When the Expropriation Bill of 2020 (the Bill) was gazetted in October last year, Deputy President David Mabuza claimed that it would ‘address the injustices of the past and restore land rights’.

But the Bill is in fact a draconian measure that can be used to strip millions of South Africans of their homes and other assets without the prior court orders, fair procedures, or equitable compensation that the Constitution requires.

The Bill is unconstitutional

The Bill is unconstitutional in at least three ways:

First, its open list of the circumstances in which ‘nil’ compensation may be paid for land is void for vagueness. It also contradicts the rule of law, the ‘supremacy’ of which is guaranteed by the Constitution’s founding provisions in Section 1.

Allowing expropriation for nil compensation is inconsistent with Section 25 (the property clause), which requires ‘an equitable balance’ between the nation’s interest in land reform and the interests of the expropriated owner. Since the expropriated owner cannot be expected to shoulder a disproportionate share of the costs of meeting a broad societal need, nil compensation is intrinsically inequitable and invalid.

Second, the Bill’s procedural rules allow an expropriating authority to act as judge and jury in its own cause. This contradicts, among other things, Section 1 of the Constitution (with its emphasis on the supremacy of the rule of law), Section 25 (with its objective requirements for a valid expropriation), Section 33 (which guarantees fair and reasonable administrative action) and Section 34 (which gives people the right to have the compensation payable decided by the courts before the state unilaterally takes ownership and possession of their key assets).

Third, the Bill defines ‘expropriation’ in a way that is intended to allow the government to take custodianship of all land in the country without having to pay any compensation at all. It seeks to achieve this by drawing a technical and artificial distinction between the taking of ownership by the state – which counts as an expropriation requiring ‘just’ compensation – and the state’s assumption of custodianship, which does not. However, what the Constitution means by the term ‘expropriation’ is not so easily circumvented.

The Bill will not help with land reform

The government has repeatedly claimed that the Bill will help ‘return’ the land to ‘the people’. But land and other assets expropriated for nil or inadequate compensation will in fact be owned or controlled by the state. Nor will such property be transferred into the ownership of black South Africans thereafter. Instead, this property will be held by the state as a patronage tool and will be used by it to deepen dependency on the ruling party. That is the fraud at the heart of the Bill.

In addition, though land reform since 1994 has resulted in the transfer of some 10 million hectares, this has brought very little benefit to anyone. Instead, more than 70% of previously successful farms have fallen out of production, while many agricultural jobs have been lost.

The Bill cannot rectify these failures, which have little to do with land acquisition costs. To turn land reform from failure to success, we need vastly better bureaucratic efficiency, increased training and skills, and effective action against corruption and crippling rural crime. Farmers also need secure ownership rights – free from any threat of expropriation – so that they can borrow working capital from the banks.

The economic damage will be massive

After almost a year of Covid-19 lockdowns, GDP has shrunk by some 8%, almost 2 million people have lost their jobs, and tax revenues have tumbled. Public debt has soared to some 82% of GDP, and is set to rise even higher (to 95% of GDP) by 2025. The government is borrowing roughly R2.2bn a day, mainly to fund consumption spending, and the budget deficit could rise to almost 16% of GDP in this financial year. The country has been downgraded to sub-investment or ‘junk’ status by all international ratings agencies.

Against this background, South Africa urgently needs an upsurge in foreign and local direct investment to jumpstart growth, expand employment, and quicken economic recovery. But this will not be possible under the Bill, which – contrary to the ANC’s own 54th national conference resolution – is sure to destabilise the agricultural sector, endanger food security, and undermine economic growth. It will also erode business confidence, increase the unemployment rate, reduce tax revenues, add to an already unsustainable burden of public debt, and push the economy closer to the brink of collapse.

The real aim is to advance the NDR

The ANC’s real aim is to help advance the ‘national democratic revolution’ (NDR) to which it has been committed for more than 50 years. The NDR is a Soviet-inspired strategy which the ANC’s communist allies in the tripartite alliance openly identify as offering the ‘most direct’ route from South Africa’s predominantly free-market system to a socialist and then communist future.

In pursuing the NDR, one of the ANC’s main objectives is to bring about the ‘elimination of apartheid property relations’. However, the word ‘apartheid’ is a red herring. Replace it with the word ‘existing’ and the real meaning of this goal becomes apparent.

