Latest news with #ExpropriationAct
IOL News
2 days ago
- Business
- IOL News
Expropriation Act: How many expropriating authorities are empowered by the Act?
The Expropriation Act is written so broadly that every form of property in South Africa is now subject to expropriation below market value. From homes to farms to businesses to savings to pensions, all forms of property are, in terms of the Act, vulnerable to expropriation, says Makone Maja, IRR Strategic Engagements Manager. The Institute of Race Relations (IRR) will this week write to the Minister of Public Works and Infrastructure, Dean Macpherson, requesting clarity on a crucial matter related to the Expropriation Act, for which the Minister is responsible. The Act grants sweeping powers to expropriating authorities to expropriate any form of property below market value. It offers weak and contradictory measures to property owners to protect their rights through the courts. Yet, just how many authorities in South Africa are granted expropriating powers by the Act is unclear; by IRR calculations, the number could exceed 400. Says Makone Maja, IRR Strategic Engagements Manager: 'The Expropriation Act is an unpopular piece of legislation. IRR opinion polling in March and April this year found that 68% of registered voters oppose the Act. It's easy to understand why. The Act is written so broadly that every form of property in South Africa is now subject to expropriation below market value. From homes to farms to businesses to savings to pensions, all forms of property are, in terms of the Act, vulnerable to expropriation. And yet there seems to be no clarity from the government on the exact number of entities the law empowers to confiscate property on astonishingly flimsy grounds.' As illustrated in the IRR's flagship Blueprint for Growth series, property rights are a vital means of economic participation and empowerment only if they are secure. Weaken the certainty with which people can own what's lawfully theirs and the knock-on consequences range from undermining food security to wiping out pensions and savings. Says Maja: 'It is the height of policy recklessness for this door of vast state power to be opened to an unknown number of expropriating authorities. If the number of these authorities is unknown, how can South Africans have any trust that the sweeping expropriating powers granted by the Act won't be abused? 'We have all heard the horror stories of extortion by state officials – from kickback mafias to corruption. We are a country familiar with the disgusting abuse of state power. The Expropriation Act empowers a vast expropriation network at all levels of the state. The IRR has thus far tallied at least 426 such authorities, yet the number might rise to close to a thousand. This is a terrifying prospect. The Minister has a duty to provide urgent clarity on this matter.' The Institute of Race Relations Johannesburg
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Unpacking the South African land law that so inflames Trump
South Africa's President Cyril Ramaphosa is at the centre of a political firestorm after he approved a law that gives the state the power to expropriate some privately owned land without compensation for owners. The law, which is yet to be implemented, has drawn the ire of US President Donald Trump, who sees it as discriminating against white farmers. Centre-right political parties and lobby groups in South Africa have also opposed it, saying they will challenge the Expropriation Act – as the law is named – in court on the grounds that it threatens property rights. Ramaphosa's government says the law provides for compensation to be paid in the vast majority of cases – and the changes are needed to increase black ownership of land. Most private farmland is still owned by white people. When Nelson Mandela came to power more than 30 years ago, ending the racist system of apartheid, it was promised that this would be rectified through a willing-buyer, willing-seller land reform programme – but critics say this has proved too slow and too costly. In rare circumstances it would be land that was needed for the "public interest", legal experts told the BBC. According to South African law firm Werksmans Attorneys, this suggested it would mainly, or perhaps only, happen in relation to the land reform programme. Although it could also be used to access natural resources such as minerals and water, the firm added, in an opinion written by its experts in the field, Bulelwa Mabasa and Thomas Karberg. Mabasa and Karberg told the BBC that in their view, productive agricultural land could not be expropriated without compensation. They said any expropriation without compensation – known as EWC – could take place only in a few circumstances: For example, when an owner was not using the land and was holding it for "speculative purposes" Or when an owner "abandoned the land by failing to exercise control over it despite being reasonably capable of doing so". Owners would probably still get compensation for the buildings on the land and for the natural resources, the lawyers said. Mabasa and Karberg added that EWC was "not aimed at rural land or farmland specifically, and could include land in urban areas". However, in cases where compensation is paid, the rules are set to change, with owners likely to get less money. The plan is for owners to receive "just-and-equitable" compensation – a departure from the higher "market value" they have been getting up to now, Mabasa and Karberg said. The government had been paying market-value compensation despite the fact that