters who sold these plots to innocent citizens, abetted by the Gauteng Government and by the court who ordered the eviction?
Where is the grace? Where is the compassion? Where is the common decency? Or are these feelings only reserved for one “special” person, a person who might bleed and sleep and eat and have sex and defecate like the rest of us, but who somehow is viewed as more important and more worthy of concern and respect than the unnamed woman in Lenasia who planted her body in front of that bulldozer?
Why is it that we are told (in expensive adverts in the Sunday papers) not to care that the homes of some citizens are bulldozed, while we are also told that it is none of our business that more than R250 million of public funds are being used to upgrade the private homestead of our king, our leader, our father in chief – all while some of our people who contributed to the upgrade of the President’s house do not have a roof over their heads and will be forced to sleep under a bush or in a ditch tonight and for many, many, more nights to come?
Source: Constitutionally Speaking
The bulldozing of people’s homes is an emotionally laden issue in South Africa. Anyone with a passing knowledge of the apartheid past must recall the horrible images of bulldozers wrecking people’s homes in Fietas, Sophiatown, District Six and in many other parts of the country. It therefore came as a shock to hear that our government sought, and a South African court ordered, the demolition of houses in Lenasia.
The Gauteng local government and housing department began destroying the houses two weeks ago because the land they were built on was intended for government housing, and had been sold illegally. About 50 houses had been destroyed and another 113 were in line to be demolished before the South African Human Rights Commission went to court to try and stop this. The plots of land were apparently sold fraudulently for amounts ranging from R2500 to R95 000. The buyers were given forged deeds of sale with the department’s logo.
On 29 September last year, the South Gauteng High Court ordered the relevant residence of Lenasia to vacate their homes and to demolish the homes or structures erected on the property. In the event of failure to remove or demolish within the time period given, the City was granted the right to demolish the homes. The Order did not require the City to provide those evicted with alternative accommodation.
Given the Constitutional Court’s jurisprudence on forced evictions and the provisions of the Prevention of Illegal Evictions from and Unlawful Occupation of Land (PIE) Act, it is difficult to agree with the court for granting this court order – which in any case the Gauteng Government should never have asked for. I guess if one does not live at Nkandla, one’s home is not seen as either private or sacred by our government.
In terms of section 26(3) of the Constitution, when considering whether to order the forced eviction of unlawful occupiers from their homes, a court must take into account all relevant factors. As the Constitutional Court stated in Port Elizabeth Municipality v Various Occupiers, our Constitution “acknowledges that a home is more than just a shelter from the elements”. A home “is a zone of personal intimacy and family security” and the forced removal from a home “is a shock for any family”. It does not make any difference whether that home is lawfully or unlawfully occupied.
It is not only the dignity of the poor that is assailed when homeless people are driven from pillar to post in a desperate quest for a place where they and their families can rest their heads. Our society as a whole is demeaned when state action intensifies rather than mitigates their marginalisation. The integrity of the rights-based vision of the Constitution is punctured when governmental action augments rather than reduces denial of the claims of the desperately poor to the basic elements of a decent existence. Hence the need for special judicial control of a process that is both socially stressful and potentially conflictual.
The PIE Act confirms that a court must take into account all the relevant circumstances under which people occupied the land. In the PE Municipality case justice Albie Sachs warned that a court should be slow to order the eviction of its citizens from state owned land as “the state generally has further land to meet its obligations”. The degree of emergency or desperation of people, who have sought a spot on which to erect their shelters, would always have to be considered. And persons “occupying land with at least a plausible belief that they have permission to be there” can be looked at with far greater sympathy than those who deliberately invaded land with a view to disrupting the organised housing programme and placing themselves at the front of the queue.
It is settled law that a court should be reluctant to grant an eviction against relatively settled occupiers unless it is satisfied that a reasonable alternative is available. In City of Johannesburg v Blue Moonlight Properties the Constitutional Court found – in slightly different circumstances than the present – that the City’s housing policy was unconstitutional to the extent that it excluded some people evicted from privately owned property from consideration for temporary accommodation. It found that such an exclusion was unreasonable. This does not mean that the City would always have to provide alternative accommodation, but if it failed to do so in circumstances where people would be left homeless the eviction would almost never be granted.
In the end a court must consider all relevant factors but should not do so in a mechanical way or in a way that gave too much weight to the bureaucratic needs and plans of the Municipality and too little weight to the needs of those who might be affected by the eviction. In PE Municipality Sachs explained the approach as follows:
The Constitution and PIE require that in addition to considering the lawfulness of the occupation the court must have regard to the interests and circumstances of the occupier and pay due regard to broader considerations of fairness and other constitutional values, so as to produce a just and equitable result. Thus, PIE expressly requires the court to infuse elements of grace and compassion into the formal structures of the law. It is called upon to balance competing interests in a principled way and promote the constitutional vision of a caring society based on good neighbourliness and shared concern.
In this case, the residents were defrauded. They built structures on government owned land believing that they had bought the plots. They built solid structures, using their own money, believing they had a right to do so. They did not do so because they wanted to jump the queue for land or housing. Those who committed the fraud are being prosecuted, but it is unclear why those who were duped must be punished for their crime.
It is unclear what constitutionally permitted purpose is being served by the eviction of such innocent people from their homes. How does the bulldozing of their homes demonstrates the Gauteng government’s commitment to a caring society, one which is animated by the principle of Ubuntu, which holds that we are all demeaned if some among us are treated without grace and compassion – all in order to pursue a coldhearted and bureaucratic housing plan without any consideration of the feelings of those affected?
I wonder if the Gauteng Premier and the judicial officer who granted the eviction and demolition order have had time to pause for a moment to consider the feelings of the unnamed woman in the picture. Have they asked themselves what must have gone through her mind as she desperately threw her body in the path of that bulldozer? Do they wonder about all the hopes and dreams she had about her new home and how these have now been shattered by the greedy fraudsters who sold these plots to innocent citizens, abetted by the Gauteng Government and by the court who ordered the eviction?
Where is the grace? Where is the compassion? Where is the common decency? Or are these feelings only reserved for one “special” person, a person who might bleed and sleep and eat and have sex and defecate like the rest of us, but who somehow is viewed as more important and more worthy of concern and respect than the unnamed woman in Lenasia who planted her body in front of that bulldozer?
Why is it that we are told (in expensive adverts in the Sunday papers) not to care that the homes of some citizens are bulldozed, while we are also told that it is none of our business that more than R250 million of public funds are being used to upgrade the private homestead of our king, our leader, our father in chief – all while some of our people who contributed to the upgrade of the President’s house do not have a roof over their heads and will be forced to sleep under a bush or in a ditch tonight and for many, many, more nights to come?
Source: Constitutionally Speaking
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Richmond Farm Transit Camp in KwaMashu
Mchunu and Others v Executive Mayor of eThekwini and Others ('Mchunu')
implementation of court order - Siyanda - Durban High Court
In this matter, SERI and Abahlali baseMjondolo (AbM) seek an order against the Executive Mayor of eThekwini (Durban), together with two other senior officials in their personal capacities, to take all the steps necessary to implement a court order requiring housing to be provided to 37 occupants of the Richmond Farm Transit Camp in KwaMashu. The occupiers were evicted from the Siyanda informal settlement in March 2009 in order to allow the construction of a road. One of the conditions of the eviction order was that the occupiers would be provided with permanent housing within a year. The deadline for doing so expired almost two years ago and nothing has been done to comply with the order.
This is an important case because it establishes whether individual officebearers can be held personally responsible for the state’s failure to perform on specific obligations. SERI served the application in February 2012, and filed a replying affidavit in May 2012. Heads of argument were filed on 4 September 2012, and the case was heard in the Durban High Court on 17 September 2012.
On 19 September 2012, Acting Judge Nigel Hollis granted an order and delivered an ex tempore judgment in the Durban High Court. His decision requires the Mayor of eThekwini, the City Manager and the Director of Housing to take all the necessary steps, within three months, to provide permanent housing to the 37 families. They are “constitutionally and statutorily obliged to take all necessary steps” to comply with the 2009 order. If they do not, they may be held in contempt and fined or imprisoned.
In this matter, SERI and Abahlali baseMjondolo (AbM) seek an order against the Executive Mayor of eThekwini (Durban), together with two other senior officials in their personal capacities, to take all the steps necessary to implement a court order requiring housing to be provided to 37 occupants of the Richmond Farm Transit Camp in KwaMashu. The occupiers were evicted from the Siyanda informal settlement in March 2009 in order to allow the construction of a road. One of the conditions of the eviction order was that the occupiers would be provided with permanent housing within a year. The deadline for doing so expired almost two years ago and nothing has been done to comply with the order.
This is an important case because it establishes whether individual officebearers can be held personally responsible for the state’s failure to perform on specific obligations. SERI served the application in February 2012, and filed a replying affidavit in May 2012. Heads of argument were filed on 4 September 2012, and the case was heard in the Durban High Court on 17 September 2012.
On 19 September 2012, Acting Judge Nigel Hollis granted an order and delivered an ex tempore judgment in the Durban High Court. His decision requires the Mayor of eThekwini, the City Manager and the Director of Housing to take all the necessary steps, within three months, to provide permanent housing to the 37 families. They are “constitutionally and statutorily obliged to take all necessary steps” to comply with the 2009 order. If they do not, they may be held in contempt and fined or imprisoned.
-
SERI and Abahlali baseMjondolo media statement (19 September 2012) here.
-
Draft order (19 September 2012) here.
- Occupiers' supplementary heads of argument (14 September 2012) here.
-
Respondent's heads of argument (13 September 2012) here.
- SERI and AbM press release (29 February 2012) here.
- Short film entitled "A Fish in a Tin" about the eviction and relocation to Richmond Farm Transit Camp here.
- Notice of motion (12 December 2012) here.
Friday, August 31, 2012
What Land and Housing Rights Reveal About a Country’s Commitment to Open Society
Homeowners in Moscow’s Rechnik
district likely did not expect to wake up to bulldozers on the morning
of January 21, 2010. Thrown out of their homes by armed police, families
could only watch as their houses were demolished. Under the direction
of Moscow’s then-mayor, Yuri Luzhkov, famous—or infamous—for his embrace
of fast-paced, high-priced development, municipal authorities decided
to invalidate land permits issued during the Soviet era and reject
residents’ de facto titles to what has since become valuable land and to
the houses they had built on it. Had they built illegally? What is the
state’s responsibility to citizens in this process? What, if any, were
the underlying interests at stake in this demonstration of force? With
similar situations played out all over the globe, state actions to take
away people’s land or expel them from their homes tell us volumes about a
government’s commitment to transparency, democracy, and other elements
of good governance; they lay bare the true human rights record of a
place.
The Open Society Foundations’ Human Rights Data Initiative, a joint project of the Human Rights and Governance Program and the Information Program, has begun a year-long study of housing and property expropriations. The study will track how the issue is connected to a range of internationally recognized human rights, and explore how human rights and accountability organizations approach the problem of the abuse of states’ claim to eminent domain. Though states are empowered to use eminent domain for the public good, abuse of this authority is widespread. What we’ve found is that violations of the “positive right” to housing are only one part of the issue. The process of state infringement on land ownership illuminates a host of other problems, including the state’s failure to uphold the rule of law, provide equal protection to all citizens, tackle corruption, and engage in economic development that is respectful of ethnic minorities and the urban poor. Invariably we also find citizens shut out of decisions regarding their surroundings, the shape of their city, and preservation of its cultural heritage. Land and housing policy is a revelator that tells us about the reality and depth of commitment to open society values in a given country.
In a broad survey of the work of the Open Society Foundations, we’ve seen that the threat to where they live is many people’s first encounter with the potential harm of predatory state interests. Human rights and transparency organizations report incidences with alarming frequency: Azeri families living in central Baku find themselves stripped of their property and forced from their homes to make way for a glittering stadium for the Eurovision Song Contest. In Equatorial Guinea, where a small ruling clique of families reaps huge profits while over 60 percent survive on less than $1 per day, citizens were evicted with inadequate or nonexistent compensation in the name of an “urban renewal” and public utility development, that has given birth to hotels, offices and luxury housing that few will ever access. Similar dubious state claims to promoting “public good” were raised in the case of Roma settlements on municipal land in Bulgaria. Tolerated by the state for decades, communities found themselves threatened with eviction when the land was privatized without offer of alternative housing. That case was finally settled at the European Court of Human Rights in a decision that cited state responsibility to assess the necessity of the action, as well as the effects of interference an eviction will have on the right to private and family life as deciding factors against the government of Bulgaria. Activists in Brazil have documented the effect of evictions on an estimated thirty thousand people in the run-up to the “mega events” of the World Cup 2014 and 2016 Olympic Games in Rio—mass evictions carried out without sufficient compensation, forewarning, or community consultation. In many of these cases, when citizens raised their voices through the channels of protest open to them, they were answered by the state with resistance, violence, and restriction of their liberties.
If forcible removal is one end of the spectrum of violations, at the other, state bureaucratic policies can be less blatant but just as insidious. Though bureaucratic reform toward openness in land policy can be a good thing, when states institute open records and land-ownership reform to counteract corruption in legal titling of land, the process can be turned on its head. Take India, for example, where individuals began taking advantage of records opened in an effort to help the rural poor take out loans or apply for government benefits. Because they had better technical skills and access to information, wealthier residents could create what open data expert Michael Gurstein called “unequal contests around land titles,” exploiting mistakes and gaps to their own advantage. In Georgia, the buying and selling of land has been drastically simplified in the past several years, including through the establishment of electronic land records—a major step forward in limiting corruption—but curious exceptions to the speed and ease of that process have appeared when such slowdowns are in the state interest, and when dozens of citizens at a time “donate” their land in a valuable tourist zone to the state.
Land and housing rights excite communities in ways that many other rights issues do not. Housing procedures are often the most widely felt of the harms done by a chaotic or captured state, where high-level corrupt political and economic exchange between government and a small number of firms is pervasive. The combination of abusive practice and non-transparent procedures can create citizen outrage, and introduce them to their fundamental rights and the challenges and exhilaration of citizen action. As acts of state policy, evictions and eminent domain can affect large numbers of citizens from different classes and social strata, and all of them experience the lack of rule of law, and the need for information and the right to free expression to pull the levers of citizen governance.
The issue also marries disparate communities and inspires conversations about history and preservation, rights and due process, economic growth and the tangibles and intangibles of livability, livelihood, and public good. Expropriation of land and housing filters through many of the key issues of the Open Society Foundations—from corruption and poor governance, to lack of access to information, use and abuse of force, lack of independence of the judiciary, and intolerance of dissent. Open Society Foundations’ own work to mitigate the impacts of the national foreclosure crisis on low-income communities and communities of color in the U.S. highlights how the lack of transparent and accountable financial markets can lead to widespread displacement and wealth-stripping among vulnerable populations.
State policies on housing and the use of eminent domain not only energize individuals, but can also have a galvanizing effect on civil society organizations. NGOs focused on a key population are often motivated by housing and property dilemmas to develop full-context arguments on human rights, development, transparency, and citizen access to decision-making. In doing so, these organizations find new partners and new channels for activism, policy work and redress of abusive practices. At the same time, they face new challenges. Given the large amounts of money at stake, documenting procurement contracts and development deals can be very dangerous and difficult.
And finally, the expansion of access to information and technology enrich the potential for development to be conducted in ways that reflect open society values. As instruments of development, international financial institutions and technology can affect the direction of state policy on questions of housing and land. International financial institutions already exert a good deal of influence over the direction of development projects that they sponsor. Because of their leverage, IFI can either be a springboard for state abuse or a catalyst for a more transparent and equitable approach, negotiating rights-respecting plans and ensuring an open process. Technology can be used to increase efficiency and fairness by bringing game-changing data to light, or obscure processes and privilege those who already have access to knowledge and broadband.
As the Human Rights Data Initiative examines this theme, we are focusing on three key questions:
How can we do this better? We need more data: as the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy points out, governments do not produce systematic information on the use of eminent domain, and legal research does not tell us about other dimensions of this government practice. We need to help transparency and human rights organizations to work together to ensure that people’s civil and political rights are protected during the process of urban development, with particular attention to the rights essential to expression of dissent and participation in decision making processes. And we need to know from international lenders and experts what the key elements of development planning are that can preserve people’s human rights, and insist on their inclusion in negotiated agreements regarding sponsored economic development projects. It will be essential for lenders to share that information with civil society groups and bring such groups into the process as allies. States must seek to make honest transactions between public need, livelihood, and individual rights, and this transaction should be observed for the opportunity it represents to scratch the surface of commitments to civil and political liberties.
Source: Open Society Foundations
The Open Society Foundations’ Human Rights Data Initiative, a joint project of the Human Rights and Governance Program and the Information Program, has begun a year-long study of housing and property expropriations. The study will track how the issue is connected to a range of internationally recognized human rights, and explore how human rights and accountability organizations approach the problem of the abuse of states’ claim to eminent domain. Though states are empowered to use eminent domain for the public good, abuse of this authority is widespread. What we’ve found is that violations of the “positive right” to housing are only one part of the issue. The process of state infringement on land ownership illuminates a host of other problems, including the state’s failure to uphold the rule of law, provide equal protection to all citizens, tackle corruption, and engage in economic development that is respectful of ethnic minorities and the urban poor. Invariably we also find citizens shut out of decisions regarding their surroundings, the shape of their city, and preservation of its cultural heritage. Land and housing policy is a revelator that tells us about the reality and depth of commitment to open society values in a given country.
In a broad survey of the work of the Open Society Foundations, we’ve seen that the threat to where they live is many people’s first encounter with the potential harm of predatory state interests. Human rights and transparency organizations report incidences with alarming frequency: Azeri families living in central Baku find themselves stripped of their property and forced from their homes to make way for a glittering stadium for the Eurovision Song Contest. In Equatorial Guinea, where a small ruling clique of families reaps huge profits while over 60 percent survive on less than $1 per day, citizens were evicted with inadequate or nonexistent compensation in the name of an “urban renewal” and public utility development, that has given birth to hotels, offices and luxury housing that few will ever access. Similar dubious state claims to promoting “public good” were raised in the case of Roma settlements on municipal land in Bulgaria. Tolerated by the state for decades, communities found themselves threatened with eviction when the land was privatized without offer of alternative housing. That case was finally settled at the European Court of Human Rights in a decision that cited state responsibility to assess the necessity of the action, as well as the effects of interference an eviction will have on the right to private and family life as deciding factors against the government of Bulgaria. Activists in Brazil have documented the effect of evictions on an estimated thirty thousand people in the run-up to the “mega events” of the World Cup 2014 and 2016 Olympic Games in Rio—mass evictions carried out without sufficient compensation, forewarning, or community consultation. In many of these cases, when citizens raised their voices through the channels of protest open to them, they were answered by the state with resistance, violence, and restriction of their liberties.
If forcible removal is one end of the spectrum of violations, at the other, state bureaucratic policies can be less blatant but just as insidious. Though bureaucratic reform toward openness in land policy can be a good thing, when states institute open records and land-ownership reform to counteract corruption in legal titling of land, the process can be turned on its head. Take India, for example, where individuals began taking advantage of records opened in an effort to help the rural poor take out loans or apply for government benefits. Because they had better technical skills and access to information, wealthier residents could create what open data expert Michael Gurstein called “unequal contests around land titles,” exploiting mistakes and gaps to their own advantage. In Georgia, the buying and selling of land has been drastically simplified in the past several years, including through the establishment of electronic land records—a major step forward in limiting corruption—but curious exceptions to the speed and ease of that process have appeared when such slowdowns are in the state interest, and when dozens of citizens at a time “donate” their land in a valuable tourist zone to the state.
Land and housing rights excite communities in ways that many other rights issues do not. Housing procedures are often the most widely felt of the harms done by a chaotic or captured state, where high-level corrupt political and economic exchange between government and a small number of firms is pervasive. The combination of abusive practice and non-transparent procedures can create citizen outrage, and introduce them to their fundamental rights and the challenges and exhilaration of citizen action. As acts of state policy, evictions and eminent domain can affect large numbers of citizens from different classes and social strata, and all of them experience the lack of rule of law, and the need for information and the right to free expression to pull the levers of citizen governance.
The issue also marries disparate communities and inspires conversations about history and preservation, rights and due process, economic growth and the tangibles and intangibles of livability, livelihood, and public good. Expropriation of land and housing filters through many of the key issues of the Open Society Foundations—from corruption and poor governance, to lack of access to information, use and abuse of force, lack of independence of the judiciary, and intolerance of dissent. Open Society Foundations’ own work to mitigate the impacts of the national foreclosure crisis on low-income communities and communities of color in the U.S. highlights how the lack of transparent and accountable financial markets can lead to widespread displacement and wealth-stripping among vulnerable populations.
State policies on housing and the use of eminent domain not only energize individuals, but can also have a galvanizing effect on civil society organizations. NGOs focused on a key population are often motivated by housing and property dilemmas to develop full-context arguments on human rights, development, transparency, and citizen access to decision-making. In doing so, these organizations find new partners and new channels for activism, policy work and redress of abusive practices. At the same time, they face new challenges. Given the large amounts of money at stake, documenting procurement contracts and development deals can be very dangerous and difficult.
And finally, the expansion of access to information and technology enrich the potential for development to be conducted in ways that reflect open society values. As instruments of development, international financial institutions and technology can affect the direction of state policy on questions of housing and land. International financial institutions already exert a good deal of influence over the direction of development projects that they sponsor. Because of their leverage, IFI can either be a springboard for state abuse or a catalyst for a more transparent and equitable approach, negotiating rights-respecting plans and ensuring an open process. Technology can be used to increase efficiency and fairness by bringing game-changing data to light, or obscure processes and privilege those who already have access to knowledge and broadband.
As the Human Rights Data Initiative examines this theme, we are focusing on three key questions:
- What is the shape of the use and abuse of eminent domain and other tools of the state with respect to property? What is it used for, whom does it affect, and how?
- In projects where citizens, organizations, or other interests have successfully countered a demonstrably bad decision in this space, what has been the deciding factor: did access to more data tip the scales? Did evocative documentary photographs motivate new actors? Was it sharp statistical analysis, or targeted campaigning?
- How can campaigners leverage this issue to engage with citizens on open information and governance, and effect better policymaking around development?
How can we do this better? We need more data: as the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy points out, governments do not produce systematic information on the use of eminent domain, and legal research does not tell us about other dimensions of this government practice. We need to help transparency and human rights organizations to work together to ensure that people’s civil and political rights are protected during the process of urban development, with particular attention to the rights essential to expression of dissent and participation in decision making processes. And we need to know from international lenders and experts what the key elements of development planning are that can preserve people’s human rights, and insist on their inclusion in negotiated agreements regarding sponsored economic development projects. It will be essential for lenders to share that information with civil society groups and bring such groups into the process as allies. States must seek to make honest transactions between public need, livelihood, and individual rights, and this transaction should be observed for the opportunity it represents to scratch the surface of commitments to civil and political liberties.
