Contentious Expropriation Bill

Contentious Expropriation Bill

Posted on July 10th, 2008 Huis-Huis 1 comment

In South Africa, as in other countries in Southern Africa, ownership of land is an emotional issue. But land is also a financial issue. And when money and emotions collide with legislation that is unfair, or even simply perceived to be unfair, things can turn ugly quickly.

A contentious bill

A new Expropriation Bill has been submitted to parliament and is still being discussed and commented on by the South African public. If promulgated, the new expropriation law will empower the South African government to forcefully acquire land (or any other property) at whatever price it deems “reasonable”, even if such price is not market related. The Bill limits current owners’ recourse to question the amount of compensation in court.

To a pessimist like myself, it would seem as though the South African government is hoping to expropriate property without fairly compensating the owners. But the optimist in me says that the democratically elected government of a great country like South Africa would never stoop that low. But why submit a one-sided expropriation bill like this one, then?

The department of agriculture and land affairs

The answer to my question lies more in the “who” than the “why”, it seems: The new Expropriation Bill was drafted by the department of agriculture and land affairs. The department has contended for a long time that land owners want exorbitant compensation for their land and that there isn’t enough money to expedite the process of land reform. And they have stuck by their guns, even though land owners could prove that the compensation they requested was market related AND the fact that the department of agriculture and land affairs was notoriously unable to spend their whole budget, resulting in monies allocated for land reform returning to government coffers unspent.

The department of agriculture and land affairs is under pressure. The ANC land reform targets were (necessarily) ambitious right from the start. But the master plan to attain those targets were lacking according to many observers. The 2014 deadline, when 30% of South African land must rest in black hands, is looming uncomfortably close, while only 4% of land have been transferred to previously disadvantaged land claimants.

With this bill, the department was obviously aiming for a solution to the problem of the willing seller/willing buyer policy of their land reform and restitution program with this Expropriation Bill. And if things continue along historical lines, they will soon have their solution.

Public reaction

The general consensus among public commentators is that the proposed law is bad news for South Africa. Former South African President FW De Klerk went as far as calling the land expropriation bill unconstitutional.

The interim committee for the defence of property rights (which includes organisations such as Agri SA, AfriForum, the Afikanerbond, the FW de Klerk Foundation, the Agricultural Employers Organisation, the National Taxpayers Union, the Afrikanerfront, the ACDP, Freedom Front Plus and the Democratic Alliance) said that the expropriation of white-owned property at less than the market value was not justifiable. The group feels that the bill was based on “the perception that white South Africans had no moral right to own land in particular, but also property in general, as everything they possess is the result of wrongful deprivation.”

Agri SA, South Africa’s umbrella agricultural federation, is of the opinion that the Expropriation Bill will jeopardise food security in South Africa if passed by Parliament in its current form, because people are not going to invest in agriculture if there is a cloud hanging over their future. Agri SA also expressed concern that the government can use the proposed expropriation law to take away not just land, but ANY assets.

Agri SA agrees with government that the speed of land restitution and reform has been extremely slow, but says it is because government does not have the capacity to handle transformation in agriculture. They say that there is land available for reform and that applying expropriation to land reform when land is available sends mixed signals.

Agri Gauteng is of the opinion that the challenges in land reform have nothing to do with the acquisition of high potential agricultural land by government OR the free market price of land, but that the real problem is government’s lack of capacity to perform, which cannot be fixed by a draconian Expropriation Bill.

Some opponents to the expropriation bill threatened court action to abolish the bill, because they see it as reminiscent of Zimbabwe’s controversial land seizure policy. They expressed fears that the proposed law could further undermine the country’s international credibility and erode investor confidence.

The DA (Democratic Alliance) feel parallels with the Zimbabwean situation are premature and uncalled for. But they do feel that the bill would concentrate too much power in one minister, because the decision of the substantive minister of lands would be final and cannot be contested in a court of law.

The DA went on to accuse the government of trying to “sidestep” the public participation process by holding the public hearings in obscure, little known areas and not advertising properly, in an “effort to try and hamper the amount of public objection”.

So what do you think?