Under the South African constitution, government entities have an obligation to serve the needs of its citizens. In carrying out its obligations to provide people with adequate housing, local government has a constitutional obligation to ensure that people facing eviction must be provided with temporary emergency accommodation. The conditions of temporary emergency accommodation were challenged in the case of Dladla and Another v City of Johannesburg and Others (CCT124/16) [2017] ZACC 42. The rules included a day-time lockout, which meant that all residents vacate by 8h00 every weekday and 9h00 on the weekend, and return at 17h30/. The gender segregated rooms separated spouses and families. What does day time lock out mean for a woman who has to walk the streets of the inner city in Johannesburg? Or how does the gendered segregated rule reinforce her role as primary care-giver and nurturer?
Despite the amicus curiae intervention by the Centre for Applied Legal Studies who advanced argument that the rules of the shelter had an adverse impact on women, the judgment has not interrogated the impacts of poor living conditions on women and has, therefore, failed to acknowledge the gendered lens in its analysis.
The Constitutional Court found that the rules infringed the applicants’ rights to equality, dignity, privacy and freedom and security. This was an opportune moment for our Courts to analyse the impact of an infringement of a socio-economic right through a gendered lens, especially when the facts were blatant in identifying the prejudice that women faced. It had the potential to interpret and analyse reasonableness to include a gendered lens. It is this shortcoming that warrants a feminist analysis of the judgment.