this was "at odds" with the constitution, adopted after white-minority rule ended in 1994, they added. The lawyers said that all expropriations had "extensive procedural fairness requirements", including the owner's right to go to court if they were not happy. The move away from market-value compensation will also apply to land expropriated for a "public purpose" – like building state schools or railways. This has not been a major point of controversy, possibly because it is "hardly a novel concept" – a point made by JURISTnews, a legal website run by law students from around the world. "The US Constitution, for instance, provides that the government can seize private property for public use so long as 'just compensation' is provided," it added. The government hopes so. University of Western Cape land expert Prof Ruth Hall told the BBC that more than 80,000 land claims remain unsettled. In the eastern regions of South Africa, many black people work on farms for free – in exchange they are allowed to live there and keep their livestock on a portion of the owners' land, she said. The government wants to transfer ownership of this land to the workers, and it was "unfair" to expect it to pay the market value, Prof Hall added. Over the last three decades, the government has used existing powers to expropriate property–- with less than market-value compensation – in fewer than 20 cases, she said. The new law was aimed at making it easier and cheaper to restore land to black people who were "dispossessed" of it during white-minority rule or were forced to be "long-term tenants" as they could not own land, Prof Hall added. "It's a bargaining chip," she said. But she doubts that the government will press ahead with implementing the law in the foreseeable future as the "political cost" has become too high. The academic was referring to the fact that Trump has opposed the law, saying it discriminates against white farmers and their land was being "seized" – a charge the government denies. In February, Trump cut aid to South Africa, and in April he announced a 30% tariff on South African goods and agricultural products, although this was later paused for 90 days. This was followed by last month's infamous Oval Office showdown when Trump ambushed Ramaphosa with a video and printouts of stories alleging white people were being persecuted – much of his dossier has been discredited. Fact-checking Trump's Oval Office confrontation with Ramaphosa Like Trump, the second-biggest party in Ramaphosa's coalition government, the Democratic Alliance (DA), is opposed to the legislation. In a statement on 26 May, the party said that its top leadership body had rejected the notion of "nil compensation". However, it has agreed with the concept of just-and-equitable compensation rather than market-value compensation, adding it should be "adjudicated by a court of law". Surprisingly, Jaco Kleynhans of the Solidarity Movement, an influential Afrikaner lobby group, said that while the new law could "destroy" some businesses and he was opposed to it, he did not believe it would lead to the "large-scale expropriation of farmland". "I don't see within the wording of this text that that will happen," he said in a recent panel discussion at an agricultural exhibition held in South Africa's Free State province – where a large number of conservative Afrikaner farmers live. The South African Property Owners Association said it was "irrational" to give "nil compensation" to an owner who held land for speculative purposes. "There are many landowners whose sole purpose of business is to speculate in land. They do not get the land for free and they have significant holding costs," the association said, adding it had no doubt the law would be "abundantly tested" in the courts. Mabasa and Karberg said one view was that the concept of EWC was a "legal absurdity" because "intrinsic in the legal definition of expropriation, is a requirement for compensation to be paid". However, the lawyers pointed out the alternative view was that South Africa's constitution "implicitly recognises that it would in some circumstances be just and equitable for compensation to be nil". South Africa's Public Works Minister Dean Macpherson has defended the legislation, breaking ranks with his party, the DA. In fact he is in charge of the new legalisation and, on a discussion panel, he explained that while he had some concerns about the law, it was a "dramatic improvement" on the previous Expropriation Act, with greater safeguards for land-owners. He said the law could also help end extortionist demands on the state, and in some cases "nil compensation" could be justified. He gave as an example the problems being faced by the state-owned power utility Eskom. It plans to roll out a transmission network over about 4,500km (28,000 miles) of land to boost electricity supplies to end the power crisis in the country. Ahead of the roll-out, some individuals colluded with Eskom officials to buy land for 1m rand ($56,000; £41,000), and then demanded R20m for it, he said. "Is it just and equitable to give them what they want? I don't think that's in the interest of the broader community or the state," Macpherson said. Giving another example, Macpherson said that some of South Africa's inner cities were in a "disastrous" condition. After owners left, buildings were "over-run" and "hijacked" for illegal occupation. The cost to the state to rebuild them could exceed their value, and in such cases the courts could rule that an owner qualified for "nil compensation", he said. "Nil is a form of compensation," Macpherson