Eastern Cape Residents express mixed views on the Expropriation Bill

At the start of the Eastern Cape leg of the public hearings on the Expropriation Bill in the Alfred Nzo District, residents expressed mixed views on the need for the Bill,

to blame the yawning gap between fairness and injustices on the Constitution, which often camouflages government failure to address landlessness, poverty and inequality and corruption in the last 25 years. In all these years, the government has failed to use the tools provided by the Constitution to bring about necessary reforms. “We need to take a hard look in the mirror and ask ourselves what we can do better to fix our mounting problems rather than blame the Constitution.”

Mr Ahmed Shaik-Emam said: “In the last 25 years we have learnt new lessons. Surely, we have learnt new experiences that necessitate the amendment of our Constitution to ensure that our Constitution protects the rights of all South Africans. That everyone, irrespective of race, gender or creed, enjoys the fruits of our Constitution.”

Mr Bantu Holomisa said: “The Bill of Rights enshrined in our Constitution is not a wish list. It seeks to empower our people and to ensure that the state plays a role to make these rights manifest. Regrettably, instead of upholding this Bill, the state has written a new chapter of corruption in the Constitution.”

Mr William Madisha said, “We should not lose sight of the fact that the Constitution signals a victory of the will of the people and is a result of many sacrifices for freedom and equal rights that we enjoy today.”

Mr Yunus Carrim of the NCOP said, “The authors of the Constitution realised that the only way to reduce the material inequality was to address the economic exploitation of black people. This was based on the notion that we don’t want freedom without bread and we don’t want bread without freedom. The basic material rights of black people needed to be addressed for the full realisation of freedom. People have been patient with us, but for how long? We must learn from history,” he warned.

Mr Zakhele Mbhele of the NCOP said: “Our Constitution is a stark illustration of the stark difference between conceptualisation and implementation. For it to be realised, we need a capable state. But we inherited instead a corrupt and incapable state that finds it difficult to translate the principles of the Constitution into reality.”

In closing the debate, the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, Mr Ronald Lamola, said the greatest intent of our Constitution is to bring about social justice, social cohesion and nation-building.

After so much wrangling and opposing views on what the Constitution had, should and could have achieved, Mr Lamola said: “We have a responsibility to build a nation based on the Bill of Rights. We should bring everyone and minorities at the centre of this cause to construct a country that we all want. As such, we are committed to taking South Africa forward and to promote that which binds us together, than that which divides us.”

He added: “We should utilise this commonality to resolve our socio-economic conditions. And to utilise our constitutional democracy as our moral campus in attaining the South Africa for which we all aspire.”

The Chairperson of the committee, Ms Nolitha Ntobongwana, thanked participants for taking the time to participate in the proceedings. “We are extremely appreciative that the people of Alfred Nzo District braved the rainy and cold weather to contribute their views on the Bill. We have listened to every opinion expressed, and will take them into consideration when we conclude the public consultation process, which is one of the most important pillars of a democratic lawmaking process.”

Those who supported the Bill highlighted the dire need for land to build infrastructure, such as roads, schools, and health and agricultural facilities to change the socio-economic conditions of previously disadvantaged South Africans. Other participants in the hearings called for skills development for the purpose of capacitation, especially of previously disadvantaged people, to ensure that expropriated land is used productively.

Among the dissenting views on the Bill, the primary point of contention centred on dissatisfaction with Clause 12(3) of the Bill, which provides for instances where expropriation with nil compensation may be just and equitable. The argument advanced was that property is a generational investment, which would be threatened if the Bill is passed. Even these people recognised that sometimes expropriation in the public interest is required, but they said there should be equitable compensation when this occurs.

Traditional leaders participating in the hearings welcomed the Bill on the grounds that it will facilitate the return of land that was forcefully taken during the colonial era and which undermined the role of traditional leaders as the custodians of the land.

Meanwhile, the committee apologised to traditional leaders and the people of Matatiele who complained about the committee’s failure to visit their area. Ms Notobomgwana said: “We have taken due regard that we will not be able to visit every local municipality due to financial constraints, as well as the impracticability of such an endeavour. In all the provinces we have visited, we have ensured that people

are provided transport so as to ensure extensive coverage and meaningful public participation. We have also, in the past, called for written public submissions to ensure that even those who are unable to attend the hearings are afforded an opportunity to express their views on the Bill.”

Majority of Joe Gqabi District residents support the Bill

Most residents of Joe Gqabi District supported the Bill, largely because they believe expropriation promises to be a tool to reverse the injustices of the past, while ensuring equitable access to the land. However, they highlighted the risk of unfair allocation of land, which might undermine the Bill’s good intentions.

Emerging farmers complained during the hearings about the ongoing challenge of access to land, especially for previously disadvantaged people living in townships and rural areas. Traditional leaders also expressed their support for the Bill and highlighted the long-standing link between traditional leaders and land.

Some participants told the committee that their support for the Bill is on condition that expropriation of land translates into increased production, food security and job creation, alleviates poverty and, above all, restores equality in South Africa.

The committee also received various complaints related to the land reform process and other challenges, including the lack of title deeds and of support for emerging farmers. The committee committed itself to passing the complaints to the relevant parliamentary committees to ensure a follow-up and the delivery of services.

Residents who were not in favour of the Bill called the definition of property too vague, which they said will lead to disinvestment and job losses.

The committee assured residents that all their views had been recorded. The committee will deliberate on their views and incorporate them into the Bill, which will enrich and strengthen it.

The committee concluded the Eastern Cape leg of the Expropriation Bill public hearings in Gqeberha (previously Port Elizabeth) where residents were concerned about the impact of the Bill on South Africa’s investment drive to secure more foreign direct investment, which will boost economic growth and create jobs.

Equal numbers of Gqeberha residents supported and opposed the Bill. However, everyone agreed that the use of productive land must be maximised to ensure food security.

Dissenting views on the Bill were mainly anchored on the perceived risk of policy uncertainty due to ambiguity created by an unclear definition of the property that might be expropriated using the Bill. In addition, those opposing the Bill emphasised that South Africa is in dire need of investment to create job opportunities and the Bill will not assist in that respect. Others opposing the Bill believe that the process to amend Section

25 of the Constitution must be concluded to ensure that enabling legislation speaks directly to amendments made.

Meanwhile, the Bill’s supporters highlighted that it is a necessary step to redress past injustices and will enable the government to fight poverty, inequality and unemployment. Many supporters said their entrepreneurial spirit is smothered by the lack of access to land.

During the hearings, the committee heard first-hand of forced removals conducted by the previous administration and sympathised with those who are still waiting for their land claims to be settled. The committee committed to engaging with its sister portfolio committees in Parliament to ensure that they strengthen oversight of the departments identified. “We are a listening Parliament and all concerns raised by the people will be followed up, because ours is to strive to improve the lives of the people of South Africa,” said Ms Nolitha Ntobongwana, the Chairperson of the committee.

Meanwhile, following engagements with health officials and the announcement of adjusted restrictions on alert level 2, the committee resolved to postpone hearings in the Northern Cape, due to an exponential increase in Covid-19 infections in the province.

“We have decided to continue with the Western Cape hearings as scheduled, as the province is experiencing lower numbers of Covid-19 infections. Following the completion of the Western Cape leg of the hearings, the committee will pause its programme until the rate of infections is kept under control in both Northern Cape and Free State,” said Ms Ntobongwana.