Land victory for black women
MARY Rahube may be a granny, but she is a hero to many women.
She was the first black woman to pave the way for others who were in the past denied the right to own land to now rightfully own what is theirs.
In recognising the rights of all women to own land, the Constitutional Court in 2018 spoke the final word and declared that a piece of legislation created in the racist and sexist apartheid era could not pass constitutional muster.
In an unanimous judgment the apex court declared a section of the Upgrading of Land Tenure Rights Act unconstitutional due to Rahube.
She was assisted by the Lawyers for Human Rights organisation, which relentlessly fought this battle for women’s rights.
She initially approached the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, which in a first step, paved the way for this elderly woman, who is in her seventies, to in future apply for the house she had called home for more than 40 years, to be hers.
Rahube never owned her family house in Mabopane, as apartheid legislation prohibited black females from owning land.
But the High Court declared a section of the act unconstitutional – which was subsequently confirmed by the Constitutional Court. It found that the act violated the right to equality which is enshrined in the Constitution.
Rahube, however, still has to prove that she has a right to the property, although she was instrumental in the legislation being rewritten. But this brave woman is on the brink of facing her final legal hurdle.
As the country is celebrating Women’s Month, Rahube is within the next few weeks due to sign court papers in a bid to have final ownership.
In this regard, Louise du Plessis of Lawyers for Human Rights, who was at Rahube’s side all along, said: “We are glad to say that we are nearly done with drafting Rahube’s application in her bid to get the property in her name.
“This will be the first application in this regard after she won the Concourt case and the subsequent amendments made by Parliament to the law.
Du Plessis said in terms of the amendments made to the act, women who ought to get houses, still needed to go to court to ask for an order to that effect.
“Mary will most probably sign her court papers in the next week or two. It will set a new precedent for Mary.”
Du Plessis said alongside this, Lawyers for Human Rights will also campaign in some areas to ensure that women do not miss out on this opportunity to become the rightful owners of the houses in which they live.
Rahube, her brother and other siblings, have lived in the Mabopane property since the 1970s.
Their grandmother “owned” the property, although not in the legal sense as the family was by law precluded from doing so as she was a woman.
When she died the children remained living there. The brother was in 1987 nominated by the family to be the holder of a certificate of occupation regarding the property.
The following year he was issued a deed of grant regarding the property. Some years later he turned to the courts to have his family evicted from “his home”.
This was the start of her drawn-out battle to have the legislation overturned and declared unconstitutional.
In the High Court judgment, Judge Patricia Goliath said African women under apartheid were systematically disenfranchised in a number of ways. The pervasive effects of patriarchy meant that women were often excluded from seemingly sex-neutral spaces.
She said under apartheid, the effects of patriarchy were compounded by legislation that codified the position of African women as subservient to their husbands and male relatives.
This sentiment was later shared by the Concourt when it confirmed the High Court’s landmark order.
It was argued during the legal battle, and accepted by the courts, that the act provided for the conversion of land rights into rights of ownership, but did not consider competing claims or the fact that land rights were designated through a system and legislation that discriminated against black women and thus violated their rights to equality based on sex.