added, while ruling it out for farms. Johannesburg mayor Dada Morero told South Africa's Mail & Guardian newspaper that he wanted to use the buildings for the "public good", like accommodating around 300,000 people on the housing waiting list. He added the owners of nearly 100 buildings could not be located. "They have abandoned the buildings," he said, adding some of the owners were from the UK and Germany. But Mabasa and Karberg told the BBC that in such cases compensation would probably still have to be paid for the buildings, though not the land. If the state could not locate the owners, it "must deposit the compensation with the Master of the High Court" in case they returned or could be traced later, they said. The law is in limbo, as Ramaphosa – about four months after giving his assent to it – has still not set a date for its implementation. Nor is he likely to do so anytime soon, as he would not want to further antagonise Trump while South Africa was trying to negotiate a trade deal with the US. And on the domestic front, the DA is spearheading opposition to the legislation. It said it wanted a "judicial review" of it, while at the same time it was pressing ahead with court action to challenge the law's constitutionality. The DA's tough line is in contrast with that of Macpherson, who, a few weeks ago, warned that if the law was struck down in its entirety: "I don't know what's going to come after that. "In politics, sometimes you must be careful what you wish for because often you can get it," he said. His comments highlight the deep fissures in South African politics, with some parties, such as Julius Malema's Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), believing that the legislation did not go far enough to tackle racial inequality in land ownership. With land such an emotive issue, there is no easy solution to the dispute – and it is likely to continue to cause tensions within South Africa, as well as with the US president. Rebuked by Trump but praised at home: How Ramaphosa might gain from US showdown Is there a genocide of white South Africans as Trump claims? South Africans' anger over land set to explode Go to for more news from the African continent. Follow us on Twitter @BBCAfrica, on Facebook at BBC Africa or on Instagram at bbcafrica Africa Daily Focus on Africa
IOL News
28-05-2025
- Politics
- IOL News
Corné Mulder criticises BEE laws amid Trump-Ramaphosa meeting controversy
FF Plus leader Corné Mulder is suggesting that BEE laws be scrapped. Image: Jacoline Prinsloo / File Freedom Front Plus (FF Plus) leader Corné Mulder has come under scrutiny for his recent attacks on Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) laws in Parliament. Some speculate his actions are motivated by bitterness over not being invited to the White House meeting. However, Mulder dismissed these claims, stating he would have declined the invitation even if offered. Mulder's suggestions to scrap BEE and Affirmative Action laws in Parliament on Tuesday have left President Cyril Ramaphosa offended. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Mulder's criticism of BEE laws is not new. As the leader of the FF Plus, a partner in South Africa's 10-party broad coalition government, he has long been a vocal opponent of policies aimed at promoting economic transformation and redress. In a recent parliamentary session, Mulder asked Ramaphosa whether he was prepared to develop an economic policy that would scrap BEE laws, employment equity, affirmative action, and the Expropriation Act. Ramaphosa's response to Mulder's question was scathing. He expressed surprise that anyone would think BEE laws were holding back the economy, pointing out that the country's economic growth had been hindered by racist policies of the past. "Why can't black people be made to own the productive aspects of work? Why can't they be rich as well?" Ramaphosa asked, emphasising the need for broad-based economic participation. Ramaphosa also highlighted the progress made since democracy, noting that black people are now featured in advertisements for everyday products, reflecting their growing importance as consumers and active economic players. "With democracy, what has now been happening and what we seek to see happening is the opening up of the economy; the broadening up of economic participation," Ramaphosa said. Sources suggest Mulder was bitter after being snubbed from the meeting between Ramaphosa and US President Donald Trump in Washington last week, where the bone of contention was a purported 'white genocide' that allegedly took place in South Africa. Mulder was not invited and instead, Ramaphosa took with him Agriculture Minister John Steenhuisen, billionaire businessman Johann Rupert, and golfers Ernie Els and Ratief Goosen, believed to be the representatives of Afrikaners in the meeting. Mulder has been vocal about his disapproval of the Trump-Ramaphosa meeting, describing it as a "catastrophe" inflicted on South Africans. He believes the SA delegation had no answers to Trump's "right questions" due to wilful ignorance or outright denial. "The international narrative now is that the president was ambushed. You cannot be ambushed if you have the facts on your side." Mulder said if he had attended the meeting, he would have said the opposite of what the SA delegation conveyed. "The truth of the matter is that I was not invited to that meeting… I would have declined if I had been invited. But if I had gone, I would have said the exact opposite to make sure that Trump understands the real problems that South Africa has," Mulder said.
