In a unanimous and strongly worded judgment delivered on 17 March 2026, South Africa’s Constitutional Court has ruled that government officials in the Eastern Cape unlawfully and unconstitutionally failed to provide emergency assistance to residents affected by a devastating storm in Qumbu in February 2022.
The case involved 29 indigent residents of the Mhlontlo Local Municipality area in Qumbu, who suffered the destruction or severe damage to their homes during extreme weather described as a “hurricane,” featuring heavy rains and high winds on 8 February 2022. The applicants sought urgent temporary emergency shelter and relief but encountered what the court described as an “apparent unwillingness” by authorities to fulfill their obligations.
The court, in a judgment penned by Acting Justice Ingrid Opperman, declared that the respondents’ refusal and failure to assist the victims after the disaster was unlawful and unconstitutional. It highlighted violations of several constitutional rights, including the rights to dignity, housing, shelter, privacy, and safety.
The judgment interpreted existing legislation, particularly the Disaster Management Act 57 of 2002, without creating new law. The court found that a disaster as contemplated by the Act had occurred. In the absence of a formal classification, it was to be treated as a local disaster. Primary responsibility rested with the district municipality (O.R. Tambo District Municipality), but the local municipality (Mhlontlo Local Municipality) and relevant provincial departments (including human settlements) could not absolve themselves of responsibility. All levels of government are required to cooperate under principles of cooperative governance in the Constitution, consulting one another and distributing resources equitably.
The authorities’ conduct was sharply criticised. The court noted their “appallingly uncaring” approach, including doubting property ownership, accusing victims of “queue jumping” for Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) houses, and treating legal obligations as charitable favors. Officials invoked the concept of ubuntu inappropriately, framing assistance as optional rather than mandatory under the law.
Asiphe Funda, a health rights attorney at SECTION27, described the judgment as instrumental in exposing the gap between constitutional rights on paper and the reality faced by poor, rural communities. She emphasised a “sheer lack of political will” in implementing the Disaster Management Act to protect vulnerable persons, particularly in one of South Africa’s poorest provinces. Funda highlighted the disproportionate impact of climate-related disasters on indigent groups, women-led households, children, and rural areas in provinces like the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal.
Funda criticised the lack of compassion shown by officials who witnessed the devastation yet failed to respond adequately. She pointed out that residents were left living in partially destroyed homes, crowding with neighbors or family, compromising their dignity and safety.
The court upheld the appeal against a lower court’s ruling, which had shown a “bad disregard” for the residents’ rights. It remitted the matter back to the High Court to determine, given the passage of time, which applicants still qualify for assistance—considering some have rebuilt independently, others have passed away, or circumstances have changed.
Funda stressed that temporary measures alone are insufficient. She called for permanent redress beyond short-term shelters, noting similar ongoing issues in other Eastern Cape areas, such as Queenstown, where flood victims from 2022 and 2023 remain in temporary facilities. She urged broader government action, including from the Department of Finance and National Treasury, to allocate budgets that account for climate shocks, infrastructure adaptation, and international obligations for adequate planning and relief.
Marking Human Rights Month, Funda underscored that the Constitution’s hard-won rights—fought for before 1994—provide real relief when enforced. The judgment, she said, serves as a catalyst for correcting injustice and a clear message to all levels of government: they must do better, respect the rule of law, coordinate efforts, and prioritise the most vulnerable citizens amid increasingly frequent climate change events.