Latest news with #expropriation
BBC News
2 days ago
- Business
- BBC News
South Africa's land law explained – and why it so inflames Donald 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 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 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 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. So what exactly can be expropriated without compensation? In rare circumstances it would be land that was needed for the "public interest", legal experts told the to South African law firm Werksmans Attorneys, this suggested it would mainly, or perhaps only, happen in relation to the land reform 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 and Karberg told the BBC that in their view, productive agricultural land could not be expropriated without 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 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. Why will less money be paid in compensation? 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 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 lawyers said that all expropriations had "extensive procedural fairness requirements", including the owner's right to go to court if they were not move away from market-value compensation will also apply to land expropriated for a "public purpose" – like building state schools or 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. Will it make it easier for the government to acquire land? The government hopes so. University of Western Cape land expert Prof Ruth Hall told the BBC that more than 80,000 land claims remain 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 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 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 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 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 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 Trump's Oval Office confrontation with Ramaphosa What has been the reaction in South Africa? 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 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". What does the government say? South Africa's Public Works Minister Dean Macpherson has defended the legislation, breaking ranks with his party, the 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 gave as an example the problems being faced by the state-owned power utility 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 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 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 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 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 Mabasa and Karberg told the BBC that in such cases compensation would probably still have to be paid for the buildings, though not the 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. What next? 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 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 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. You may also be interested in: Rebuked by Trump but praised at home: How Ramaphosa might gain from US showdownIs 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 us on Twitter @BBCAfrica, on Facebook at BBC Africa or on Instagram at bbcafrica
Yahoo
2 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
CBC
4 days ago
- General
- CBC
'Partial win' for B.C.'s Francophone school board in bid to buy land to build new schools
In a ruling, the B.C. Supreme Court has ordered the provincial government to pass a law within six months to allow for B.C.'s Francophone school board to expropriate private property to build new schools on. It's something every other school board in the province has the power to do. As Chad Pawson reports, B.C.'s French-language school board is calling the ruling a partial win.
CBC
6 days ago
- General
- CBC
Court orders B.C. to pass law giving French school board expropriation powers
The B.C. Supreme Court has ordered the provincial government to pass a law within six months providing the Francophone School Board with powers to expropriate private property to build new French-language schools. The court found that, unlike other school boards in B.C., the Francophone School Board is the only one without expropriation powers despite it having the "greatest need" for new schools. "Establishing a new school in British Columbia is expensive and surprisingly difficult. Land use is intricately regulated by a variety of public authorities. Suitable land is scarce and a web of institutions, procedures, laws and legal principles touches upon every aspect of the process," the ruling says. "Despite what one imagines was the case in the early days of this province's modern history, in the 21st century, establishing a school is not at all a simple matter of acquiring a parcel of land and hiring contractors." The board said in a statement that the ruling posted this week is a "partial victory" in recognizing its challenges when compared to other school boards, and it acknowledges that Vancouver does not provide "equivalent education" in French. Board president Marie-Pierre Lavoie said the court ruling gives the board "access to better tools to support its hard work in finding sites and building schools." "Parents have been wanting to have schools throughout the province in specific areas and we can't offer that service because we are faced sometimes, often, with refusal from other parties," Lavoie said in an interview Wednesday. "This judgment attempts to remediate that." But the board statement said it's "disappointed" with several of the court's findings, including its refusal to transfer properties in Vancouver and Whistler, as well as the decision to give the province time to remedy Charter violations rather than recognize "the urgent need for quality French-language schools." Lavoie said the court gave the provincial government "latitude to remain reactionary" instead of ordering it to help the board overcome challenges identifying sites and building schools. The board said the court's refusal to order the provincial government to approve funding for French-language school construction will "likely slow" its efforts to open the schools as guaranteed by the Charter. "Certain aspects of the Court's legal analysis are clearly flawed," the statement said. Mark Power, one of the board's lawyers, said Wednesday that the court's ruling is not a complete "win across the board" and they're considering an appeal. Power said part of the "frustration" around offering French-language education in B.C. has been the time it has taken "to implement a promise that was guaranteed in 1982" by the Charter. That promise, Power said, has been implemented well for anglophones in Quebec, "but for francophones in British Columbia [it] has been very laborious and frustrating." "So part of the question in this most recent trial was how long does one have to wait?" The court concluded that the board can lease its schools long term from the Vancouver Board of Education, which does not "ensure a true and lasting equivalence for parents who can enrol their children" in French schools. Lavoie said in the board's statement that the judgment is complex and the board will "need time to analyze its impacts," noting that the case can still be appealed. The ruling said the case is the latest in a series of "prolonged and difficult lawsuits" about the Charter's guarantee of minority language education rights since it was enacted in 1982. It said courts in 2016 and 2020 determined that "certain communities" in B.C., such as Whistler, are entitled to offer francophone schooling but "the necessary schools are still not in existence." The B.C. Ministry of Infrastructure, a defendant in the case, said in a statement that it was thankful for the court's "guidance on how the Province can fulfil its constitutional obligations." The statement said the province has invested more than $268 million in francophone schools since 2017, including "key investments" in several cities including Burnaby, Pemberton, Victoria, Squamish, Sechelt, Kamloops, Smithers and Duncan. The Vancouver School Board said in a statement that the court ruling is fresh and it is "currently reviewing its implications, particularly as it relates to specific school sites." "We appreciate the complexity of the issues at hand and will take the necessary time to fully understand the impact of the ruling before determining next steps," the board said. "The [Vancouver School Board] continues to support francophone education in Vancouver."
CTV News
6 days ago
- General
- CTV News
Court orders B.C. to pass law giving French school board expropriation powers
The Law Courts building, which is home to B.C. Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal is seen in Vancouver on November 23, 2023. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Darryl Dyck The B.C. Supreme Court has ordered the provincial government to pass a law within six months providing the Francophone School Board with powers to expropriate private property to build new French-language schools. The court found that, unlike other school boards in B.C., the Francophone School Board is the only one without expropriation powers despite it having the 'greatest need' for new schools. The board says in a statement that the ruling posted this week is a 'partial victory,' recognizing its challenges compared to other school boards, and it acknowledges that Vancouver does not provide 'equivalent education' in French. Board president Marie-Pierre Lavoie says the court ruling gives the board 'access to better tools to support its hard work in finding sites and building schools.' But the board statement says it's 'disappointed' with several of the court's findings, including its refusal to transfer properties in Vancouver and Whistler, as well as the decision to give the province time to remedy Charter violations rather than recognize 'the urgent need for quality French-language schools.' Lavoie says the court gave the provincial government 'latitude to remain reactionary' instead of ordering it to help the board overcome challenges identifying sites and building schools. She says in the board's statement that the judgment is complex and the board will 'need time to analyze its impacts.' The ruling says the case is the latest in a series of 'prolonged and difficult lawsuits' about the Charter's guarantee of minority language education rights since it was enacted in 1982. It says courts in 2016 and 2020 determined that 'certain communities' in B.C. such as Whistler are entitled to offer francophone schooling but 'the necessary schools are still not in existence.' This report by Darryl Greer, The Canadian Press, was first published May 28, 2025.