IOL News
28-05-2025
- Politics
- IOL News
GNU's ‘clearing house' called into question
DA Federal Council chairperson Helen Zille said the party will challenge the Expropriation Act. Image: Itumeleng English/ Independent Newspapers The Government of National Unity's (GNU) Clearing House Mechanism, established to resolve policy disagreements within the 10-member coalition, has been questioned over its effectiveness by the DA and Rise Mzantsi. Despite the mechanism's efforts to address disputes, the DA has continued to raise issues separately, including its latest challenge to the Expropriation Act, specifically the issue of nil compensation. Recently, DA federal council chairperson Helen Zille described the GNU clearing house mechanism as a "waste of time," stating that it does not work and "everyone acknowledges its ineffectiveness". "What we need is a mechanism in the GNU to implement clauses 19 and 18 (in the terms of reference). We do not need to renegotiate the laws of the game or anything; what we need is mechanisms that implement the statement of intent," Zille said. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad Loading The DA has launched several court challenges since its inclusion in the GNU, including a challenge to the Employment Equity Amendment Act (EEAA) and the Expropriation Act. The party argues that these laws are unconstitutional and will negatively impact the economy. The DA's lawyers will appear in the North Gauteng High Court to challenge the EEAA, which the party believes will repel investors and discriminate against certain races. The party's Federal Council has also passed a motion supporting Section 25 of the Constitution, which states that compensation for expropriated property must be "just and equitable" as determined by a court of law. The DA will pursue a constitutional challenge to the Expropriation Act in the High Court, arguing that it poses a direct threat to the rights enshrined in the Constitution and undermines the country's investment climate. Rise Mzansi spokesperson Mabine Seabe said his party would like to see the Clearing House Mechanism terms of reference finalised, so that the body has full effect. 'The body is only as good as the terms of reference and the goodwill of the signatories to the Statement of Intent. We will continue working through all fora to ensure that South Africa is a better place in 2029 than it is today,' Seabe said. The Good Party's Brett Herron said the Clearing House had only dealt with one substantive dispute - on the implementation of the BELA Act - which was raised by the DA in the first Clearing House meeting. 'Although we dealt with the BELA Act it was not, in our view, a matter that was appropriately brought to the Clearing House. The dispute should've arisen in the GNU cabinet or between the Party Leaders and then be referred to the Clearing House as a dispute resolution mechanism,' Herron said. 'The Expropriation Act has already been passed by the last parliament and signed into law by the President. It's a product of another election mandate. 'If the DA wants to persuade the GNU parties to amend policy on expropriation it should raise the issue in the cabinet or the GNU party leaders forum and if their proposal leads to a dispute or cannot be resolved there, then it could be referred to the Clearing House,' he said. Herron further said the Clearing House was not the place for the DA to reopen debate on policies and laws that it had already lost. Despite the parties' skepticism, the GNU Clearing House Mechanism, led by deputy president Paul Mashatile, has made efforts to address disputes within the GNU. The mechanism held its inaugural meeting on October 16, 2024, where it welcomed the draft Terms of Reference and agreed to finalise them in the next meeting. The meeting was convened by Mashatile, who emphasised the importance of resolving policy disagreements within the GNU. Political analyst Dr John Molepo said the effectiveness of the GNU Clearing House Mechanism remains to be seen. 'While this mechanism has provided a platform for discussion and resolution of disputes, the DA's continued court challenges raise questions about its ability to address the complex issues at hand,' he said. Mashatile's acting spokesperson was unavailable for comment on Tuesday. Cape Times
Daily Maverick
27-05-2025
- Business
- Daily Maverick
It's not BEE holding SA economy back, it's exclusive ownership, says Ramaphosa
In defence of BEE, President Cyril Ramaphosa says South Africa's redress policies aren't the issue stifling economic growth. 'Why can't black people be made to own productive aspects of work? Why can't they be rich as well?' President Cyril Ramaphosa asked MPs in the House on Tuesday. They were questions posed by the President in a lengthy response to a question from Freedom Front Plus (FF Plus) leader and MP Dr Corné Mulder, who asked, during a Q&A session in Parliament, whether Ramaphosa was prepared to develop an economic policy 'that can make possible, real economic growth' in South Africa. This 'real, new economic policy', as far as Mulder was concerned, needs to take a different approach with regard to 'certain basic things' that he suggested Ramaphosa wasn't prepared to do. Mulder said these 'certain basic things' related to black economic empowerment (BEE), employment equity, affirmative action and the Expropriation Act. (The FF Plus, a partner in SA's 10-party broad coalition government, is strongly opposed to the aforementioned policies.) 