Putting an end to private property rights is vital to the NDR for various reasons. Socialism and communism demand pervasive state control, which cannot be achieved when the ownership of land and other assets is dispersed among millions of individuals and enterprises. In addition, private property rights are crucial to free markets, which cannot function without them.

Capitalism has been extraordinarily successful in lifting people out of poverty and meeting their needs in innovative and efficient ways, but the ANC nevertheless remains deeply hostile to it. The ANC is also indifferent to the starvation and destitution that expropriation for little or no compensation has triggered in Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and other socialist countries. All that matters to the ruling party is its ideological determination to advance the NDR and thereby achieve a supposed socialist ‘nirvana’.

The vital need to ‘kill the Bill’

The Bill will rig the rules of the game by bypassing all common law and constitutional protections for property rights. It will deprive the Constitution of much of its vital force, leaving people far more vulnerable to the destructive interventions of an increasingly corrupt and venal state.

Over time, the Bill will be used to strip individuals and others of their land, homes, business premises, pensions, and other assets – and to vest these in the hands of a powerful political elite intent on pursuing a socialist NDR.

There is no time to waste in mobilising against the measure. South Africans only have until 10 February to kill this bill and protect property rights for everyone, black or white, rich or poor. Add your voice here.

[Picture:  Federico Respini on Unsplash]

If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend

77 COMMENTS

  1. All the words from the above, very concise explantation of the “Bill “ with all the ifs ,perhaps, buts & possibilities will be put thru a blender & handheld mixer. Then regurgitated as an amended nothing burger which is even more draconian before being presented as a modified humane redistribution of poverty & return of land rights. This recipe will make you heave & throw up from an overdose of duplicity.
    Nothing goodwill come of it. You have been warned from it’s inception until now. It’s poison!

    • “You have been warned from it’s inception until now. It’s poison!”

      NOT according to Professor Elmien du Plessis — in a recent article– syndicated by News 24
      BEHIND A PAYWALL !

      Elmien du Plessis
      @elmienduplessis
      ·
      Feb 4
      To reduce the Expropriation Bill as an instrument of expropriating at nil compensation only, is an oversimplification of what the Bill seeks to do.
      My take on some of the issues raised recently regarding the Expropriation Bill.

      https://twitter.com/elmienduplessis?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

      One notes that the Professor has — some skin in the game — her recently deceased father
      Professor Lourens Marthinus du Plessis co-wrote the draft constitution
      ( perhaps together with Matamela Cyril Ramaphosa and Roelf Petrus Meyer ? )

      Article in full on Page 5 The Witness Tuesday February 9th 2021
      “Drawing the lines a little Clearer”
      A good piece of Legislation

      One wonders how something so important can be reduced to mere — filthy lucre ?
      Perhaps this is a case of the SA Intelligence and Security services — “inducement-fund”

      How is it possible for highly learned academics to have such differing — “expert opinions” ?
      I would suggest a debate between ALL of these woman academics

      Dr Anthea Jeffery
      Prof Ruth Hall
      Prof Elmien du Plessis

      Heaven help us ….

  2. The simplistic bill has had no intellect applied to it. It is just a grandiose “elite land grab”….. we will stop it…

  3. Great summary! EWC is the main stumbling block standing between this country’s third world slippery slope status and prosperity for all. Many citizens, myself included, are holding our breaths to see where it goes before investing in this country. The effects of EWC are therefore twofold: Local citizens are going to take their assets overseas (they already are) and foreign investors are going to skip South Africa if EWC/nationalisation goes through.

  4. The bill is unconstitutional and just another way for the government to steal from the public…….to take ones property is the definition of theft.

  5. No matter what happens, and with all the votes in the world, this Bill will go through. Yes, we must voice our opposition to it. But unless some large conglomerate, with a Big Petty Cash Box available, takes this to the Constitutional Court, where we may have a fighting chance, I am more than sure we are not going to swing this away from the ANC’s desires.
    There is no vision in Africa, that’s why its a basket case. It is the ‘here-and-now’ that counts and ‘we will sort out tomorrows problems tomorrow, our way.’
    That is it. Try as we might, no ‘Colonial Law’ will be held with any regard. Colonial Law, as with anything Colonial in this country, is only of Value if the ANC benefits. If it doesn’t, then its African Cultural Law that counts. Tough but true. Time to sharpen the Claymores and batten down the hatches. HKGK.

    • Whatever you thought of Trump, he correctly described Africa: It’s a sh.ithole whichever way you look at it. And just like Zimbabwe, we will become an even bigger basket case if this EWC bill goes through.