Source: Open Society Foundations
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
In memoriam - Dawid Kruiper
It is with sadness that we announce the passing of yet another San elder and leader from the ‡Khomani community in the southern Kalahari Desert. Oom Dawid Kruiper passed away on the 13th June 2012, after a brief period of hospitalization in Upington, Northern Cape Province, South Africa. Oom Dawid Kruiper, who was appointed leader of the Kruiper clan by his late father Regopstaan Kruiper in 1995, played a central role in the historic land claim of the ‡Khomani San.
In January 2002, a small clan of ‡Khomani San who were living on a tourist resort farm Kagga Kamma in the Western Cape Cedarberg, started planning to return to the Kalahari. The clan, lead by Regopstaan Kruiper, had been evicted from the Kalahari Gemsbok National Park after its formation in 1931. In 1995 their land claim, under the provisional name of the "Southern Kalahari San Land Claim Committee", was formally lodged with the Northern Cape Land Regional Claims Commissioner. The Kruiper clan, headed first by Regopstaan and then by Dawid Kruiper, were the original claim committee, which was later extended after a formal election was held for a negotiation committee, which attempted to represent each of the various communities of San in the Northern Cape. The first elected committee was chaired by Petrus Vaalbooi, whilst Dawid Kruiper was consistently acknowledged as the overall leader of the land claim.
In March 1999 and prior to the signing of the phase one agreement, a formal election process was held at Welkom to elect the first CPA under the CPA Act. This CPA constitution made provision for traditional leader as an acknowledgement of the extraordinary role played by Oom Dawid Kruiper in the years leading up to the land claim. In the ensuing years Oom Dawid has chosen to lead a simple, yet often difficult life on the farm Witdraai. He preferred to be called Bushman. His primary driver had always been to live as closely to the land of his forefather and to follow a traditional life (or natural life as he said) as possible. He held much knowledge of the natural environment which he was willing to share. He was the key driver in the establishment of a veld school through which knowledge of the veld, environment and traditions could be passed on to younger generations. The school also offered opportunities for visitors to have an authentic Kalahari experience. Oom Dawid was a reconteur par excellence, whose stories where often weaved in idiomatic language and many references to nature. He had an incredible way of comparing human behavior to that of the animals of the field….. May his soul become part of the "second milky way" and rest in peace.
Source: SA San Institute
Saturday, March 31, 2012
The crime which went away: obituary to Cosmo Desmond
Early in 1968 the apartheid government decreed that African people in and around the community at Maria Ratschitz mission near Ladysmith were to be forcibly removed and dumped on barren exposed land called at Limehill. This was not the first or the last of the forced removals characteristic of the apartheid regime's determination to deny towns and cities to the African people and instead to constitute black political entities, "homelands", on the remaining land occupied by Africans.
The apartheid dream was of South African cities and farms emptied of black people and "homeland" black police states fighting semi-autonomously against the inevitable resistance. Africans would then be confirmed as citizenless foreigners in the land of their birth. But the Limehill removal was the signal for a sustained campaign of opposition which pulled together the internal opposition, exposed the crimes of the Nationalist Party government, and spurred even dilatory Western powers into formal opposition. These horrors led to apartheid being declared a crime against humanity.
At the centre of this opposition was Cosmas Desmond, the priest located at Maria Ratschitz, who died on Saturday, March 31. He gave himself to the task of documenting and exposing these removals taking place throughout the country. A veteran VW Beetle was bought and he disappeared down dirt roads and beyond into roadless rural areas bearing previously unrecognised names such as Mondlo, Mdantsane, Sada, Ilinge, Dimbaza, Zwelitsha, Botshabelo, Alcockspruit, Waschbank, KwaNgema and Driefontein. He would reappear in Johannesburg in 1969 with notes and manuscripts which eventually made up the book published by the Christian Institute as The Discarded People. His book chronicled the dumping of people wrongly located in the plan of apartheid and "surplus" to the needs of capitalism in remote areas without houses, food and support.
Removals in isolated rural areas involved the humiliation of people reduced to quietly ascending the removal trucks under the gaze and guns of the police and left destitute on barren land. This institutionalised, administrative violence was designed to drive the "surplus" and "expendable" out of sight to live or die as they may in the police-state Bantustans. Death, disease and despair were the result. But the campaign ensured they were located, brought back to mind and that the regime was subject to surveillance and sanctions. Desmond's work triggered widespread publicity which was particularly effective in electronic media. The film Last Grave in Dimbaza which carried the graphic detail of degradation and death of sites around the country caused an international outcry and provided the evidence of such inhuman acts of systematic oppression.
This necessary documentation was critical to the United Nations presenting the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid for adoption in 1973. The crime of apartheid was defined as "inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them". Forced removals to compress people into racial categories was a unique feature of the system. The timing of the declaration links closely to the exposure of forced removals.
Desmond's work would later be taken up in a series of studies in the Report of the Surplus People's Project which provided an extended review and fresh detail into the 1980s. At his 70th birthday party I approached Cos Desmond and said he must record what he could about his life experience in writing the Discarded People. He laughed wryly at the idea of an autobiography and gave me a maybe ... he might just turn his mind to chronicling his work but he wasn't so sure of its significance. Was his life and contribution really so important?
Rewards
Anti-apartheid combatants have been rewarded but also diminished by the ending of apartheid. The reward was the freeing of our people from the bondage of apartheid, but they have also been diminished by the trivialisation of great work of resistance in words and deeds and the careless dealing with crimes against humanity. The concluding scene in Last Grave in Dimbaza is of row after row of the graves of children who died after this dumping. As one of a group of students in discussion after film audition of in 1973 which was inspired by Desmond's work we resolved that a version of the Nuremburg Trial would have to be held in the post-apartheid era. That was not to be.
To my knowledge none of the bureaucrats of death were named and shamed. Now Dimbaza is a township on far-flung hills about 66km outside of East London. This name and even that of Limehill has lost its sting. South Africa has grown and these areas are now integrated into the road system and have their local municipalities. The memory fades. What was all the fuss about? This diminution of these historic crimes and the slow pace of genuine transformation had its effect on Cos Desmond, his work and his feeling of self-worth. He had often had to stand alone not only by the action of the regime but also by the priests in the Bantustans who found his research inconvenient and irritating and the shying away of the Catholic Church (with the notable exception of Archbishop Hurley).
His friendship with members of Black Consciousness (he enjoyed the ready open respect of Steve Biko and other BC leaders) did not serve favour with the Congress Movement and the ANC. In the new South Africa he was further diminished along with the lighter weighting of the crimes he chronicled. Cosmas never stood on his dignity or pronounced on his worth. His references to himself were often diffident, self deprecatory and ironic. Recently I was intrigued to hear that Van Gogh wrote that he knew he was regarded by society as a non-entity, an eccentric and a curiosity. He responded, "All right, then ... I should one day like to show by my work what such an eccentric, such a nobody, has in his heart." This was not quite Cos who was loved and held in high regard by the circle he cared for but there is a certain line in parallel.
He criticised the compromises and social degradation in the country of his adoption as only one who loved it so deeply would do. Despite the black majority gaining electoral power, the long standing effects of forced removal policy remain and perpetuate the gaping and widening inequality in income, wealth and land characteristic of our society. What happened to the crime of inhumanity declared in response to these forced removals and the promise of redistribution? History will revise judgment of the life and worth of Cosmas Desmond.
Source: Mail & Guardian
The apartheid dream was of South African cities and farms emptied of black people and "homeland" black police states fighting semi-autonomously against the inevitable resistance. Africans would then be confirmed as citizenless foreigners in the land of their birth. But the Limehill removal was the signal for a sustained campaign of opposition which pulled together the internal opposition, exposed the crimes of the Nationalist Party government, and spurred even dilatory Western powers into formal opposition. These horrors led to apartheid being declared a crime against humanity.
At the centre of this opposition was Cosmas Desmond, the priest located at Maria Ratschitz, who died on Saturday, March 31. He gave himself to the task of documenting and exposing these removals taking place throughout the country. A veteran VW Beetle was bought and he disappeared down dirt roads and beyond into roadless rural areas bearing previously unrecognised names such as Mondlo, Mdantsane, Sada, Ilinge, Dimbaza, Zwelitsha, Botshabelo, Alcockspruit, Waschbank, KwaNgema and Driefontein. He would reappear in Johannesburg in 1969 with notes and manuscripts which eventually made up the book published by the Christian Institute as The Discarded People. His book chronicled the dumping of people wrongly located in the plan of apartheid and "surplus" to the needs of capitalism in remote areas without houses, food and support.
Removals in isolated rural areas involved the humiliation of people reduced to quietly ascending the removal trucks under the gaze and guns of the police and left destitute on barren land. This institutionalised, administrative violence was designed to drive the "surplus" and "expendable" out of sight to live or die as they may in the police-state Bantustans. Death, disease and despair were the result. But the campaign ensured they were located, brought back to mind and that the regime was subject to surveillance and sanctions. Desmond's work triggered widespread publicity which was particularly effective in electronic media. The film Last Grave in Dimbaza which carried the graphic detail of degradation and death of sites around the country caused an international outcry and provided the evidence of such inhuman acts of systematic oppression.
This necessary documentation was critical to the United Nations presenting the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid for adoption in 1973. The crime of apartheid was defined as "inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them". Forced removals to compress people into racial categories was a unique feature of the system. The timing of the declaration links closely to the exposure of forced removals.
Desmond's work would later be taken up in a series of studies in the Report of the Surplus People's Project which provided an extended review and fresh detail into the 1980s. At his 70th birthday party I approached Cos Desmond and said he must record what he could about his life experience in writing the Discarded People. He laughed wryly at the idea of an autobiography and gave me a maybe ... he might just turn his mind to chronicling his work but he wasn't so sure of its significance. Was his life and contribution really so important?
Rewards
Anti-apartheid combatants have been rewarded but also diminished by the ending of apartheid. The reward was the freeing of our people from the bondage of apartheid, but they have also been diminished by the trivialisation of great work of resistance in words and deeds and the careless dealing with crimes against humanity. The concluding scene in Last Grave in Dimbaza is of row after row of the graves of children who died after this dumping. As one of a group of students in discussion after film audition of in 1973 which was inspired by Desmond's work we resolved that a version of the Nuremburg Trial would have to be held in the post-apartheid era. That was not to be.
To my knowledge none of the bureaucrats of death were named and shamed. Now Dimbaza is a township on far-flung hills about 66km outside of East London. This name and even that of Limehill has lost its sting. South Africa has grown and these areas are now integrated into the road system and have their local municipalities. The memory fades. What was all the fuss about? This diminution of these historic crimes and the slow pace of genuine transformation had its effect on Cos Desmond, his work and his feeling of self-worth. He had often had to stand alone not only by the action of the regime but also by the priests in the Bantustans who found his research inconvenient and irritating and the shying away of the Catholic Church (with the notable exception of Archbishop Hurley).
His friendship with members of Black Consciousness (he enjoyed the ready open respect of Steve Biko and other BC leaders) did not serve favour with the Congress Movement and the ANC. In the new South Africa he was further diminished along with the lighter weighting of the crimes he chronicled. Cosmas never stood on his dignity or pronounced on his worth. His references to himself were often diffident, self deprecatory and ironic. Recently I was intrigued to hear that Van Gogh wrote that he knew he was regarded by society as a non-entity, an eccentric and a curiosity. He responded, "All right, then ... I should one day like to show by my work what such an eccentric, such a nobody, has in his heart." This was not quite Cos who was loved and held in high regard by the circle he cared for but there is a certain line in parallel.
