2017 marks the 26th year of this 16-day Campaign, which hardly needs an introduction. The Campaign culminates on International Human Rights Day, which falls on 10 December annually. The 16 Days is directed at raising global awareness about the plight of women and girls when it comes to violence. This group is already marginalised in the classroom, in the boardroom, in private spaces, and in addition, must also fear for their bodily and mental integrity.

The struggle for women to live their daily lives whilst feeling safe has never been highlighted more than it was this year. One only has to consider the plethora of sexual harassment and abuse allegations levelled at high profile individuals, both domestically and internationally, to understand the severity of the problem. There is a wealth of information on the effects of this Campaign. The golden thread that runs through the criticism of it, however, is that the effects are not sustained. For 16 days the world wears orange, takes to social media in solidarity, but thereafter, the problem is arguably benched. 

October 11 is commemorated annually the world over to shine the spotlight on issues of gender inequality facing young girls, as well as their access to human rights. The Day was first commemorated in 2012 and finds its origins in the United Nations (UN), which noted the need to highlight discrimination against girls. According to the UN, there are over one billion girls in the world. This commemoration provides an opportunity for society and organisations to raise awareness about the challenges faced by girls based simply on their gender. This year’s theme is “EmPOWER girls: Before, during and after conflict”.

On 26 September 2017, the Pretoria High Court (the Court) brought great relief to an elderly woman facing eviction by her brother from the house she had been living in and maintaining for over 32 years.

The Mantshabelle Mary Rahube v Hendsrine Rahube matter (Rahube) raised the constitutionality of section 2(1) of the Upgrading of Land Tenure Rights Act of 1991 (the Upgrading Act). The Upgrading Act provides for the upgrading and conversion of certain rights to property (afforded under apartheid) to ownership. The Court agreed with the applicant (Mrs Rahube) that despite its well-intended purpose, section 2(1) of the Upgrading Act, which automatically converts land tenure rights to ownership without any notification to occupants and other affected parties, is unconstitutional. The Court held it violates the constitutional right to equality by perpetuating discrimination based on gender and access to Courts by failing to provide a legal mechanism to dispute the entitlement.