    • I agree – “KilltheBill” is a bit of a red herring: the Bill will be passed by the illiterate majority, so this campaign is misleading. It may be reversed if taken to the Constitutional Court, that’s the only hope.

    • Sad but very true. Like so many blatantly wrong decisions taken by the ANC this will be the most significant and detrimental to all the citizens of our beautiful country.
      They will forge ahead and destroy what little is left.

  6. As usual Anthea got to the bottom of the matter separating out the real mischievous and devious objectives with this law. What can still be done other than commenting / petitioning? Go to court?

    I have read many accounts about what happened in countries like Russia and China with Communist revolutions that are too ghastly to contemplate. In SA the same revolution is currently taking place, masked with the words transformation, democratic, and others, and although bloodless, it is gere done gradually – the boiling frog way. And moreover, the president has in so many words indicated that is what they are busy doing. Nothing covert, but deception is the tool.

    • We will end up like Venezuela or Zimbabwe if this goes through – not like the USSR, China or even Cuba – the ANC is simply to useless to implement real socialism / communism

  7. Thak you for an excellent summary.
    Only the pension funds that have large property and investment portfolios will be able to mobilise the massses to show what will happen to average Joe if this bill gets passed. We need the truth to be told to the masses, rather than a sugar coated message that is far from the truth.

  8. Good article, well summarized and explained.

    Reputable journalists have spent years now attempting to expose, explain and warn of idiotic legislation (such as this) on a number of fronts that have been drawn up by a government of misfits and then implemented.

    The obvious conclusion is that the ANC does not care. They don’t care whether there is investment and associated prosperity in this country. They clearly see themselves as above the law. A gangster like Zuma is defended by Magashule in a haughty, arrogant way during an interview with SABC news. Magashule was going to take Pieter Louis Myburgh to court when the book “Gangster State” was published. If he did so he would have worn a prison suit by now, and he knew this.

    in the meantime the citizenry is fed a diet of rubbish political ideas (like EWC) during interviews and debates that a child of 16 with a reasonable intellect will laugh at.

    If I seem to be laboring my point, it is because I am completely exasperated with the delinquents running this country. Something has to give, but it seems like we will just continue our not so imperceptible slide into economic obscurity.

  9. And still Corporate SA remains eerily silent in the face of this devastating and blatant asset grab. All in the hope of avoiding being labelled ‘racist’ and ‘anti-transformationist’ thereby jeopardising their potential ‘sweet deals’ and scratch-my-back arrangements with our criminally corrupt government.

    • Oh, they are trying not to rock the boat. Plain and simple truth is they enjoy moral hazard. They don’t have a skin in this game. It’s the consumer that gets screwed, they get their money either way. Until of course government decides for example oh Discovery Health would look great in their portfolio and just nationalises oops I mean expropriates it for its NHS agenda. Why not? Property is property. Or until government decides hmm this little hedge fund would serve well to pay for e-Tolls. Thank you very much..

      • Or decide, wait, wouldn’t it be nice if we could expropriate the Reserve Bank and ABSA, SBSA, NB & FNB into one Government Bank? Then we only to have to steal from one place, instead of many.

        I read a while ago that apparently Moody’s credit rating of “junk” status has 2 levels, level 1 and then level 2. I wonder what is lower than Junk Level 2? Would the next one be Garbage and the lowest Sewerage?

  10. If I can add my opinion to your latest story about the EWC bill, it is to categorically state that the black population NEVER owned any land in this country, so my view is that it is another attempt to STEAL what never was theirs in the first place, and further impoverish all this country’s people, in order to enrich the whole lot of mindless thieves making a total mess of a flourishing and happy land for their absolute stupidity.
    Just to put you in the picture, I was born in 1938 and have lived through WWii and apartheid and was required to obey all the laws of the reigning government of the time, including the latest bunch of totally useless “heroes” at present
    Need I say more?

  11. Can you now understand why Communism was banned pre-1994?
    The old garde had common sense and experience but the liberals pushed for the vote! The latter seems to have NO common sense!