He criticised the compromises and social degradation in the country of his adoption as only one who loved it so deeply would do. Despite the black majority gaining electoral power, the long standing effects of forced removal policy remain and perpetuate the gaping and widening inequality in income, wealth and land characteristic of our society. What happened to the crime of inhumanity declared in response to these forced removals and the promise of redistribution? History will revise judgment of the life and worth of Cosmas Desmond.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Surprising insights on transformation from the Constitutional Court
What do we mean when we talk about transformation of the judiciary and of the legal culture? Do the members of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and the President believe in the substantive transformation of the legal culture and legal doctrine away from its colonially-inspired formalistic roots and away from the deeply embedded assumptions about free choice and equal bargaining power, (assumptions that promote the interests of the wealthy over those who are marginalised, disempowered or poor)?
Or do they use the term rather disingenuously to try and justify the appointment of essentially anti-poor, deeply formalistic judges whose judgments will disregard the interests of the marginalised and might even champion the interests of the rich and powerful? Moreover, which judges are best placed to take on the challenges of legal transformation — within the disciplining boundaries of the separation of powers doctrine — and which judges merely cling to notions of legal formalism to the detriment of the poor and marginalised and in resistance to the transformation of the legal culture?
These questions are all raised by the fascinating Constitutional Court judgment in the case of Maphango and Others v Aengus Lifestyle Properties (Pty) Ltd, which was handed down today.
The majority judgment, written by Justice Edwin Cameron (Moseneke DCJ, Froneman J, Nkabinde J, Skweyiya J, Yacoob J and Van der Westhuizen J concurring), grapples with the transformative effects of the Constitution and the Rental Housing Act on the relationship between landlords and tenants. The judgment also attempts to empower Rental Housing Tribunals, Tribunals created by the democratic legislature to protect the rental housing market while also addressing the unequal power relations between landlords and tenants.
The minority judgment, written by acting judge Ray Zondo, who has reportedly been earmarked for appointment to the Constitutional Court (Mogoeng CJ and Jafta J concurring), displays a surprisingly formalistic and pre-constitutional attitude to the law that applies between landlords and tenants. The minority judgment, relying on what seems to me to be misguided technical arguments, would have upheld the freedom of a landlord to cancel a lease, hike rents or have tenants evicted who cannot afford the steep hikes on rentals, regardless of how unfair the landlord might have acted (all because they supposedly failed to plead their case correctly). The minority judgment also seems rather disrespectful of the principle of separation of powers, which would have required them to engage seriously with the Rental Housing Act, a piece of legislation passed by our democratic Parliament.
The narrow question in this case seemed to turn on the question of when a landlord could legally cancel a lease and evict its tenants. But behind this formal question lurked the larger question of how the constitutional protection against arbitrary eviction (enshrined in section 26(3)), as well as the protections afforded to tenants by the Rental Housing Act, limited the discretion of the landlord to evict tenants or raise rents.
The applicants are tenants in Lowliebenhof, a ten-storey block of flats in Braamfontein, in the inner city of Johannesburg. The flats are their homes, and they live there in terms of various leases. The respondent landlord bought the building, upgraded it, and then wanted to increase the rent. To do so, it cancelled the tenants’ leases, but offered them new tenancies, on identical terms, though at rents of between 100% and 150% higher than the original rents. The tenants resisted and the landlord brought eviction proceedings. The original lease only allowed an annual rent increase of between 10% and 15% and the cancellation of the leases were aimed at circumventing these clauses.
The tenants put forward several arguments about why the landlord was not permitted to cancel the leases to raise the rents, based on the Constitution, contract law and public policy as well as on the interpretation of certain provisions of the Rental Housing Act. In the end the majority argued that it was unnecessary to develop the common law of contract to deal with this case. Instead it relied on the provisions in Rental Housing Act, which state that the landlord may not engage in “unfair practices” in its dealings with tenants. The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) had found that this phrase did not apply to a case like the present because an unfair practice contemplated in the relevant section was “incessant and systemic conduct”, not a once off termination of a contract aimed at hiking the rents.
The majority rejected this view and said that the Rental Housing Tribunal should have decided whether there was an unfair practice in this case. It pointed out that the Act provides that an unfair practice ruling “may include a determination regarding the amount of rental payable by a tenant” or may relate to any termination of the lease in respect of rental housing property “on grounds that do not constitute an unfair practice “.
The Act states that when a Tribunal makes a determination about the rent to be charged, it “must be made in a manner that is just and equitable to both tenant and landlord”. In addition, the rent determination must take “due cognisance” of “(a) prevailing economic conditions of supply and demand; (b) the need for a realistic return on investment for investors in rental housing; and (c) incentives, mechanisms, norms and standards and other measures introduced by the Minister in terms of the policy framework on rental housing…”.
The majority thus found that the Act demands that a ground of termination must always be specified in the lease, but even where it is specified, the Act requires that the ground of termination must not constitute an unfair practice. A Tribunal can decide whether such a termination constituted an unfair practice — regardless of what the lease might have stipulated. The effect of these provisions is that contractually negotiated lease provisions are subordinate to the Tribunal’s power to deal with them as unfair practices.
Given this expansive interpretation of the Rental Housing Act (an interpretation influenced by the provisions in the Constitution that prohibits arbitrary evictions from housing and guarantees for everyone the right of access to housing), the majority held over final determination of the appeal (which was originally based on the request to have the tenants evicted) to enable the landlord and tenants, if so advised, to bring suitable proceedings before the Tribunal.
The minority had no truck with this airy-fairy, bleeding heart, approach to the old fashioned area of contract law, which would have shown some deference to the democratically elected Parliament who passed the Rental Housing Act. Instead the minority would have preferred to rely on traditional contract law principles that would have allowed the landlord to cancel the lease, and to evict the tenants unless they agreed to a 150% hike in their rents. The minority argued that this case was never argued on the basis of the Rental Housing Act (although the SCA interpreted this Act narrowly in making a finding in favour of the landlord) and hence that the majority was wrong now to rely on this progressive piece of legislation to come to the assistance of the tenants.
The minority, seemingly channeling early twentieth Century British attitudes about the distinction between law, on the one hand, and values and morals, on the other, (as if there was an absolute distinction between these), argued that whether the landlord had engaged in unfair practices was not a legal question at all, but rather a value judgment requiring a judge to rely on moral values (not “law”). The Constitutional Court should therefore not have engaged with this issue at all, according to the minority.
Relying on the legal fiction that the parties “freely and voluntarily entered into leases with clauses that allowed either party to terminate them on notice and which did not say that the termination would not be permissible when effected for a certain purpose or when effected with a certain motive”, the minority would not have referred the matter back to the Rental Housing Tribunal (as the majority did).
Zondo AJ argued that:
As Justice Froneman (in a concurring judgment) pointed out, this denial that it was permissible for the Constitutional Court to consider the interpretation of the Rental Housing Act (which might protect the tenants) in this case, was difficult to square with the law and the facts of this case.
Both the High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal interpreted the Act and came to the conclusion that the respondent’s right to cancel the leases was unaffected by its provisions. The majority found “that interpretation to be wrong. That the interpretation of the Act lies at the heart of this matter, however pleaded, has never been doubted… I thus have considerable difficulty in understanding how this appeal can be determined in this Court without interpreting the Act. Whether the Act applies to leases in general is a matter of law. So is the question whether the cancellation.”
Moreover, justice Froneman also dispensed with the deeply conservative and formalistic argument about the distinction between morals and value judgments on the one hand and legal questions on the other:
The various judgments therefore illustrate a clear distinction between one set of judges who are engaged with the transformative project and with the transformation of legal culture and the interpretation and application of law (all done while displaying suitable respect for the elected branches of government who passed the Rental Housing Act) and another set of judges stuck in a colonial-inspired formalist mindset (with potentially adverse consequences for disempowered tenants) who rejected the notion that constitutional values and the morals underpinning them, have any role to play in the adjudicating process in this case.
For those of us studying court judgments and legal articles produced by a (still largely) conservative academia, this insight will perhaps not come as a surprise. The surprising aspect of the judgement arise from discovering which judges came out on which side of this profoundly important judicial and philosophical divide.
Source: Consitutionally Speaking
Or do they use the term rather disingenuously to try and justify the appointment of essentially anti-poor, deeply formalistic judges whose judgments will disregard the interests of the marginalised and might even champion the interests of the rich and powerful? Moreover, which judges are best placed to take on the challenges of legal transformation — within the disciplining boundaries of the separation of powers doctrine — and which judges merely cling to notions of legal formalism to the detriment of the poor and marginalised and in resistance to the transformation of the legal culture?
These questions are all raised by the fascinating Constitutional Court judgment in the case of Maphango and Others v Aengus Lifestyle Properties (Pty) Ltd, which was handed down today.
The majority judgment, written by Justice Edwin Cameron (Moseneke DCJ, Froneman J, Nkabinde J, Skweyiya J, Yacoob J and Van der Westhuizen J concurring), grapples with the transformative effects of the Constitution and the Rental Housing Act on the relationship between landlords and tenants. The judgment also attempts to empower Rental Housing Tribunals, Tribunals created by the democratic legislature to protect the rental housing market while also addressing the unequal power relations between landlords and tenants.
The minority judgment, written by acting judge Ray Zondo, who has reportedly been earmarked for appointment to the Constitutional Court (Mogoeng CJ and Jafta J concurring), displays a surprisingly formalistic and pre-constitutional attitude to the law that applies between landlords and tenants. The minority judgment, relying on what seems to me to be misguided technical arguments, would have upheld the freedom of a landlord to cancel a lease, hike rents or have tenants evicted who cannot afford the steep hikes on rentals, regardless of how unfair the landlord might have acted (all because they supposedly failed to plead their case correctly). The minority judgment also seems rather disrespectful of the principle of separation of powers, which would have required them to engage seriously with the Rental Housing Act, a piece of legislation passed by our democratic Parliament.
The narrow question in this case seemed to turn on the question of when a landlord could legally cancel a lease and evict its tenants. But behind this formal question lurked the larger question of how the constitutional protection against arbitrary eviction (enshrined in section 26(3)), as well as the protections afforded to tenants by the Rental Housing Act, limited the discretion of the landlord to evict tenants or raise rents.
The applicants are tenants in Lowliebenhof, a ten-storey block of flats in Braamfontein, in the inner city of Johannesburg. The flats are their homes, and they live there in terms of various leases. The respondent landlord bought the building, upgraded it, and then wanted to increase the rent. To do so, it cancelled the tenants’ leases, but offered them new tenancies, on identical terms, though at rents of between 100% and 150% higher than the original rents. The tenants resisted and the landlord brought eviction proceedings. The original lease only allowed an annual rent increase of between 10% and 15% and the cancellation of the leases were aimed at circumventing these clauses.
The tenants put forward several arguments about why the landlord was not permitted to cancel the leases to raise the rents, based on the Constitution, contract law and public policy as well as on the interpretation of certain provisions of the Rental Housing Act. In the end the majority argued that it was unnecessary to develop the common law of contract to deal with this case. Instead it relied on the provisions in Rental Housing Act, which state that the landlord may not engage in “unfair practices” in its dealings with tenants. The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) had found that this phrase did not apply to a case like the present because an unfair practice contemplated in the relevant section was “incessant and systemic conduct”, not a once off termination of a contract aimed at hiking the rents.
The majority rejected this view and said that the Rental Housing Tribunal should have decided whether there was an unfair practice in this case. It pointed out that the Act provides that an unfair practice ruling “may include a determination regarding the amount of rental payable by a tenant” or may relate to any termination of the lease in respect of rental housing property “on grounds that do not constitute an unfair practice “.
