Informal traders at the Kopanong market in Ivory Park have been left unable to work after the City of Johannesburg removed their trading containers last month. The Socio-Economic Rights Institute (SERI) has intervened, issuing a legal demand to the City on behalf of more than 140 affected traders.
Abrupt Removal Disrupts Livelihoods
According to SERI attorney Deborah Raduba, traders were given less than a week’s notice before the City began removing the containers on April 30. Many had relied on the structures—provided by the City in 2016 as part of a trading initiative—to store goods and conduct business.
“Our clients live hand-to-mouth. Even one day without trade can mean no food on the table,” Raduba said. She emphasized that the removal disproportionately affected traders with disabilities, who depended on the containers to avoid transporting goods daily.
City’s Justifications Challenged
The City reportedly cited crime concerns and potential future developments as reasons for the removal. However, Raduba argued that officials failed to follow legal procedures outlined in the Businesses Act, which requires proper consultation and notice before restricting trade.
“The law prescribes specific steps the City must take, and those were ignored,” she said. SERI contends that the abrupt action violated traders’ constitutional rights, including their right to dignity, freedom to trade, and protection against arbitrary property deprivation.
Allegations of Xenophobic Targeting
Traders also raised concerns about xenophobic enforcement, as the City allegedly demanded permits while refusing to issue them—effectively barring both foreign nationals and citizens from lawful trade. Raduba confirmed SERI has encountered evidence of such discrimination.
Next Steps
If the City does not comply with SERI’s demands, the organization plans to seek a court declaration that its actions were unlawful. While traders hope to regain access to the containers, Raduba acknowledged this may not be feasible, leaving alternative relief options under consideration.
The case highlights ongoing tensions between informal traders and municipal authorities, with livelihoods hanging in the balance as legal proceedings unfold.