They lined the walls and packed court 19 at the Western Cape High Court – each straining to hear proceedings as their advocate, Norman Arendse SC, rose to his feet.
The Makhaza residents had arrived in their droves to hear their case put before Judge Nathan Erasmus. He would hear how “open-air”, unenclosed toilets were installed in their community and “violated their dignity”.
Earlier, Judge Erasmus had issued a stern order to have the police provincial commissioner and the Khayelitsha police station commander appear before him tomorrow.
Police had failed to investigate the conduct of community members who disrupted the implementation of an earlier order.
The toilet saga has been a thorn in the side of the province and the city which Makhaza residents hauled to court, along with Cape Town mayor Dan Plato
Yesterday the trial started.
“The (residents) are asking the court to declare the conduct of the city, that of the mayor, premier and MEC for human settlements a violation of human rights,” Arendse told the court yesterday.
“The city alleges that there was an agreement that was entered into by the community and the city where a meeting was held with 60 members of the community on an open field in November, 2007,” said Arendse.
The city alleged the residents had agreed to enclose the toilets themselves, he said.
While he did not want to say that this “story” had been “concocted”, it was his view that even if the meeting between members of the community and city officials had taken place, it merely “aggravated the conduct of the city”.
“Like Pinocchio’s nose, this story now grows as the court papers seem to become thicker,” said Arendse.
“The other defence that the city raises is that when they provided toilets, it was on a ratio of 1:5 households. The city says that comes from the national housing code, but the code does not make provision for that – a 1:5 ratio is only provided for in an emergency situation.”
Arendse said there was dissatisfaction in the Makhaza community long before the matter came to court. He said there was also no proof or written record that the meeting between the city and the sample group of residents had ever taken place.
“Who were these 60 people who attended this alleged meeting? Are they still alive? Are they still residents of Makhaza? An agreement is a legally binding document.
“How can 60 people conclude an agreement on behalf of the entire community? The city’s conduct is in conflict with the Housing Act that requires local, provincial and national government to consult meaningfully with the community. How can they call that consulting?”
Anton Katz, for the city and Plato, said while there was this notion of “dignity”, that was not the debate.
“The agreement may not have all the bells and whistles, but the reality is that no human being was forced to use an open toilet as there were enclosed communal toilets,” he said.
Katz said the city acknowledged the “intolerable conditions” in the community.
“Open-air toilets are intolerable and unacceptable, but the city cannot be faulted for at least attempting to alleviate (the conditions).
The Human Rights Commission told the court that courts should not allow a government to “treat people in this way”.
The case continues today. - Cape Times
The Makhaza residents had arrived in their droves to hear their case put before Judge Nathan Erasmus. He would hear how “open-air”, unenclosed toilets were installed in their community and “violated their dignity”.
Earlier, Judge Erasmus had issued a stern order to have the police provincial commissioner and the Khayelitsha police station commander appear before him tomorrow.
Police had failed to investigate the conduct of community members who disrupted the implementation of an earlier order.
The toilet saga has been a thorn in the side of the province and the city which Makhaza residents hauled to court, along with Cape Town mayor Dan Plato
Yesterday the trial started.
“The (residents) are asking the court to declare the conduct of the city, that of the mayor, premier and MEC for human settlements a violation of human rights,” Arendse told the court yesterday.
“The city alleges that there was an agreement that was entered into by the community and the city where a meeting was held with 60 members of the community on an open field in November, 2007,” said Arendse.
The city alleged the residents had agreed to enclose the toilets themselves, he said.
While he did not want to say that this “story” had been “concocted”, it was his view that even if the meeting between members of the community and city officials had taken place, it merely “aggravated the conduct of the city”.
“Like Pinocchio’s nose, this story now grows as the court papers seem to become thicker,” said Arendse.
“The other defence that the city raises is that when they provided toilets, it was on a ratio of 1:5 households. The city says that comes from the national housing code, but the code does not make provision for that – a 1:5 ratio is only provided for in an emergency situation.”
Arendse said there was dissatisfaction in the Makhaza community long before the matter came to court. He said there was also no proof or written record that the meeting between the city and the sample group of residents had ever taken place.
“Who were these 60 people who attended this alleged meeting? Are they still alive? Are they still residents of Makhaza? An agreement is a legally binding document.
“How can 60 people conclude an agreement on behalf of the entire community? The city’s conduct is in conflict with the Housing Act that requires local, provincial and national government to consult meaningfully with the community. How can they call that consulting?”
Anton Katz, for the city and Plato, said while there was this notion of “dignity”, that was not the debate.
“The agreement may not have all the bells and whistles, but the reality is that no human being was forced to use an open toilet as there were enclosed communal toilets,” he said.
Katz said the city acknowledged the “intolerable conditions” in the community.
“Open-air toilets are intolerable and unacceptable, but the city cannot be faulted for at least attempting to alleviate (the conditions).
The Human Rights Commission told the court that courts should not allow a government to “treat people in this way”.
The case continues today. - Cape Times
No comments:
Post a Comment