The Act states that when a Tribunal makes a determination about the rent to be charged, it “must be made in a manner that is just and equitable to both tenant and landlord”. In addition, the rent determination must take “due cognisance” of “(a) prevailing economic conditions of supply and demand; (b) the need for a realistic return on investment for investors in rental housing; and (c) incentives, mechanisms, norms and standards and other measures introduced by the Minister in terms of the policy framework on rental housing…”.
The majority thus found that the Act demands that a ground of termination must always be specified in the lease, but even where it is specified, the Act requires that the ground of termination must not constitute an unfair practice. A Tribunal can decide whether such a termination constituted an unfair practice — regardless of what the lease might have stipulated. The effect of these provisions is that contractually negotiated lease provisions are subordinate to the Tribunal’s power to deal with them as unfair practices.
It means that unfair practices are not determined by taking into account only the common law legal rights of a tenant or landlord, but by considering also their statutory interests. This makes it even clearer that the statutory scheme does not stop at contractually agreed provisions, and conduct in reliance on them. It goes beyond them. It subjects lease contracts and the exercise of contractual rights to scrutiny for unfairness in the light of both parties’ rights and interests.
Given this expansive interpretation of the Rental Housing Act (an interpretation influenced by the provisions in the Constitution that prohibits arbitrary evictions from housing and guarantees for everyone the right of access to housing), the majority held over final determination of the appeal (which was originally based on the request to have the tenants evicted) to enable the landlord and tenants, if so advised, to bring suitable proceedings before the Tribunal.
If the Tribunal should hold that the termination of the tenants’ leases was an unfair practice, and should the relief it grants include an order setting aside the termination, the eviction order granted against the applicants may have to be set aside. The parties must be granted leave to set the matter down in this Court for finalisation of the appeal on papers supplemented as they think fit.
The minority had no truck with this airy-fairy, bleeding heart, approach to the old fashioned area of contract law, which would have shown some deference to the democratically elected Parliament who passed the Rental Housing Act. Instead the minority would have preferred to rely on traditional contract law principles that would have allowed the landlord to cancel the lease, and to evict the tenants unless they agreed to a 150% hike in their rents. The minority argued that this case was never argued on the basis of the Rental Housing Act (although the SCA interpreted this Act narrowly in making a finding in favour of the landlord) and hence that the majority was wrong now to rely on this progressive piece of legislation to come to the assistance of the tenants.
The minority, seemingly channeling early twentieth Century British attitudes about the distinction between law, on the one hand, and values and morals, on the other, (as if there was an absolute distinction between these), argued that whether the landlord had engaged in unfair practices was not a legal question at all, but rather a value judgment requiring a judge to rely on moral values (not “law”). The Constitutional Court should therefore not have engaged with this issue at all, according to the minority.
Relying on the legal fiction that the parties “freely and voluntarily entered into leases with clauses that allowed either party to terminate them on notice and which did not say that the termination would not be permissible when effected for a certain purpose or when effected with a certain motive”, the minority would not have referred the matter back to the Rental Housing Tribunal (as the majority did).
Zondo AJ argued that:
the applicants may also have insisted on clauses that excluded certain reasons or motives for the termination of their leases. They did not do so and they have not put up any case to suggest that their bargaining position did not allow them to do so. The matter must then be decided upon the basis that, like the two tenants who included the unusual clauses that their leases could only be terminated at their discretion, the applicants, too, could have included a clause to the effect that their leases could not be terminated to enable the landlord to increase rents by amounts higher than those permitted by their leases. They failed to do so.
As Justice Froneman (in a concurring judgment) pointed out, this denial that it was permissible for the Constitutional Court to consider the interpretation of the Rental Housing Act (which might protect the tenants) in this case, was difficult to square with the law and the facts of this case.
Both the High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal interpreted the Act and came to the conclusion that the respondent’s right to cancel the leases was unaffected by its provisions. The majority found “that interpretation to be wrong. That the interpretation of the Act lies at the heart of this matter, however pleaded, has never been doubted… I thus have considerable difficulty in understanding how this appeal can be determined in this Court without interpreting the Act. Whether the Act applies to leases in general is a matter of law. So is the question whether the cancellation.”
Moreover, justice Froneman also dispensed with the deeply conservative and formalistic argument about the distinction between morals and value judgments on the one hand and legal questions on the other:
It is common cause that section 26 of the Constitution is implicated. Interpretation of what constitutes an “unfair practice” under the Act in light of this is thus inevitably a constitutional issue, a matter of law. Interpretation and application of the law under the Constitution is never a mechanical application of rules; it always involves a value judgment. Our Constitution and law are infused with moral values. The days of denying the value-laden content of law are long gone.
The various judgments therefore illustrate a clear distinction between one set of judges who are engaged with the transformative project and with the transformation of legal culture and the interpretation and application of law (all done while displaying suitable respect for the elected branches of government who passed the Rental Housing Act) and another set of judges stuck in a colonial-inspired formalist mindset (with potentially adverse consequences for disempowered tenants) who rejected the notion that constitutional values and the morals underpinning them, have any role to play in the adjudicating process in this case.
For those of us studying court judgments and legal articles produced by a (still largely) conservative academia, this insight will perhaps not come as a surprise. The surprising aspect of the judgement arise from discovering which judges came out on which side of this profoundly important judicial and philosophical divide.
Source: Consitutionally Speaking
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Obama administration brokers pro-bank mortgage fraud settlement
The Obama administration announced on Thursday a settlement between five major banks and the federal and state governments over massive fraud relating to home foreclosures. The terms of the agreement are entirely favorable to the banks, while doing little or nothing to aid the millions of people who have been devastated by the collapse of the US housing market.
Government officials reported that the final deal is valued at about $25 billion spread out over a multi-year period. This is a paltry sum in relationship to the extent of the housing crisis, the profits of the banks and the scale of corporate criminality. However, only a small portion of this would come from direct financial sanctions on the banks.
Forty-nine of the 50 US states signed on to the settlement with the five banks—JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Bank of America (which bought mortgage firm Countrywide), and Ally Financial Inc. (formerly GMAC, the financial arm of General Motors). These five banks involved had net profits of $46 billion last year alone.
In exchange for the settlement, the banks will be released from liability for fraudulent and likely criminal activities. This includes “robo-signing,” in which the banks had employees sign hundreds of thousands of legal foreclosure documents without any knowledge of the underlying mortgages. Banks were also involved in forging documents. The true extent of the illegal operations is not known, and keeping this information secret is one of the aims of the settlement.
Evidence of these actions first emerged in 2010. States launched investigations in response, and the Obama administration stepped in to package these investigations and lead them to a settlement favorable to the banks. Over the past several weeks, the administration has placed heavy pressure on several state holdouts to sign on to the deal.
Of particular importance for Bank of America is the fact that the settlement will end a lawsuit filed by Nevada and Arizona over allegations that the bank has been deceiving homeowners seeking to participate in a refinancing program.
Only about $5 billion of the settlement will take the form of direct payments, including, according to government officials, a payment of about $2,000 to some individuals who had their homes foreclosed between September 2008 and December 2011.
Despite the evidence of fraud, no one will get their home back. Since 2007, there have been some 4 million home foreclosures.
About $17 billion will come from the modification of existing loans, spaced over a three-year time period. Details are still emerging, but it is evident that decisions on what loans to modify will be left to the banks themselves. Many of the loans have already been packaged off and sold to investors (“securitized”), thus minimizing the impact on bank assets.
The $17 billion in loan modifications is a tiny fraction of the total negative equity (the value of loans in relation to the value of the underling houses) of $700 billion to $750 billion. The deal will affect less than 10 percent of US homeowners who are “under water.”
An additional $3 billion is to come in the form of mortgage refinancing, again left to the discretion of the banks.
The banks will be tasked with self-reporting their actions. The industry and the state attorneys general selected North Carolina banking commissioner Joseph Smith to “oversee” the agreement and determine whether the banks are in compliance based on the bank reports. Smith is a former bank lawyer with close ties to the industry.
Markets reacted enthusiastically to the terms and bank stocks rose Thursday. The banks involved already have set aside funds that cover the amount of the agreement. Indeed, since many banks have written down the value of their existing loans, the agreement could have a positive net impact on their balance sheets.
“I wouldn’t say it’s a panacea for the housing industry,” commented Barclays analyst Jason Goldberg, “but it is good for the banks to get this behind them.”
Perversely, the deal will likely lead to a surge in home foreclosures, with banks now confident that they can proceed with business as usual. Bloomberg News commented, “Lenders slowed the pace of foreclosures as they negotiated with attorneys general in all 50 states for more than a year… With today’s agreement, banks are likely to resume property seizures.” Increased foreclosures will also lead to a further fall in home prices.
In hailing the deal, Obama said that it would “speed relief to the hardest-hit homeowners, end some of the most abusive practices of the mortgage industry, and begin to turn the page on an era of recklessness that has left so much damage in its wake.”
In fact, as with every component of the administration’s policy, the agreement will leave things entirely as they are, while giving a free pass to corporate criminals responsible for the economic crisis.
Source: World Socialist Web Site
Government officials reported that the final deal is valued at about $25 billion spread out over a multi-year period. This is a paltry sum in relationship to the extent of the housing crisis, the profits of the banks and the scale of corporate criminality. However, only a small portion of this would come from direct financial sanctions on the banks.
Forty-nine of the 50 US states signed on to the settlement with the five banks—JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Bank of America (which bought mortgage firm Countrywide), and Ally Financial Inc. (formerly GMAC, the financial arm of General Motors). These five banks involved had net profits of $46 billion last year alone.
In exchange for the settlement, the banks will be released from liability for fraudulent and likely criminal activities. This includes “robo-signing,” in which the banks had employees sign hundreds of thousands of legal foreclosure documents without any knowledge of the underlying mortgages. Banks were also involved in forging documents. The true extent of the illegal operations is not known, and keeping this information secret is one of the aims of the settlement.
Evidence of these actions first emerged in 2010. States launched investigations in response, and the Obama administration stepped in to package these investigations and lead them to a settlement favorable to the banks. Over the past several weeks, the administration has placed heavy pressure on several state holdouts to sign on to the deal.
Of particular importance for Bank of America is the fact that the settlement will end a lawsuit filed by Nevada and Arizona over allegations that the bank has been deceiving homeowners seeking to participate in a refinancing program.
Only about $5 billion of the settlement will take the form of direct payments, including, according to government officials, a payment of about $2,000 to some individuals who had their homes foreclosed between September 2008 and December 2011.
Despite the evidence of fraud, no one will get their home back. Since 2007, there have been some 4 million home foreclosures.
About $17 billion will come from the modification of existing loans, spaced over a three-year time period. Details are still emerging, but it is evident that decisions on what loans to modify will be left to the banks themselves. Many of the loans have already been packaged off and sold to investors (“securitized”), thus minimizing the impact on bank assets.
The $17 billion in loan modifications is a tiny fraction of the total negative equity (the value of loans in relation to the value of the underling houses) of $700 billion to $750 billion. The deal will affect less than 10 percent of US homeowners who are “under water.”
An additional $3 billion is to come in the form of mortgage refinancing, again left to the discretion of the banks.
The banks will be tasked with self-reporting their actions. The industry and the state attorneys general selected North Carolina banking commissioner Joseph Smith to “oversee” the agreement and determine whether the banks are in compliance based on the bank reports. Smith is a former bank lawyer with close ties to the industry.
Markets reacted enthusiastically to the terms and bank stocks rose Thursday. The banks involved already have set aside funds that cover the amount of the agreement. Indeed, since many banks have written down the value of their existing loans, the agreement could have a positive net impact on their balance sheets.
“I wouldn’t say it’s a panacea for the housing industry,” commented Barclays analyst Jason Goldberg, “but it is good for the banks to get this behind them.”
