Parties express mixed views on expropriation bill, public urged to have their say

A worker cuts sugarcane.

A sugarcane farm on the KwaZulu-Natal South Coast. File Picture: Bongani Mbatha African News Agency (ANA).

Published Feb 22, 2023

Share

Durban - With less than two weeks to go before the close of the comment period, the public have been encouraged to have their say on the Expropriation Bill.

The bill is currently before the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) and the comment period closes on March 6.

In a statement to call for public comment, the select committee on transport, public service and administration, public works and infrastructure said the bill sought to:

  • Provide for the expropriation of property for a public purpose or in the public interest.
  • Regulate the procedure for the expropriation of property for a public purpose or in the public interest, including payment of compensation.
  • Identify certain instances where the provision of nil compensation may be just and equitable for expropriation in the public interest.

Opposition parties, the DA, IFP and the EFF, have all expressed reservations about the bill in its current form.

Earlier this week, Tim Brauteseth, NCOP DA spokesperson for public works and infrastructure, said the party was calling on all South Africans to submit their comments on the expropriation bill.

He said the party was specifically concerned about the “nil compensation” clause.

“The party remains deeply concerned with clause 12(3) of the bill. This provides for circumstances where it may be just and equitable for nil compensation to be paid, when land is expropriated in the public interest.”

Of further concern was the definition of property in the bill, he said.

“As the bill currently stands, it includes intellectual property and moveable assets. The DA is of the view that expropriation should be limited to immovable property only.”

Sanele Zondo, IFP spokesperson on public works and higher education, said the party would not support the bill in its current form.

“There are flaws in the bill and we don’t see it benefiting the people of South Africa. The fact is for us to support this bill, it needs to assist the poorest of the poor. We want this to be made clear to us.”

Zondo added that they were also concerned about agricultural land and what would happen to farmers.

“We are also worried about the Ingonyama Trust land whose trustee is the Zulu king. We need clarity that this land will not be affected and expropriated. We call on the public to make their comment about the expropriation bill.”

Mathapelo Siwisa, EFF MP and member of the public works and infrastructure committee, said that the party did not support the bill in its current form as it provided for circumstances where compensation would be paid when property was expropriated.

“We have made it clear that land and certain properties that used to belong to the state and might have been sold must be expropriated without compensation.

“It must be expropriated and fall under the state, that is the only way we will support this bill. We have made this clear and put in our submissions that we will not be supporting the bill in its current format.”

Legal expert Mpumelelo Zikalala said that legal issues arose when land was expropriated without compensation.

“The Expropriation Bill provides that land may be expropriated if it is for a public purpose or in the public interest. The issue is that if land is expropriated without compensation, this can be challenged in a court of law by the affected parties. This process in court can take anything from 24 to 36 months.”

Zikalala said with a court delay in such cases, any government projects earmarked for the land would be severely hampered as Treasury provides that the budget allocated for infrastructure projects must be used within 24 to 36 months.

“If not used in that period the money is returned to the Treasury. This alone shows why land expropriation without compensation will not work.”

University of Zululand economics professor Irrshad Kaseeram said that land reform in South Africa was necessary.

“However, the process is fraught with opportunism, patronage, political influence and notorious bureaucratic stalling.

“Farmer support programmes have been ineffective, thus far. Less than 20% of the earmarked land has been transferred and poor farmer support means that the land is not meeting the desired development ideals for farmers.

“Land reform must go hand in hand with the assurance by the government of the protection of private property rights of private individuals and investors.”

Comments can be emailed to Hlupheka Mtileni at [email protected] by no later than Monday, March 6. For enquiries call Mtileni at 083 709 8448.

THE MERCURY