      • Marcell, Liberalism leads to socialism which leads to communism which leads to the original nazism.
        This end state is what the WEF/Davos delegates are striving to achieve.
        ‘Nuf said

  12. All of the above was known since 1962 yet, there were these naïve sympathisers of the ‘national democratic revolution’ (NDR) – that have pawned away their sovereignty in South Africa (funny that the same happened under their noses in Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and other socialist countries. – and now want to cry foul. – The ANC and its alliance partners are the terrorists to the sovereignty of South Africa and if any person ever believed that Mandela and their terrorist dispensation could ever provide a future for the country, the “fruits” of this is empirical evidence of how wrong they were. Yes, only the handful of sober thinkers are trying to circumvent the disaster – the Bill will be used to strip individuals and others of their land, homes, business premises, pensions, and other assets – and to vest these in the hands of a powerful political elite intent on pursuing a socialist NDR – it is necessary to raise your voice by supporting the efforts made by organisations like the IRR.

  13. It is totally unrealistic and would be another economic disaster. With Covid 19 still prevalent and wrecking havoc throughout the world, its unconscionable to think that this pathetic Government still wants to impose more hardship on the nation.
    We have worked hard all our lives, and have retired making sure we have enough to secure independance and not be a burden on our family or the State.
    For the above reasons we object most strongly to the Expropriation bill without compensation!!

  14. Thanks Dr Jeffery, a concise and excellent explination.
    I really hope that the readers and commentators of the Daily Friend have objected to the bill. If you haven’t please headd over to the IRR site to do so.

  15. I totally agree with Johan. The ANC doesn’t care, as long as the gains from corruption keeps rolling into their pockets.

  16. TAKING SOMETHING THAT YOU DID NOT WORKED FOR AND DOES NOT BELONG TO YOU IS CALLED STEELING. IS THIS NOT THE SAME? THE QUESTION IS WHO WILL BE ARRESTED FOR THIS OFFENCE?

    • That is exactly why we were warned by Bastiat.
      Legal Plunder ~The Law, by Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)
      It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder.

      The ANC and EFF know they can drive this through with a Parlimentary majority of 2/3rds.

  17. Excellent reading! Quite an eye-opener at just how the ANC is disregarding the rule of law. Prime example being the recent by Magashula that Zuma has done nothing wrong and one should disregard the constitutional law!

  18. As if some piece of paper is going to stop it. Just change the constitution.

    Wonder where Roelf Meyer and de Klerk’s cheques and bank accounts are.

    Lets talk about the billions that were stolen under project Hammer.

    • Marcell, quite correct but you forget to mention how much Cyril also got as well as that the CIA from the USA was the driving force and authors of that whole debacle which lost something to the effect of 50 tons of Gold to the USA to bolster their economy in those days.
      ‘Nuff said

  19. Dear friends

    It is not about the land this, it’s about the minerals that lay beneath it, watch this space,the ANC/EFF want those mineral rights that’s it.

  20. Interesting how people think that this Bill be unconstitutional.

    The truth hurts people – the ConCourt will approve it.

    The ConCourt’s approach towards private property rights is appalling. In AgriSA, the minerals case, the wholesale nationalisation of minerals without compensation (theft) was OK’d. in SA Hunters, the ConCourt crossed the Rubicon – firearms are a “privilege allowed by government not a right”. You don’t put your ankles in the Rubicon, which begs the question – what else is a privilege and not a right?

    the answer is: Whatever promotes independence from government is a privilege which can be revoked by fiat.

    The ConCourt found, in Salem (ironic), that in the event of a land claim facts don’t matter, just race. If a black person claims against a white person, the claim is correct even if there are no facts to support it – because history.

    Judges, past and present, of the highest court, have repeatedly voiced their support for EWC. Loyalty to the ANC’s transformation programme (NDR) is a pre-requisite for selection after all.

    And so when Cyril took office good old Sisulu was boasting about getting the first zero compensation case to the ConCourt. Remember the farms slated for nationalisation and all that? The ANC read the room and realised that the ConCourt would lose what’s left of its legitimacy if it went ahead.

    So now we have this evil Bill, which will become an Act.

    By the time the challenge makes it to the ConCourt, which will force the case through the lower courts first (like it did with the DA’s challenge to the Disaster Management Act), the Constitution will have been amended allowing the the ConCourt to say “our hands are tied, the Constitution says it can be done”.

    Any bets on this being the process?

    • On the final point: Anyone who bets on a certainty is a rogue. Anyone who bets on anything else is a fool.
      The previous stage (additional to the vocal opinion-submission circus), where the written submissions were considered too many to analyse – so they were just discarded, sets the tone.