Perversely, the deal will likely lead to a surge in home foreclosures, with banks now confident that they can proceed with business as usual. Bloomberg News commented, “Lenders slowed the pace of foreclosures as they negotiated with attorneys general in all 50 states for more than a year… With today’s agreement, banks are likely to resume property seizures.” Increased foreclosures will also lead to a further fall in home prices.
In hailing the deal, Obama said that it would “speed relief to the hardest-hit homeowners, end some of the most abusive practices of the mortgage industry, and begin to turn the page on an era of recklessness that has left so much damage in its wake.”
In fact, as with every component of the administration’s policy, the agreement will leave things entirely as they are, while giving a free pass to corporate criminals responsible for the economic crisis.
Source: World Socialist Web Site
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Foreclosures (2012 Robosigning and Foreclosure Abuse Settlement)
The end of the housing boom in 2006 set in motion a vicious circle that led to disaster for millions of homeowners whose property has been seized or threatened, and for the lenders themselves, who have had to write off tens of billions in losses. Foreclosures helped accelerate the fall of property values, helping to spur more foreclosures. The losses they created brought the financial system to the brink of collapse in the fall of 2008. The steep recession that followed led to even greater homeowner delinquencies, as homeowners who lost their jobs often lost their homes. Tens of millions of others found themselves in homes worth less than their mortgages, unable to sell or refinance. All told, roughly four million families lost their homes to foreclosure between the beginning of 2007 and early 2012.
In late 2010, evidenced emerged that the foreclosure process may have been deeply tainted by sloppy recordkeeping, cut corners and possible fraud, epitomized by high-profile cases of “robo-signing’' — cases in which foreclosures took place based on forged or unreviewed documents. More than 40 states attorneys general began investigations into foreclosure abuse, and worries about the legal fallout from the scandal led to a sharp slowdown in the rate of foreclosure filings and of repossessions in 2011. In February 2012, government authorities and five of the nation’s biggest banks agreed to a $26 billion settlement that could provide relief to nearly two million current and former American homeowners.
Despite the billions earmarked in the accord, the aid will help a relatively small portion of the millions of borrowers who are delinquent and facing foreclosure. The success could depend in part on how effectively the program is carried out; earlier efforts by Washington aimed at troubled borrowers helped far fewer than had been expected. Still, the agreement is the broadest effort yet to help borrowers owing more than their houses are worth, with roughly one million expected to have their mortgage debt reduced by lenders or able to refinance their homes at lower rates. Another 750,000 people who lost their homes to foreclosure from September 2008 to the end of 2011 will receive checks for about $2,000. And because of a complicated formula being used to distribute the money, federal officials say the ultimate benefits provided to homeowners could equal a larger sum — $45 billion in the event all 14 major servicers participate. The aid is to be distributed over three years, but there are incentives for banks to provide the money in the next 12 months. In addition to disagreements over the total amount, negotiations had been held up over the question of how much latitude authorities would have in pursuing investigations into mortgage abuses. In the agreement’s expected final form, the releases are mostly limited to the foreclosure process, like the eviction of homeowners after only a cursory examination of documents.
The prosecutors and regulators still have the right to investigate other elements that contributed to the housing bubble, like the assembly of risky mortgages into securities that were sold to investors and later soured, as well as insurance and tax fraud. Officials will also be able to pursue any allegations of criminal wrongdoing. The banks involved in the settlement in February were Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Ally Financial.
In a sign of how pervasive the problems were, an audit by San Francisco county officials of about 400 recent foreclosures there determined that almost all involved either legal violations or suspicious documentation. The courts have also become more aggressive about challenging foreclosures. In January 2011, Massachusetts’s top court voided the seizure of two homes by Wells Fargo & Company and US Bancorp after the banks failed to show that they held the mortgages at the time of the foreclosures, and courts in several states are considering similar cases.
Background
The root of today’s problems goes back to the boom years, when home prices were soaring and banks pursued profit while paying less attention to the business of mortgage servicing, or collecting and processing monthly payments from homeowners.
Banks spent billions of dollars in the good times to build vast mortgage machines that made new loans, bundled them into securities and sold those investments worldwide. Lowly servicing became an afterthought. When borrowers began to default in droves, banks found themselves in a never-ending game of catch-up, unable to devote enough manpower to modify, or ease the terms of, loans to millions of customers on the verge of losing their homes. Now banks are ill-equipped to dealwith the foreclosure process.
The revelations about the sloppy paperwork emboldened homeowners and law enforcement officials in many states to challenge notarizations — including those by so-called robo-signers,’ employees who approved hundreds of documents in a day — and to question whether lenders rightfully hold the notes underlying foreclosed properties. Evictions were expected to slow sharply — good news for many homeowners. But at the same time, the freezes further disrupted an already shaky housing market.
As banks’ foreclosure practices have come under the microscope, problems with notarizations on mortgage assignments have emerged. These documents transfer the ownership of the underlying note from one institution to another and are required for foreclosures to proceed. In some cases, the notarizations predated the preparation of the legal documents, suggesting that signatures were not reviewed by a notary. Other notarizations took place in offices far away from where the documents were signed, indicating that the notaries might not have witnessed the signings as the law required.
The swelling outcry over fast-and-loose foreclosures thrust the Obama administration back into the uncomfortable position of sheltering the banking industry from the demands of an angry public. While Mr. Obama did block a law passed by Congress that was seen as unintentionally making it easier to speed up foreclosures, his aides spoke out against calls from many Democrats for a national freeze on evictions, fearing that a moratorium could hurt still-shaky banks.
The Three Waves
Overall, there have been three distinct waves in foreclosures. The initial spike involved speculators who gave up property because of plunging real estate prices, and the secondary shock centered on borrowers whose introductory interest rates expired and were reset higher. The third wave represents standard mortgages, known as prime, written to people who had decent credit ratings, but who have lost their jobs in the economic downturn and are facing the loss of homes they had considered safe.
Those sliding into foreclosure today are more likely to be modest borrowers whose loans fit their income than the consumers of exotically lenient mortgages that formerly typified the crisis. Economy.com said in 2009 that it expected that 60 percent of the mortgage defaults that year would be set off primarily by unemployment, up from 29 percent in 2008.
The slowdown in evictions may give such borrowers time to accumulate some capital or more leverage in settlement talks with their lender. Some analysts said that could conceivably help the housing market get back on its feet, by ending the undermining effect of a steady stream of foreclose houses going up for sale. Others, however, worried that blocking sales in an already weak market would drive prices down even further, continuing a spiral that has been deeply destructive to banks and communities.
A Mess Years in the Making
Interviews with bank employees, executives and federal regulators suggest that this mess was years in the making and came as little surprise to industry insiders and government officials.
Almost overnight, what had been a factorylike business that relied on workers with high school educations to process monthly payments needed to come up with a custom-made operation that could solve the problems of individual homeowners.
To make matters worse, the banks had few financial incentives to invest in their servicing operations, several former executives said. A mortgage generates an annual fee equal to only about 0.25 percent of the loan’s total value, or about $500 a year on a typical $200,000 mortgage. That revenue evaporates once a loan becomes delinquent, while the cost of a foreclosure can easily reach $2,500 and devour the meager profits generated from handling healthy loans.
And even when banks did begin hiring to deal with the avalanche of defaults, they often turned to workers with minimal qualifications or work experience, employees a former JPMorgan executive characterized as the “Burger King kids,” walk-in hires who often barely knew what a mortgage was.
At Citigroup and GMAC, dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s on home foreclosures was outsourced to frazzled workers who sometimes tossed the paperwork into the garbage. And at Litton Loan Servicing, an arm of Goldman Sachs, employees processed foreclosure documents so quickly that they barely had time to see what they were signing.
San Francisco Foreclosure Audit
Anecdotal evidence indicating foreclosure abuse has been plentiful since the mortgage boom turned to bust in 2008. But the detailed and comprehensive nature of the San Francisco findings released in February 2012 suggest how pervasive foreclosure irregularities may be across the nation.
The improprieties range from the basic — a failure to warn borrowers that they were in default on their loans as required by law — to the arcane. For example, transfers of many loans in the foreclosure files were made by entities that had no right to assign them and institutions took back properties in auctions even though they had not proved ownership.
Commissioned by Phil Ting, the San Francisco assessor-recorder, the report examined files of properties subject to foreclosure sales in the county from January 2009 to November 2011. About 84 percent of the files contained what appear to be clear violations of law, it said, and fully two-thirds had at least four violations or irregularities.
In a significant number of cases — 85 percent — documents recording the transfer of a defaulted property to a new trustee were not filed properly or on time, the report found. And in 45 percent of the foreclosures, properties were sold at auction to entities improperly claiming to be the beneficiary of the deeds of trust. In other words, the report said, “a ‘stranger’ to the deed of trust,” gained ownership of the property; as a result, the sale may be invalid, it said.
In 6 percent of cases, the same deed of trust to a property was assigned to two or more different entities, raising questions about which of them actually had the right to foreclose. Many of the foreclosures that were scrutinized showed gaps in the chain of title, the report said, indicating that written transfers from the original owner to the entity currently claiming to own the deed of trust have disappeared.
The audit also raises serious questions about the accuracy of information recorded in the Mortgage Electronic Registry System, or MERS, which was set up in 1995 by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and major lenders. The report found that 58 percent of loans listed in the MERS database showed different owners than were reflected in other public documents like those filed with the county recorder’s office.
The report contradicted the contentions of many banks that foreclosure improprieties did little harm because the borrowers were behind on their mortgages and should have been evicted anyway. “We can deduce from the public evidence,” the report noted, “that there are indeed legitimate victims in the mortgage crisis. Whether these homeowners are systematically being deprived of legal safeguards and due process rights is an important question.”
Source: New York Times
In late 2010, evidenced emerged that the foreclosure process may have been deeply tainted by sloppy recordkeeping, cut corners and possible fraud, epitomized by high-profile cases of “robo-signing’' — cases in which foreclosures took place based on forged or unreviewed documents. More than 40 states attorneys general began investigations into foreclosure abuse, and worries about the legal fallout from the scandal led to a sharp slowdown in the rate of foreclosure filings and of repossessions in 2011. In February 2012, government authorities and five of the nation’s biggest banks agreed to a $26 billion settlement that could provide relief to nearly two million current and former American homeowners.
Despite the billions earmarked in the accord, the aid will help a relatively small portion of the millions of borrowers who are delinquent and facing foreclosure. The success could depend in part on how effectively the program is carried out; earlier efforts by Washington aimed at troubled borrowers helped far fewer than had been expected. Still, the agreement is the broadest effort yet to help borrowers owing more than their houses are worth, with roughly one million expected to have their mortgage debt reduced by lenders or able to refinance their homes at lower rates. Another 750,000 people who lost their homes to foreclosure from September 2008 to the end of 2011 will receive checks for about $2,000. And because of a complicated formula being used to distribute the money, federal officials say the ultimate benefits provided to homeowners could equal a larger sum — $45 billion in the event all 14 major servicers participate. The aid is to be distributed over three years, but there are incentives for banks to provide the money in the next 12 months. In addition to disagreements over the total amount, negotiations had been held up over the question of how much latitude authorities would have in pursuing investigations into mortgage abuses. In the agreement’s expected final form, the releases are mostly limited to the foreclosure process, like the eviction of homeowners after only a cursory examination of documents.
The prosecutors and regulators still have the right to investigate other elements that contributed to the housing bubble, like the assembly of risky mortgages into securities that were sold to investors and later soured, as well as insurance and tax fraud. Officials will also be able to pursue any allegations of criminal wrongdoing. The banks involved in the settlement in February were Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Ally Financial.
