In October of 2020, South Africa proposed a bill for uncompensated land expropriation. Intended to replace a 1975 Act that was considered unconstitutional, the bill introduced a comprehensive new land redistribution for agricultural purposes and settlement. Rules would be laid down to enable the government to acquire land ‘in the public interest” and ‘for public purposes’. This could result in expropriation without compensation.
With no doubt, this is likely to draw the justice system into the issue.
In 1912, Sol Plaatje, a founding father of the African National Congress (ANC) attacked the infamous 1913 land law that allocated 7.5%, later 13%, of the two British colonies and two Boer Republics that constituted the Union – later Republic – of South Africa, to the indigenous people. As a result, thousands of Africans had been made homeless, and many communities had been made homeless. Plaatje was a member of the 1914 delegation which sought London’s help in opposing the legislation. He later wrote a moving book on the act, “Native Life in South Africa.”
During this era, over 4 million Africans were forcibly removed.
The 1913 law contradicted the words of the then British government, which assured this non-White delegation, which traveled to London, that they need not be concerned about their rights. The Boer descendants constituting the majority of Whites in South Africa were also good Christians, who would take care of non-Whites. The delegation had come to plead that the non-racial voting rights based on education and property, entrenched since 1853 in the Cape constitution, be extended to all South Africans. This right was not included for all provinces in the Union’s constitution. Indeed, non-Whites were deprived of their voting rights under apartheid.
Thus, from the beginning of the Union of South Africa, the land issue was a central issue apart from civil rights in the conflict between non-Whites and the white minority government. Following the first democratic 1994 election which brought the ANC to power, the question was not satisfactorily resolved.
Expropriation without compensation may cause alarm and is likely to land in the courts. Bulelwa Mabasa, a member of the President’s Land Reform Advisory Panel, assured everyone that the law would not lead to rapid expropriation as occurred in Zimbabwe. She explained the decision regarding compensation would be decided by the courts. Anyway, compensation was only one measure, even if it attracted the lion’s share of media coverage. The new law would ensure a balance of power and the oversight of the courts. Lack of compensation did not mean nationalization.
Mabasa said that all landowners would be informed before any steps were taken so that the State had to advise why it claimed the land, what work had been done, and for what purpose the land would be used.
The government published the bill before it was brought to Parliament, so it became known under which circumstances no compensation would be paid. This included land which was unused by the owners, which served only to benefit them in the event of a market price rise; land abandoned by the owners without controlling it; land seen as a threat to the safety or health of others or other properties.
The government asserted that expropriation without compensation was merely an instrument to be used in appropriate cases to enable land reform and redress. The bill brought certainty to South Africans and investors as it “clearly outlined” how and on what basis expropriation can be carried out. This legislative certainty is critical as the country rebuilds its economy and invests in communities.