  21. Absolutely outrageous non of this is in the interest of the people. The ANC continues to rob its people.

  22. The ANC like to refer to SA as a ‘democracy’ and that SA possesses a wonderful Constitution.
    Yet the Constitution gets repeatedly ignored by the ANC, thus, SA is not a democracy.
    Rather, it is s country run by a gang of cheating, lying, corrupt, uncaring thieves.
    The RWC bill defies all logic and intelligence. If passed, that’ll be SA well and truly in the gutter.

  23. This six pager is a start and at least provides some asked for legal analysis and reasoning. As opposed to the wall of advocacy and ideological commentary coming out of the IRR. It is still however a small part and not exactly very substantive. Your own head of advocacy said in a Podcast, that the Bill is not really the problem – instead the problem seem to be what the ANC-administration and an ANC-cadre aligned judiciary might do? A political argument? (Explains all the political commentary and ideology). In terms of the main legal arguments, I still wonder:

    (1) The “unlimited” (yes – this is the adjective) scope for nil compensation argument seems to rely entirely on bad faith, including towards the courts and higher courts. There is a whole chapter dedicated to compensation including all the factors that should be taken into account. Yet we are led to believe the courts will simply ignore these provisions, constitutional provisions and due process to willy-nilly expropriate property for nil compensation? The example used here even suggests that the court will take no context or circumstances into consideration…it feels a very low bar is set here for our courts.

    (2) Expropriation skewered in favour of the state. Omitted here is that the court can be approach at any stage of the process, at costs to the expropriating authority and the court has the power to stop the process? Is this correct? The notice of intend has timelines and there is definitely a case to be made that similiar timelines should be included after the notice to expropriate. To ensure that even if no legal proceeding where instated – which you would assume most people would do if they are challenging the expropriation intend and not the “compensation” – there is more than sufficient time. Again omitted is several references to due process, communication and in the Bill being implemented in accordance to Constitutional provisions. Still this is probably the legal argument with the best chance of getting some better administrative provisions added.

    (3) Being treated worse than criminals. Again, seem to rely on a lot of bad faith towards the whole process including courts. Since again the impression is created the courts cannot be approached as soon as a notice of intent to expropriate is issued. That courts will not test administrative provisions, compensation and the rational of the expropriation in the first place? Again, that this will be at costs to the expropriating authority.

    Both (2) and (3) seem to also have a very naive almost idealist notion of the legal system and the advantage the state / executive have in generally across liberal democracies in terms of power, ability to stomach legal costs and even in the context of separation of powers the privilege to “act” and make governance possible…Nowhere and not even in established liberal democracy are the legal systems libertarian utopias…or would anybody be able to act / govern if it first required to be subject to a long legal process…

    (4) The policy proposals are again a welcome change to all the bad faith advocacy and ideological signaling. Again, you would think much of what is proposed here would be tested by the courts?

    There are some worthy proposals and criticism of aspects of the process that can be improved. However, the overall “unconstitutionality” of the Act seems to be based entirely in bad faith arguments and political arguments about the true intentions of the ANC administration and the not subtlety concealed notion that courts will play along?

    • You have a point Helgard, but to me that is somewhat academical. Why pursue the matter at all with new legislation and threats of changing the constitution, if the Constitution is clear on the matter and can be interpreted as it stands by the courts.
      The technically correct analyses of the legal process falls by the wayside if all evidence point to hidden agendas and ulterior motives.
      It is therefore conceivable that the courts and the Judges, who come from a certain background will not look at it objectively and factually but emotionally and therefore have a tendency to go for the more acceptable interpretation.

      • Barend, read my comment to Confused it bit further down the comments list.

        Then you will see what the fundamental difference is between the new proposed bill and the existing ACT.

        And believe me, there is a massive difference if you change the chronological order of how things are currently done and how they are proposed to be done in the new act.

        • I don’t think that is an accurate reflection at all.

          For instance:

          21(3): Subsection (2) does not preclude a person from approaching a court on any matter relating to the application of this Act.

          This is seldom mentioned – never in the case of IRR advocacy.

          21 (5): A dispute on the amount of compensation alone shall not preclude the operation of section 9.

          Again what is the significance of “alone” in the context of the Bill? If the very act of expropriation is being challenged not just [alone] the compensation?

          Look, I agree some areas can be tightened up especially regarding some of the administrative processes and making it very clear that the “expropriation act” itself can be challenged in court. Plenty of legal opinion state the court is the final arbiter and expropriation the last resort. Yet the IRR, keeps disagreeing without out tackling the meat of these arguments?

