Grandstanding on land

The “debate” about the expropriation of land without compensation is nothing but political grandstanding. President Cyril Ramaphosa must know this and sense there is no political downside at this time in letting each party or person interpret the ANC resolution as they see fit.

The fact is the Constitution has never been an obstruction to land distribution or expropriation; rather the exact opposite. Section 25 permits such expropriation in the public interest, which specifically includes land reform. Yes, it is subject to compensation by agreement or as ordered by a court (not subject to willing buyer/willing seller as the ANC seemed to think), but such compensation is subject to various tests and may well be very little or as one could interpret section 25(3), even zero, if the argument could support that.

If on the other hand the Constitution would need amending to provide for expropriation without compensation, things may not go so smoothly. The ANC would need the EFF to vote with it to effect an amendment and, although on the face of it both parties agree with the policy, the EFF will in all likelihood not accept the ANC’s caveats of not disrupting the economy or food security. Furthermore, if the intention is that a minister or some committee can, without the involvement of a court, select which land is to be expropriated without compensation, this would probably conflict with section 1(c) of the constitution, which affirms that SA exists under the rule of law, meaning that the proposers of such an amendment would be confronted with section 74 (1) (a) which provides that to amend section 1 of the Constitution, which contains its founding values, 75% support in the National Assembly is required.

Land distribution may well be properly implemented under a new competent administration, but it won’t be because of that provocative resolution.

Sydney Kaye Cape Town