With the imminent reconvening of the parliamentary committee on the amendment of the Constitution’s property clause, expropriation without compensation (EWC) is back in focus.
In the context of the economic devastation left by the Covid-19 epidemic and the societal lockdown meant to combat it, intruding into property rights is to gamble with the future.
This is a risk that at least some of those in power recognise. As a salve, the promise is that however far-reaching the changes may be, they will be done within the confines of the law, and under the direction of the state. (The ANC’s proposals for a constitutional amendment are nothing if not intrusive, as they envisage expropriation being put under the purview of the executive rather than the courts),
‘There will be no smash and grab,’ said President Cyril Ramaphosa in March 2018. In April last year, he said that ‘the one thing that I’ve always said, that will never be allowed, is to have land grabs’.
And, earlier this year, he promised: ‘Land grabs will not be allowed to happen in our country. We refuse to be reckless.’
In other words, no ‘self-help’ occupations or invasions. Yet events in recent weeks – official rhetoric or intentions aside – show this is exactly what has been happening.
In Elandsfontein in Midvaal, south of Johannesburg, a crowd seized plots of land in what has the hallmarks of an organised invasion. Participants spoke of having been required to make payments of R250 (adverts were even placed on social media) and to being under the direction of a group of coordinators called the ‘Big Six’. One of this group – the only one identified in the media, who gave his name as Letho Masoka – said that they were receiving people from as far afield as Nelspruit.
Farmers in the area expressed trepidation about what was under way. Not only was this a threat to their landholdings, but they claimed that there had been threats of violence. Said one: ‘They have been protesting, blocking roads, and denying us access to the invaded area. They even tried to set some houses on fire. Residents have been assaulted and threatened; they are fearing for their lives.’
Threatened to return
A court order against the invasion has provided some relief for the owners. But this is an ongoing issue, and some participants have threatened to return.
In Eersterus in Tshwane, a similar invasion occurred. Allegations arose that here too an ‘opportunistic’ leadership structure was behind the invasion, and here too, residents were fearful for their safety.
Echoing President Ramaphosa’s earlier calls, human settlements minister Lindiwe Sisulu responded: ‘We are sending a stern message to our people that they will not invade any land, it is completely illegal.’
The minister’s words, like those of Ramaphosa, are heartening. The problem, however, is very real. It is also a long-standing one.
We at the Institute of Race Relations (IRR) have written extensively on land invasions, both as a concerning phenomenon in its own right and as a threat to the rule of law. A disconcerting part of this has been the manner in which the state has too often managed the problem.
The 2014 case of William Nyandu and his farm in Ekuthuleni, between Eshowe and Melmoth in KwaZulu-Natal is a good illustration. The farm – once a Lutheran mission, and the home for generations of Nyandu’s family – found itself under the covetous gaze of traditional authorities and some mining interests. Rather than being protected by the state (Nyandu had been trying to secure proper title), ultimately police were sent in, accompanied by an armed impi, to escort the family out. Their property was stolen and their homes torched.
Under siege
In April last year, Emerald Dale Farm near Donnybrook literally came under siege after a number of disgruntled former employees demanded that the owners dismiss a handful of Zimbabweans in their employ. Then followed arson, intimidation, the mutilation of livestock and a blockade of access roads. A court order against 20 named individuals was obtained, but the police refused to assist the sheriff to serve the order, claiming to lack the personnel. The owners’ attorney remarked trenchantly that promises to keep land politics within the confines of the law looked very hollow when police commanders could decide whom to assist.
A few months later, a similar flare-up took place in the Mtwalume area of the KwaZulu-Natal South Coast. The community living then under the auspices of the Mathulini Communal Property Association (MCPA), which had obtained the property through a land claim, came under attack – one again, violence, arson, the blocking of roads – apparently by a rival faction. Here, again, frustration was sounded at the inertia of the state, which had ignored warnings about the severity of the situation.
Land invasions feature, too, in the case of David Rakgase, the Limpopo famer whose nearly two-decade fight to purchase the state-owned land he was working has attracted much attention. Among his many tribulations was that a group of invaders had taken up residence on the farm – Rakgase believed they were paying rent to someone for this. He could not have them removed (not being the owner, he lacked standing in the matter), and government was lethargic in coming to his aid. ‘The government won’t protect me,’ Rakgase told a reporter. ‘Their officials are the reason my land was invaded in the first place.’
All of which gives a glimpse into a major threat to South Africa’s development prospects. Government needs to act firmly and consistently in dealing with this phenomenon. Indeed, land invasions present not only a central challenge to the country’s farming economy, but also to the possibilities of successful land reform, and also the stability of the country.
‘Biggest potential threat’
As Annelize Crosby, legal and policy advisor to Agri-SA, told the IRR: ‘My view is that large-scale land invasions are the biggest potential threat that farmers face, especially those farming close to the big urban centres. We have not seen many instances of such invasions yet, perhaps because landless groupings are not sufficiently organised.
‘If landless people lose faith in government’s ability to bring about land reform, or if the land question is further politicised, there is a danger that we may see more of these large-scale invasions, which in turn can easily turn into conflict. People whose very livelihood is threatened may react in unpredictable and even irresponsible ways. This is something that our country cannot afford.
‘It will have disastrous consequences. That is why we need an orderly and sustainable land reform programme that is seen to have an impact,’ Crosby said.
If you like what you have just read, subscribe to the Daily Friend