Political parties critique the impact of the Expropriation Bill on citizens
Political parties have raised concerns about the impact of the controversial Expropriation Bill, on the rights of South African citizens.
Last month, President Cyril Ramaphosa signed into law the bill which repeals the pre-democratic Expropriation Act of 1975.
Expropriation is an action by the State of taking property from its owner for public use or benefit.
Vincent Magwenya, the presidential spokesperson, said in a statement, the bill provided a common framework in line with the Constitution to guide the processes and procedures for expropriation of property.
He said the bill which underwent a five-year public consultation process and parliamentary deliberations, aligned legislation on expropriation with the Constitution.
“Up to now, the expropriation of property has been governed in terms of the Expropriation Act of 1975, which predates the expropriation mechanism provided for in section 25(2) of the Constitution.
“Section 25 of the Constitution recognises expropriation as an essential mechanism for the state to acquire someone’s property for a public purpose or in the public interest, subject to just and equitable compensation being paid,” he said.
Magwenya said the law would assist all organs of the State- local, provincial and national authorities to expropriate land in the public interest for varied reasons that seek, among others, to promote inclusivity and access to natural resources.
He added that in terms of this law, an expropriating authority may not expropriate property arbitrarily or for a purpose other than a public purpose or in the public interest.
In addition, he said expropriation may not be exercised unless the expropriating authority has without success attempted to reach an agreement with the owner or holder of a right in property for the acquisition thereof on reasonable terms.
“An expropriating authority is therefore obliged to enter into negotiations with the owner of a property required for such purposes. An expropriating authority must also attempt to reach an agreement on the acquisition of the property before resorting to expropriation - except in circumstances where the right to use property temporarily is taken on an urgent basis in terms of a provision in the legislation.”
Magwenya added that the law provides for disputes to be referred for mediation or to appropriate courts.
Reaction
Visvin Reddy, an uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party member of parliament, said while signing of the bill into law is being hailed by the ruling party as a milestone in land reform, they viewed it with deep scepticism.
“While the bill claims to provide for land expropriation without compensation in certain circumstances, it is structured in a way that still protects the privileged landowning elite.
“The bill remains entangled in legal processes, requiring state determination of ‘just and equitable’ compensation. But who decides what is just? How do we justify compensating those who benefited from stolen land while the rightful owners remain landless? The party stands firm in the belief that expropriation without compensation should be the norm, not the exception,” he said.
Reddy said land ownership in South Africa remains one of the most “glaring symbols of apartheid’s enduring legacy”.
“Despite political freedom and economic liberation, especially in the form of land redistribution, has remained a distant dream for the majority of Black South Africans. The 1913 Land Act and subsequent apartheid policies stripped Black people of their ancestral lands, confining them to just 13% of the country, while the remaining 87% was controlled by the White minority.
“Three decades into democracy, White landownership still disproportionately dominates. Various government attempts to redress this through willing-buyer, willing-seller policies and land reform programs have failed dismally. The ANC has repeatedly promised radical transformation, but in reality, it has served the interests of White Monopoly Capital instead of the dispossessed majority,” he said.
Reddy added that land reform must be swift, decisive, and beneficial to the dispossessed Black majority.
“We do not believe in cosmetic changes that maintain the status quo. This bill, in its current form, does not address the fundamental issue of land restitution in a meaningful way. If the government is unwilling to take radical steps, then the people must rise and reclaim what is rightfully theirs.
“South Africa cannot continue to exist as an economic apartheid state, where a White minority controls the land while the Black majority remains tenants in their own country. Real transformation will not come from weak compromises; it requires political will, mass mobilisation, and policies that put the people before profit,” he said.
Shameen Thakur-Rajbansi, leader of the Minority Front (MF), said while the party found it encouraging that the bill was highly procedural, they urged the government to commit itself to the rule of law when implementing it.
“The MF will be keeping a close eye on the circumstances under which the government will exercise its narrow power to expropriate property without compensation.”
Thakur-Rajbansi added that the bill as it stands did not add much to the existing debate surrounding land reform in South Africa.
“We request that any attempt to utilise this bill for the land reform project must not exclude South Africa's Indian minority which was subjected to the Group Areas Act.”
Willie Aucamp, a Democratic Alliance (DA) national spokesperson, said the bill was a direct attack on the Constitutional rights of South Africans.
“We have obtained a legal opinion that the bill is unconstitutional. We will fight this dangerous legislation by every possible means, including in the courts. We will not stand by as the government seeks to undermine our rights and erode the rule of law.”
Mkhuleko Hlengwa, the Inkatha Freedom Party’s (IFP) national spokesperson said they had rejected the decision to sign the bill into law.
“This decision undermines the spirit of consensus and collaboration that is fundamental to the Government of National Unity (GNU) framework. As the IFP, we have consistently maintained our principled opposition to the current version of the bill. While we support meaningful land reform that is just, equitable, and aimed at addressing historical injustices, the bill as it stands falls short of these principles.”
“Additionally, the bill represents an ill-conceived and hasty approach to mask failures in implementing meaningful land reform since 1994. The lack of thorough consultation and careful consideration is reflective of a populist agenda rather than a genuine commitment to addressing the plight of South Africans who are still waiting for justice and fairness in land distribution,” he said.
Hlengwa added that the party has “consistently” called for the bill to be referred to the Constitutional Court for a declaratory order on its constitutionality.
“The president's decision to proceed with signing this contentious legislation into law disregards the significant shift in the political and governmental landscape brought about by the 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,” he said.
The ANC did not respond at the time of publication.