'Are you prepared to do that?' Mulder asked Ramaphosa. The President delivered nothing short of a sharp klap in response, saying at several points in his speech that he was 'baffled by people who still hanker [for] policies of the past. 'I'm rather surprised and taken aback when I hear that policies of black economic empowerment militate against the growth of our economy. That I find quite surprising, because I work from the starting point that our economy was held back over many years by the racist policies of the past. Those racist policies prevented all South Africans — or the majority of South Africans — [from playing] a meaningful role in the economy of their own country. 'Black people were brought in [as] hewers of wood and drawers of water. They were brought in as labourers, they were not even seen as consumers. They were not seen as active players in the economic landscape of our country. 'With democracy, what has now been happening and what we seek to see happening is the opening up of the economy; the broadening up of economic participation, which if you observe, Honourable Dr Mulder, you will actually see, and it's right in your face,' said Ramaphosa. Ramaphosa's response was delivered with a particular intensity, possibly as a result of the current spotlight on South Africa's employment equity policies on the back of a new policy directive issued by the Department of Communications and Digital Technologies, which is looking at relaxing the regulations around BEE ownership for satellite internet service providers. The move is seen as potentially paving the way for Starlink, the satellite internet company owned by the tech billionaire and de facto head of the US Department of Government Efficiency, Elon Musk, to operate in SA without ceding ownership. Race-based redress in its various forms in SA has been the subject of attacks from Musk and US President Donald Trump for months. Ramaphosa's statements also follow the DA's challenge to Section 15A of the Employment Equity Amendment Act heard in the Gauteng Division of the High Court earlier this month. Despite years of empowerment policies, deeply entrenched structural inequalities remain stubbornly resistant, which critics have pointed to as signs that the policies have failed to address the challenge of redress, Daily Maverick has reported. Critics claim BEE has enabled corruption and State Capture, with the DA's Helen Zille equating redress with State Capture. Ramaphosa said the Government of National Unity would spend 'a considerable amount of hours' in the days to come discussing the economic strategy and trajectory that South Africa should pursue. He continued: 'Our ambition, Honourable Dr Mulder, is to make sure that our economy grows [more] than what the projections are currently. 'Our objective is to spread economic participation broadly, and I will hold on to the argument that the more we have previously disadvantaged people playing a role in the economy of their own country, the better it is.' 'Concentration of ownership' Ramaphosa referred to reports by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, which, he said, found that among the factors restricting South Africa's economic growth was the level of market and capital ownership concentration. 'Concentration because, they said, the ownership of the economy is in far too few hands — ownership has not spread. 'Now, I find it very worrying that we continue to have this notion that BEE is the one that's holding our economy back. It is the partial and exclusive ownership of the means of production in our country that is holding this economy [back] from growing,' said Ramaphosa. 'If we accept that the ownership of our economy is imbalanced, the clause on equality in our Constitution seeks to undo that; to redress that. So, therefore, ownership of our economy should be broadened. 'And I can tell you, Dr Mulder, there's nothing that gives our people [as much] joy — particularly black people — as they go around and they find that this production facility's owned by a black person. It warms one's heart, it makes us feel so good. Because we've come from a horrible past where that was not allowed by law,' he said. Ramaphosa added that in apartheid South Africa, one would never see black people featured in advertisements for everyday products such as milk or soap. And yet, today, black people appear in almost every advertisement for a South African product — a reflection of the growing realisation that they are key consumers and active economic players, according to Ramaphosa. 'Now, those that would want black people just to play the consumer role are truly mistaken. Black people must play a productive role as well,' he told the House. 'We must allow more and more people to play an important role in the economy of our country. And this is what baffles me by those who are opposed to black economic empowerment. I say, what do you want to see happening — do you want to see black people continuing to play the role of labourers, drawers of water, hewers of wood and consumers only? Why can't black people be made to own productive aspects of work? Why can't they be rich as well? 'Dr Mulder, you look at the Afrikaners, the history of your people. If you look at the history of your people, they were held back by the English and, with [the] latter days, they were enabled; they became more and more economically empowered… Why can't the same be done for black people?' DM
