Expropriation Bill: public hearings

Public Works and Infrastructure

24 March 2021
Chairperson: Ms N Ntobongwana (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Video: Portfolio Committee on Public Works and Infrastructure, 24 March 2021
Audio: Expropriation Bill: oral submissions 

The Committee held virtual public hearings on the Expropriation Bill.

The Council of Built Environment Youth Forum supported the Bill and said that it would serve the principles of Batho Pele (“people first”).

Mr Trevor Kamoto said he supported the Bill. He pointed out that the majority of farmland and agricultural holdings were privately owned by white people. Black people only owned four percent of the available farmland. It was evident that expropriation was needed to achieve the dream of transformation.

Free State Agriculture (FSA) indicated that it opposed the Bill entirely as it would negatively affect private property rights. It argued that the idea of expropriation without compensation was destroying national unity and that it would cause many economic issues. The organisation further said that the Bill would threaten food security and make farmers invest less in their farms due to insecurity of their property rights. FSA further said that the definition of expropriation in the Bill focused too much on the acquisition of the property by the state and not on the loss of the property by the owner.

Committee Members asked FSA to clarify which sections of the Bill it was especially opposed to. They also wanted to know how the sharing of the land with black people would damage national unity.

AfriForum believed that the Bill would have a devastating impact on society and the economy, and should not be adopted. It pointed out that the Bill did not restrict property to tangible property and thus did not protect intellectual property.AfriForum further said that the Bill was detrimental to citizens property rights and could result in a banking crisis due to the effects it would have on mortgages and other assets that farmers used as collateral to purchase the land.

Committee Members asked if AfriForum was concerned about the inequality of ownership in the country and if AfriForum had any alternative solutions.

Agri South Africa was against the Bill and shared similar concerns to AfriForum. It had issues with specific provisions in the Bill, especially those which were detrimental to private property rights. The economic impact of the Bill was also emphasised, with the organisation highlighting that expropriation would result in a serious recession as happened in Zimbabwe and Venezuela.

Committee Members wanted an elaboration on the issue of food security and the impact of the Bill on the economy.

Sakeliga indicated that the Bill was unconstitutional in that its definition of expropriation without compensation amounted to confiscation, which was fundamentally in conflict with the Constitution. Further, the Bill enabled the complete consolidation of state power to remove property, which could not be allowed.

The Banking Association of South Africa highlighted the negative effects of the Bill on the banking sector and the economy, noting that expropriation without compensation would result in an increase in credit and may lead to a banking crisis.

The Congress of Traditional Leaders of South Africa was in support of the Bill. It believed that expropriation had to happen in order to achieve transformation and return the land to its rightful owners. The organisation made it clear that land under the custodianship of traditional trusts could not be subject to expropriation, as that land was rightfully and legitimately the land of the people.

Committee Members wanted to clarify CONTRALESA’s position on land under traditional custodianship.

The South African Institute of Race Relations opposed the Bill, and felt that it was damaging to the country in many respects, most notably in that the Bill would not address the issue of black ownership and would actually give the state more power. It argued that the Bill would have massive economic damages, due to insecure property rights. It would not achieve land reform. In not requiring a prior court order for permanent expropriation the Bill failed to fix a major defect of the Act. The definition of expropriation in the Bill would lead to many regulatory takings.

Meeting report

The Committee held virtual public hearings on the Expropriation Bill.

The Council of Built Environment Youth Forum supported the Bill and said that it would serve the principles of Batho Pele (“people first”).

Mr Trevor Kamoto said he supported the Bill. He pointed out that the majority of farmland and agricultural holdings were privately owned by white people. Black people only owned four percent of the available farmland. It was evident that expropriation was needed to achieve the dream of transformation.

Free State Agriculture (FSA) indicated that it opposed the Bill entirely as it would negatively affect private property rights. It argued that the idea of expropriation without compensation was destroying national unity and that it would cause many economic issues. The organisation further said that the Bill would threaten food security and make farmers invest less in their farms due to insecurity of their property rights. FSA further said that the definition of expropriation in the Bill focused too much on the acquisition of the property by the state and not on the loss of the property by the owner.

Committee Members asked FSA to clarify which sections of the Bill it was especially opposed to. They also wanted to know how the sharing of the land with black people would damage national unity.

AfriForum believed that the Bill would have a devastating impact on society and the economy, and should not be adopted. It pointed out that the Bill did not restrict property to tangible property and thus did not protect intellectual property.AfriForum further said that the Bill was detrimental to citizens property rights and could result in a banking crisis due to the effects it would have on mortgages and other assets that farmers used as collateral to purchase the land.

Committee Members asked if AfriForum was concerned about the inequality of ownership in the country and if AfriForum had any alternative solutions.

Agri South Africa was against the Bill and shared similar concerns to AfriForum. It had issues with specific provisions in the Bill, especially those which were detrimental to private property rights. The economic impact of the Bill was also emphasised, with the organisation highlighting that expropriation would result in a serious recession as happened in Zimbabwe and Venezuela.

Committee Members wanted an elaboration on the issue of food security and the impact of the Bill on the economy.

Sakeliga indicated that the Bill was unconstitutional in that its definition of expropriation without compensation amounted to confiscation, which was fundamentally in conflict with the Constitution. Further, the Bill enabled the complete consolidation of state power to remove property, which could not be allowed.

The Banking Association of South Africa highlighted the negative effects of the Bill on the banking sector and the economy, noting that expropriation without compensation would result in an increase in credit and may lead to a banking crisis.

The Congress of Traditional Leaders of South Africa was in support of the Bill. It believed that expropriation had to happen in order to achieve transformation and return the land to its rightful owners. The organisation made it clear that land under the custodianship of traditional trusts could not be subject to expropriation, as that land was rightfully and legitimately the land of the people.

Committee Members wanted to clarify CONTRALESA’s position on land under traditional custodianship.

The South African Institute of Race Relations opposed the Bill, and felt that it was damaging to the country in many respects, most notably in that the Bill would not address the issue of black ownership and would actually give the state more power. It argued that the Bill would have massive economic damages, due to insecure property rights. It would not achieve land reform. In not requiring a prior court order for permanent expropriation the Bill failed to fix a major defect of the Act. The definition of expropriation in the Bill would lead to many regulatory takings.

Share this page: