FF Plus leader Dr Pieter Groenewald. Picture: Armand Hough / Independent Newspapers
The Freedom Front Plus has called on parties that voted against the Expropriation Bill to join hands in challenging the constitutionality of the new law in the Constitutional Court.
The party’s leader Pieter Groenewald said his party maintained that the Expropriation Bill, signed into law by President Cyril Ramaphosa on Thursday, is unconstitutional.
“It not only poses serious risks for South Africans as regards their property rights, but it also sends an extremely negative message to the international community.
“Investors will not easily be persuaded to invest in a country where their property could be expropriated,” he said.
Groenewald also said the FF Plus asked political parties after the adoption of the Expropriation Bill in 2023, to use Section 80 of the Constitution to challenge the constitutionality of the Bill in the apex court.
“Section 80 of the Constitution determines that one-third of the members of the National Assembly (NA) may apply to the Constitutional Court to obtain an order that a parliamentary law is unconstitutional, whether partially or in its entirety.
“This has to be done within 30 days after the date on which the president signed and promulgated the law.
“Therefore, the FF Plus is once again calling on the parties that voted against the Expropriation Bill to join hands and commence this process,” he said.
Groenewald said the use of the constitutional provision was just one of the steps that the FF Plus was taking to prevent the Expropriation Act.
“If there are not enough parties to support a Section 80 application, the FF Plus will still approach the Constitutional Court to challenge the Act’s constitutionality.”
He also said all South Africans as well as everyone in any democratic dispensation have the right to own property.
“The government has no right to expropriate it without market-related compensation,” Groenewald said.
The IFP, which also rejected Ramaphosa’s decision to sign the Expropriation Bill into law, said they have consistently maintained their principled opposition to the current version of the Expropriation Bill.
“We have consistently called for the Bill to be referred to the Constitutional Court for a declaratory order on its constitutionality. Additionally, procedural irregularities in the NCOP, including provincial mandates, remain unresolved,” spokesperson Mkhuleko Hlengwa said.
Hlengwa also said Ramaphosa’s decision to proceed with signing the contentious legislation into law disregarded the significant shift in the political and governmental landscape brought about by the Government of National Unity (GNU).
“It is deeply concerning that the president would ignore the potential for constructive engagement within this new context to ensure a truly unified and balanced approach to land reform.
“Accordingly, the president should have referred the Expropriation Bill to the GNU Clearing House.”
Hlengwa said his party stood resolute in its commitment to opposing the new law through all available avenues, including legal recourse and continued advocacy for just, equitable, and constitutionally sound land reform.
Meanwhile, DA leader John Steenhuisen said his party would support any process that leads to the constitutional determination of the Expropriation Bill.
“I don’t think we needed to go through those processes… We will work together with all parties. It is instructive that yet another party outside DA and IFP are unhappy this has unfolded,” said Steenhuisen when asked if they would support FF Plus’ call.
He said that had the leaders in the GNU sat down and held a conversation about the Bill, it would have been a healthier way to resolve the matter.
“What we see is a government that is continuing to carry as if nothing changed in the elections of last year. That can’t be right,” Steenhuisen said.
“He stated that three of the larger parties in the GNU having to seek other mechanisms outside mature engagement, showed there was something wrong.”
mayibongwe.maqhina@inl.co.za