Groups may challenge expropriation without compensation bill in Concourt

INDEPENDENT organisations have become the latest voices to join opposition parties in requesting President Cyril Ramaphosa not to sign the highly-contested Expropriation Bill.

On March 24, the National Assembly approved the Expropriation Bill as amended by the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) following a vote of 205 in favour of, and 108 against.

However, despite the resolution by the governing party, a number of voices have opposed the passing of the bill, especially the DA, Freedom Front Plus as well as the IFP, which have vowed to take it to the Constitutional Court to challenge the bill’s constitutionality.

The DA accused the governing ANC of attempting to “bulldoze” the bill through as a last-ditch effort to gain votes in the run-up to the national and provincial elections on May 29.

The party’s Tim Brauteseth said the bill amounted to nothing more than introducing expropriation without compensation through the legislative backdoor by passing it in the NCOP with the ANC in full support.

The IFP said it supported the expropriation bill, but differed in the way it was being followed, as the party believed those who owned land must be compensated if the state deemed there were grounds for expropriation.

The Institute of Race Relations (IRR), the latest organisation to speak out against the bill, petitioned Ramaphosa not to sign the Expropriation Bill, citing several concerns which rendered the bill unconstitutional.

There had been grave flaws in the public participation process and constitutional inconsistencies that Parliament ought to reconcile before placing the bill before the president, it said.

Makone Maja, IRR campaign manager, said the Expropriation Bill was rushed through Parliament and hastily sent to Ramaphosa for signing.

Maja said Parliament had barely scraped the surface of the tens of thousands of submissions made during the public hearings on this legislation; neither did it perform a thorough Socio-Economic Impact Assessment System (SEIAS) test to assess the potential economic harm South Africa would suffer if the bill was enacted.

“The bill is unconstitutional in its inconsistency on the contents of the notice of expropriation related to when mediation and court intervention may arise. It also remains unclear on the open-ended list of land that can be expropriated without compensation and whether this includes improvements to the land or not. This too is unconstitutional on the basis of vagueness.”

The FW de Klerk Foundation pleaded with Ramaphosa to send the bill back. It cited concerns surrounding the procedural irregularities in its passing through the NCOP.

Ismail Joosub, the FW de Klerk Foundation’s legal officer, said mandates for voting on the bill were hastily assembled, with Gauteng, the Eastern Cape and Limpopo bypassing full provincial legislature involvement.

Decisions were made by legislative committees, effectively sidelining the voices of citizens and their elected representatives. “The foundation emphasises the urgent need for a transparent, accountable legislative process that upholds constitutional principles and safeguards property rights. Any deviation from these principles risks plunging SA into economic turmoil and exacerbating social inequality.”