Squat­ting is un­law­ful. That is known to one and all. How­ev­er, if un­known to any, all know ig­no­rance of the law is no ex­cuse. There­fore, those who, un­der any cir­cum­stances, en­gage in or en­cour­age squat­ting, are en­gag­ing in or en­cour­ag­ing law­less­ness. And all know the law must take its course-else it would not be law. It is for that rea­son val­i­dat­ing laws are en­act­ed from time to time. A pris­tine ex­am­ple of such a law would be the Land Ten­ants (Se­cu­ri­ty of Tenure) Act.

How­ev­er, val­i­dat­ing laws, by na­ture, are time, place or con­di­tion spe­cif­ic, hence in­ap­plic­a­ble through­out the land­scape. Where­fore then may any per­son-ex­cept the inane, or in­sane, or in­ju­di­cious, or in­do­lent-in­sist that squat­ters have more rights than law­ful own­ers (in­clud­ing du­ly-ap­point­ed/ elect­ed agents of law­ful own­ers)?

Were it that squat­ters may on­ly be re­moved by re­course to the courts, then the right to equal treat­ment be­fore the law and com­mon sense must sure­ly re­quire that no squat­ter may be­gin to squat un­less they first get the court's ap­proval.

Richard Wm Thomas

Five Rivers, Arou­ca