In a sign of how pervasive the problems were, an audit by San Francisco county officials of about 400 recent foreclosures there determined that almost all involved either legal violations or suspicious documentation. The courts have also become more aggressive about challenging foreclosures. In January 2011, Massachusetts’s top court voided the seizure of two homes by Wells Fargo & Company and US Bancorp after the banks failed to show that they held the mortgages at the time of the foreclosures, and courts in several states are considering similar cases.
Background
The root of today’s problems goes back to the boom years, when home prices were soaring and banks pursued profit while paying less attention to the business of mortgage servicing, or collecting and processing monthly payments from homeowners.
Banks spent billions of dollars in the good times to build vast mortgage machines that made new loans, bundled them into securities and sold those investments worldwide. Lowly servicing became an afterthought. When borrowers began to default in droves, banks found themselves in a never-ending game of catch-up, unable to devote enough manpower to modify, or ease the terms of, loans to millions of customers on the verge of losing their homes. Now banks are ill-equipped to dealwith the foreclosure process.
The revelations about the sloppy paperwork emboldened homeowners and law enforcement officials in many states to challenge notarizations — including those by so-called robo-signers,’ employees who approved hundreds of documents in a day — and to question whether lenders rightfully hold the notes underlying foreclosed properties. Evictions were expected to slow sharply — good news for many homeowners. But at the same time, the freezes further disrupted an already shaky housing market.
As banks’ foreclosure practices have come under the microscope, problems with notarizations on mortgage assignments have emerged. These documents transfer the ownership of the underlying note from one institution to another and are required for foreclosures to proceed. In some cases, the notarizations predated the preparation of the legal documents, suggesting that signatures were not reviewed by a notary. Other notarizations took place in offices far away from where the documents were signed, indicating that the notaries might not have witnessed the signings as the law required.
The swelling outcry over fast-and-loose foreclosures thrust the Obama administration back into the uncomfortable position of sheltering the banking industry from the demands of an angry public. While Mr. Obama did block a law passed by Congress that was seen as unintentionally making it easier to speed up foreclosures, his aides spoke out against calls from many Democrats for a national freeze on evictions, fearing that a moratorium could hurt still-shaky banks.
The Three Waves
Overall, there have been three distinct waves in foreclosures. The initial spike involved speculators who gave up property because of plunging real estate prices, and the secondary shock centered on borrowers whose introductory interest rates expired and were reset higher. The third wave represents standard mortgages, known as prime, written to people who had decent credit ratings, but who have lost their jobs in the economic downturn and are facing the loss of homes they had considered safe.
Those sliding into foreclosure today are more likely to be modest borrowers whose loans fit their income than the consumers of exotically lenient mortgages that formerly typified the crisis. Economy.com said in 2009 that it expected that 60 percent of the mortgage defaults that year would be set off primarily by unemployment, up from 29 percent in 2008.
The slowdown in evictions may give such borrowers time to accumulate some capital or more leverage in settlement talks with their lender. Some analysts said that could conceivably help the housing market get back on its feet, by ending the undermining effect of a steady stream of foreclose houses going up for sale. Others, however, worried that blocking sales in an already weak market would drive prices down even further, continuing a spiral that has been deeply destructive to banks and communities.
A Mess Years in the Making
Interviews with bank employees, executives and federal regulators suggest that this mess was years in the making and came as little surprise to industry insiders and government officials.
Almost overnight, what had been a factorylike business that relied on workers with high school educations to process monthly payments needed to come up with a custom-made operation that could solve the problems of individual homeowners.
To make matters worse, the banks had few financial incentives to invest in their servicing operations, several former executives said. A mortgage generates an annual fee equal to only about 0.25 percent of the loan’s total value, or about $500 a year on a typical $200,000 mortgage. That revenue evaporates once a loan becomes delinquent, while the cost of a foreclosure can easily reach $2,500 and devour the meager profits generated from handling healthy loans.
And even when banks did begin hiring to deal with the avalanche of defaults, they often turned to workers with minimal qualifications or work experience, employees a former JPMorgan executive characterized as the “Burger King kids,” walk-in hires who often barely knew what a mortgage was.
At Citigroup and GMAC, dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s on home foreclosures was outsourced to frazzled workers who sometimes tossed the paperwork into the garbage. And at Litton Loan Servicing, an arm of Goldman Sachs, employees processed foreclosure documents so quickly that they barely had time to see what they were signing.
San Francisco Foreclosure Audit
Anecdotal evidence indicating foreclosure abuse has been plentiful since the mortgage boom turned to bust in 2008. But the detailed and comprehensive nature of the San Francisco findings released in February 2012 suggest how pervasive foreclosure irregularities may be across the nation.
The improprieties range from the basic — a failure to warn borrowers that they were in default on their loans as required by law — to the arcane. For example, transfers of many loans in the foreclosure files were made by entities that had no right to assign them and institutions took back properties in auctions even though they had not proved ownership.
Commissioned by Phil Ting, the San Francisco assessor-recorder, the report examined files of properties subject to foreclosure sales in the county from January 2009 to November 2011. About 84 percent of the files contained what appear to be clear violations of law, it said, and fully two-thirds had at least four violations or irregularities.
In a significant number of cases — 85 percent — documents recording the transfer of a defaulted property to a new trustee were not filed properly or on time, the report found. And in 45 percent of the foreclosures, properties were sold at auction to entities improperly claiming to be the beneficiary of the deeds of trust. In other words, the report said, “a ‘stranger’ to the deed of trust,” gained ownership of the property; as a result, the sale may be invalid, it said.
In 6 percent of cases, the same deed of trust to a property was assigned to two or more different entities, raising questions about which of them actually had the right to foreclose. Many of the foreclosures that were scrutinized showed gaps in the chain of title, the report said, indicating that written transfers from the original owner to the entity currently claiming to own the deed of trust have disappeared.
The audit also raises serious questions about the accuracy of information recorded in the Mortgage Electronic Registry System, or MERS, which was set up in 1995 by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and major lenders. The report found that 58 percent of loans listed in the MERS database showed different owners than were reflected in other public documents like those filed with the county recorder’s office.
The report contradicted the contentions of many banks that foreclosure improprieties did little harm because the borrowers were behind on their mortgages and should have been evicted anyway. “We can deduce from the public evidence,” the report noted, “that there are indeed legitimate victims in the mortgage crisis. Whether these homeowners are systematically being deprived of legal safeguards and due process rights is an important question.”
Source: New York Times
Friday, February 10, 2012
Obama administration brokers pro-bank mortgage fraud settlement
The Obama administration announced on Thursday a settlement between five major banks and the federal and state governments over massive fraud relating to home foreclosures. The terms of the agreement are entirely favorable to the banks, while doing little or nothing to aid the millions of people who have been devastated by the collapse of the US housing market.
Government officials reported that the final deal is valued at about $25 billion spread out over a multi-year period. This is a paltry sum in relationship to the extent of the housing crisis, the profits of the banks and the scale of corporate criminality. However, only a small portion of this would come from direct financial sanctions on the banks. Forty-nine of the 50 US states signed on to the settlement with the five banks—JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Bank of America (which bought mortgage firm Countrywide), and Ally Financial Inc. (formerly GMAC, the financial arm of General Motors). These five banks involved had net profits of $46 billion last year alone. In exchange for the settlement, the banks will be released from liability for fraudulent and likely criminal activities. This includes “robo-signing,” in which the banks had employees sign hundreds of thousands of legal foreclosure documents without any knowledge of the underlying mortgages. Banks were also involved in forging documents. The true extent of the illegal operations is not known, and keeping this information secret is one of the aims of the settlement.
Evidence of these actions first emerged in 2010. States launched investigations in response, and the Obama administration stepped in to package these investigations and lead them to a settlement favorable to the banks. Over the past several weeks, the administration has placed heavy pressure on several state holdouts to sign on to the deal. Of particular importance for Bank of America is the fact that the settlement will end a lawsuit filed by Nevada and Arizona over allegations that the bank has been deceiving homeowners seeking to participate in a refinancing program. Only about $5 billion of the settlement will take the form of direct payments, including, according to government officials, a payment of about $2,000 to some individuals who had their homes foreclosed between September 2008 and December 2011.
Despite the evidence of fraud, no one will get their home back. Since 2007, there have been some 4 million home foreclosures. About $17 billion will come from the modification of existing loans, spaced over a three-year time period. Details are still emerging, but it is evident that decisions on what loans to modify will be left to the banks themselves. Many of the loans have already been packaged off and sold to investors (“securitized”), thus minimizing the impact on bank assets. The $17 billion in loan modifications is a tiny fraction of the total negative equity (the value of loans in relation to the value of the underling houses) of $700 billion to $750 billion. The deal will affect less than 10 percent of US homeowners who are “under water.” An additional $3 billion is to come in the form of mortgage refinancing, again left to the discretion of the banks.
The banks will be tasked with self-reporting their actions. The industry and the state attorneys general selected North Carolina banking commissioner Joseph Smith to “oversee” the agreement and determine whether the banks are in compliance based on the bank reports. Smith is a former bank lawyer with close ties to the industry.
Markets reacted enthusiastically to the terms and bank stocks rose Thursday. The banks involved already have set aside funds that cover the amount of the agreement. Indeed, since many banks have written down the value of their existing loans, the agreement could have a positive net impact on their balance sheets. “I wouldn’t say it’s a panacea for the housing industry,” commented Barclays analyst Jason Goldberg, “but it is good for the banks to get this behind them.”
Perversely, the deal will likely lead to a surge in home foreclosures, with banks now confident that they can proceed with business as usual. Bloomberg News commented, “Lenders slowed the pace of foreclosures as they negotiated with attorneys general in all 50 states for more than a year… With today’s agreement, banks are likely to resume property seizures.” Increased foreclosures will also lead to a further fall in home prices.
In hailing the deal, Obama said that it would “speed relief to the hardest-hit homeowners, end some of the most abusive practices of the mortgage industry, and begin to turn the page on an era of recklessness that has left so much damage in its wake.” In fact, as with every component of the administration’s policy, the agreement will leave things entirely as they are, while giving a free pass to corporate criminals responsible for the economic crisis.
Source: World Socialist Web Site
Government officials reported that the final deal is valued at about $25 billion spread out over a multi-year period. This is a paltry sum in relationship to the extent of the housing crisis, the profits of the banks and the scale of corporate criminality. However, only a small portion of this would come from direct financial sanctions on the banks. Forty-nine of the 50 US states signed on to the settlement with the five banks—JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Bank of America (which bought mortgage firm Countrywide), and Ally Financial Inc. (formerly GMAC, the financial arm of General Motors). These five banks involved had net profits of $46 billion last year alone. In exchange for the settlement, the banks will be released from liability for fraudulent and likely criminal activities. This includes “robo-signing,” in which the banks had employees sign hundreds of thousands of legal foreclosure documents without any knowledge of the underlying mortgages. Banks were also involved in forging documents. The true extent of the illegal operations is not known, and keeping this information secret is one of the aims of the settlement.
Evidence of these actions first emerged in 2010. States launched investigations in response, and the Obama administration stepped in to package these investigations and lead them to a settlement favorable to the banks. Over the past several weeks, the administration has placed heavy pressure on several state holdouts to sign on to the deal. Of particular importance for Bank of America is the fact that the settlement will end a lawsuit filed by Nevada and Arizona over allegations that the bank has been deceiving homeowners seeking to participate in a refinancing program. Only about $5 billion of the settlement will take the form of direct payments, including, according to government officials, a payment of about $2,000 to some individuals who had their homes foreclosed between September 2008 and December 2011.
Despite the evidence of fraud, no one will get their home back. Since 2007, there have been some 4 million home foreclosures. About $17 billion will come from the modification of existing loans, spaced over a three-year time period. Details are still emerging, but it is evident that decisions on what loans to modify will be left to the banks themselves. Many of the loans have already been packaged off and sold to investors (“securitized”), thus minimizing the impact on bank assets. The $17 billion in loan modifications is a tiny fraction of the total negative equity (the value of loans in relation to the value of the underling houses) of $700 billion to $750 billion. The deal will affect less than 10 percent of US homeowners who are “under water.” An additional $3 billion is to come in the form of mortgage refinancing, again left to the discretion of the banks.
The banks will be tasked with self-reporting their actions. The industry and the state attorneys general selected North Carolina banking commissioner Joseph Smith to “oversee” the agreement and determine whether the banks are in compliance based on the bank reports. Smith is a former bank lawyer with close ties to the industry.
Markets reacted enthusiastically to the terms and bank stocks rose Thursday. The banks involved already have set aside funds that cover the amount of the agreement. Indeed, since many banks have written down the value of their existing loans, the agreement could have a positive net impact on their balance sheets. “I wouldn’t say it’s a panacea for the housing industry,” commented Barclays analyst Jason Goldberg, “but it is good for the banks to get this behind them.”
Perversely, the deal will likely lead to a surge in home foreclosures, with banks now confident that they can proceed with business as usual. Bloomberg News commented, “Lenders slowed the pace of foreclosures as they negotiated with attorneys general in all 50 states for more than a year… With today’s agreement, banks are likely to resume property seizures.” Increased foreclosures will also lead to a further fall in home prices.
In hailing the deal, Obama said that it would “speed relief to the hardest-hit homeowners, end some of the most abusive practices of the mortgage industry, and begin to turn the page on an era of recklessness that has left so much damage in its wake.” In fact, as with every component of the administration’s policy, the agreement will leave things entirely as they are, while giving a free pass to corporate criminals responsible for the economic crisis.
Source: World Socialist Web Site
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Push to Avert Foreclosures Hits Court Logjam
New York has been among the most aggressive states in trying to protect homeowners from foreclosure, granting new legal protections and turning courts across the state into teeming negotiation centers working to keep people in their homes. But four years into the foreclosure crisis, the state’s courts are largely at a stalemate, facing an estimated 100,000 foreclosure cases — a record number — with tens of thousands more expected. Courts statewide have been mired in often hopeless cases involving loans that have left bus drivers and grocery clerks, among others, owing $700,000 or more on homes that have fallen in value.
As the Obama administration works on new mortgage-relief programs, lawyers and officials say New York’s experience shows the limits of a state’s ability to cope with the national foreclosure morass. “We are a shining example of somebody’s best efforts falling short through no fault of our own,” said Paul Lewis, a senior official in the New York court system who has been helping coordinate foreclosure cases since the start of the crisis.
Special funding to provide lawyers for homeowners has largely dried up, with more than 75 percent of New York City residents going into foreclosure court without a lawyer, state data shows. The state’s judges have grown increasingly vocal about what some of them have called “outrageous” conduct, “patently false” statements and “inexcusable” actions by lenders’ lawyers.
The hearings that form the core of New York’s approach — special settlement conferences, which are required to try to modify mortgages to make them affordable — have become comic exercises slowed by endless paperwork, requests for additional information and the mysterious loss of documents. During a day of more than 30 of the conferences in State Supreme Court in Queens last week, homeowners with screaming children and wheelchair-bound grandmothers appeared befuddled by the paper chase. Some of the cases had already been taken up in the settlement conferences as many as nine times, over many months, only to be delayed each time until yet another meeting. “We don’t have the full file,” said a bank’s lawyer during one of the conferences. “Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to review the documents,” said another lender’s lawyer in another case a few minutes later. “We should have received it, but it didn’t get into our system,” said a third. A fourth lawyer conceded that the homeowners had mailed information to the bank, but said that “only fax and e-mail” were acceptable.
On several occasions the court official who conducted the conferences that day, Tracy Catapano-Fox, mentioned to homeowners the system’s Catch-22: as they rush to gather newly demanded tax and bank records, information they supplied earlier to address other questions grows too old to be useful.
Completed applications turn back into incomplete ones, leading to more delays to collect more information while the newest information, in turn, grows stale. Ms. Catapano-Fox told one homeowner after another of the trap that awaited them. “I have psychic powers,” she said with a sympathetic grimace, having conducted hundreds of the conferences. “There’s no question that the next time we come in here, they will claim that the documents are stale.”
In the hallway after the latest of what he said had been a dozen monthly appearances in his yearlong foreclosure case, Juan Adon, a Jamaica homeowner, said he was baffled. “It doesn’t make any sense,” he said. Ms. Catapano-Fox had dryly mentioned during his hearing that there was a notation in his file indicating that the bank’s representative had said in August that it needed no additional information. Yet it seemed that nothing had happened.
Statewide, after some 82,000 of the settlement conferences were held, with many cases taken up multiple times, just 4,253 cases reached settlements during the 11-month period ending in September, according to a recent report by the chief administrator of the state courts. And some of those settlements led to the loss of homes anyway. “We are concerned that the gains we have made are being lost,” the report said. “We’re at a fork in the road,” said Anne Erickson, president of the Empire Justice Center, which represents low-income homeowners. “We can continue leading the way or we can watch the whole thing unravel.”
Lawyers say the difficulties encountered in the New York courts show how complex the task of working through the jumble of subprime mortgages can be, made worse by issues like “robo-signing,” the practice of having foreclosure documents signed by lenders in such high numbers that they could not possibly have been reviewed carefully.
After attention on robo-signing abuses that led to improper foreclosures, the New York courts adopted a rule in 2010 to try to repair what its chief judge, Jonathan Lippman, called “a deeply flawed process.” The rule required lawyers who pursued foreclosure suits to file a certification stating they had personally checked the accuracy of the claims about a homeowner’s loan.
Court officials quickly noticed that, while banks’ lawyers continued to file foreclosure cases at a rapid rate, they adopted a new strategy that seemed to be aimed at evading the new requirement. They filed the cases, causing damage to people’s credit ratings and adding to the fees they paid, but did not push the cases far enough to set off the requirement for the lawyer’s certification.
Around the state, court officials estimate there may be 25,000 or more such “shadow” cases in addition to the 75,000 already moving through the courts. In the cases in which lawyers do file the newly required certification, some judges have ruled that the lawyers had changed the mandated wording or otherwise resisted compliance.
The difficulties posed by the lawyer’s certification requirement are only the latest problem in the foreclosure docket to irritate judges. In a March ruling, a frustrated Queens judge, Anna Culley, described a foreclosure case that was much like many others. In one settlement conference, the bank asked for additional banking records from the homeowner, the judge wrote.
At another session, it demanded pay stubs. In a third, it asked for tax forms. In a fourth, it asked for all the paperwork to be resubmitted. At two meetings, the bank’s representative said a modification of the mortgage had been granted, lowering the required payments. But after two and a half years, the judge wrote, the bank had yet to modify the loan, and the foreclosure case was still pending.
Source: New York Times
As the Obama administration works on new mortgage-relief programs, lawyers and officials say New York’s experience shows the limits of a state’s ability to cope with the national foreclosure morass. “We are a shining example of somebody’s best efforts falling short through no fault of our own,” said Paul Lewis, a senior official in the New York court system who has been helping coordinate foreclosure cases since the start of the crisis.
Special funding to provide lawyers for homeowners has largely dried up, with more than 75 percent of New York City residents going into foreclosure court without a lawyer, state data shows. The state’s judges have grown increasingly vocal about what some of them have called “outrageous” conduct, “patently false” statements and “inexcusable” actions by lenders’ lawyers.
The hearings that form the core of New York’s approach — special settlement conferences, which are required to try to modify mortgages to make them affordable — have become comic exercises slowed by endless paperwork, requests for additional information and the mysterious loss of documents. During a day of more than 30 of the conferences in State Supreme Court in Queens last week, homeowners with screaming children and wheelchair-bound grandmothers appeared befuddled by the paper chase. Some of the cases had already been taken up in the settlement conferences as many as nine times, over many months, only to be delayed each time until yet another meeting. “We don’t have the full file,” said a bank’s lawyer during one of the conferences. “Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to review the documents,” said another lender’s lawyer in another case a few minutes later. “We should have received it, but it didn’t get into our system,” said a third. A fourth lawyer conceded that the homeowners had mailed information to the bank, but said that “only fax and e-mail” were acceptable.
On several occasions the court official who conducted the conferences that day, Tracy Catapano-Fox, mentioned to homeowners the system’s Catch-22: as they rush to gather newly demanded tax and bank records, information they supplied earlier to address other questions grows too old to be useful.
Completed applications turn back into incomplete ones, leading to more delays to collect more information while the newest information, in turn, grows stale. Ms. Catapano-Fox told one homeowner after another of the trap that awaited them. “I have psychic powers,” she said with a sympathetic grimace, having conducted hundreds of the conferences. “There’s no question that the next time we come in here, they will claim that the documents are stale.”
In the hallway after the latest of what he said had been a dozen monthly appearances in his yearlong foreclosure case, Juan Adon, a Jamaica homeowner, said he was baffled. “It doesn’t make any sense,” he said. Ms. Catapano-Fox had dryly mentioned during his hearing that there was a notation in his file indicating that the bank’s representative had said in August that it needed no additional information. Yet it seemed that nothing had happened.
Statewide, after some 82,000 of the settlement conferences were held, with many cases taken up multiple times, just 4,253 cases reached settlements during the 11-month period ending in September, according to a recent report by the chief administrator of the state courts. And some of those settlements led to the loss of homes anyway. “We are concerned that the gains we have made are being lost,” the report said. “We’re at a fork in the road,” said Anne Erickson, president of the Empire Justice Center, which represents low-income homeowners. “We can continue leading the way or we can watch the whole thing unravel.”
Lawyers say the difficulties encountered in the New York courts show how complex the task of working through the jumble of subprime mortgages can be, made worse by issues like “robo-signing,” the practice of having foreclosure documents signed by lenders in such high numbers that they could not possibly have been reviewed carefully.
After attention on robo-signing abuses that led to improper foreclosures, the New York courts adopted a rule in 2010 to try to repair what its chief judge, Jonathan Lippman, called “a deeply flawed process.” The rule required lawyers who pursued foreclosure suits to file a certification stating they had personally checked the accuracy of the claims about a homeowner’s loan.
Court officials quickly noticed that, while banks’ lawyers continued to file foreclosure cases at a rapid rate, they adopted a new strategy that seemed to be aimed at evading the new requirement. They filed the cases, causing damage to people’s credit ratings and adding to the fees they paid, but did not push the cases far enough to set off the requirement for the lawyer’s certification.
Around the state, court officials estimate there may be 25,000 or more such “shadow” cases in addition to the 75,000 already moving through the courts. In the cases in which lawyers do file the newly required certification, some judges have ruled that the lawyers had changed the mandated wording or otherwise resisted compliance.
The difficulties posed by the lawyer’s certification requirement are only the latest problem in the foreclosure docket to irritate judges. In a March ruling, a frustrated Queens judge, Anna Culley, described a foreclosure case that was much like many others. In one settlement conference, the bank asked for additional banking records from the homeowner, the judge wrote.
At another session, it demanded pay stubs. In a third, it asked for tax forms. In a fourth, it asked for all the paperwork to be resubmitted. At two meetings, the bank’s representative said a modification of the mortgage had been granted, lowering the required payments. But after two and a half years, the judge wrote, the bank had yet to modify the loan, and the foreclosure case was still pending.
Source: New York Times
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)