          Further – I would like to know specifically from the IRR:

          (1) If a court can halt the expropriation process if unconstitutional and not in accordance with the Bill – before the expropriation “eviction” notice [expropriation date in expropriation notice]. In other words you get a notice for the intent to expropriate and immediately launch a court case challenging the expropriation itself. Section 21 talks about the stages of the expropriation process again suggesting that you can approach the court as soon as it is initiated (notice of intent stage) and that this should be taken into account be the court (stage of process).

          (2) Equally – say in the case of an emergency (urgent expropriation) is it reasonable to tie up the state in legal proceedings? It seems Chapter 7 is written to make this difficult and only under very specific circumstances can the state make use of “urgent expropriation”. Whilst this deals specifically with urgent expropriation – the impression is often created that this applies to normal expropriation which can take up to 80 days to get an expropriation notice?

          (3) Which brings us back to 1 – how feasible if we assume courts cannot stop / freeze the expropriation process (to me it is not clear they cannot) before the eviction notice – would it be for the state to have several legal cases where it will have to reverse and compensate parties for illegally expropriating land?

          I do think the lack of specified time frames at the expropriation notice step (1 week to publish in newspapers) is problematic and the best legal argument from the IRR. That the state in bad faith can simply proceed to unreasonably expropriate and worry about legal settlements later. Which is made easier if we assume the courts cannot stop the process before the expropriation notice because they cannot intervene at the notice for intent to expropriate step / or it will never have enough time (assuming here again for instance courts cannot issue an urgent interdicts or the courts will just be too slow)

          Like I said – there is a large element here of trust and how much bad faith / intentions you want to read into the situation when it comes to the constitutionality arguments. The IRR is on better grounds when it comes to tightening administrative provisions and with their political / economic arguments…

          • And which citizens can take on Government who has an unlimited purse? No one, the Elite will protect the Elite.

            That is the problem we can dream on.

            I wonder if their is a challenge under common law?

  24. This corrupted bill is so unfair to people that worked hard for a lifetime to have a roof over their heads not a mansion nor luxury….just a place to stay, now they want to take it for free and put myself and my children on the streets with nowhere to go, that’s called corruption, cheating and uncaring thieves.

  25. I understand all the dangers of EWC as described in this piece, but what I don’t understand is, if the govt has been committed to NDR for so long, then why has there not been large scale EWC already ?

    Many DF articles in the past made the point that the constitution as is currently written, already allows for EWC.

    • Dear Confused, you are quite correct – you are confused.

      The current constitution does not allow for EWC – in Section 25 of the constitution it states that each individual has the constitutional right to own property and if the government wants to take it from the individual, they have to approach a court and provide reasonable cause as to why they have to take it and when they do, they have to pay the owner a reasonable and just compensation for it.

      The current expropriation act, which is not part of the constitution, but subjected to its regulations, states that in very specific circumstances, when the government applies to expropriate an individual’s property, they have to prove to the court during their application for the expropriation order, why they should be allowed to compensate the owner “nil” amount. Only after they have satisfied the court that their nil compensation expropriation is legal, will they be issued an expropriation order by the court, which will then be delivered to the current owner. The current owner has the right to appeal this order of the court and all the time while this court case between the owner and the government is in progress, the owner can continue to occupy his property.

      What this Bill proposes, is to change the expropriation act as follows: the government can issue an expropriation order without approaching a court, i.e. the eviction order does not have to be issued by a court anymore, the local municipality’s town planner can issue it. It states further that this eviction order will also state on which date the current owner must evacuate the property. The only provision to this being that the evacuation date cannot be prior to the date on which the eviction order is issued. If the owner believes that the expropriation is unfair or unlawful, they can approach the court and request that this eviction order be set aside. This court case can last a long time, as any other court case can. However, if the evacuation date arrives before the court case can be heard or the judge can make a decision, the owner MUST still evacuate the property and hand ownership over to the government institution that evicted them. Staying on or returning to the property will be treated as trespassing. Only once the owner has successfully proven to the court that their eviction and the expropriation of their property (with or without compensation) was unfair or illegal, will they be given back ownership of their property and can they re-occupy their property.

      The proposed Amendment to Section 25 of the constitution, which goes hand-in-hand with the above Bill, is to change the rule that government must pay the owner a “reasonable and just compensation”. The proposed amendment would state that it is no longer up to a court of law to determine what is “reasonable and just compensation” but that this will be determined, from time to time, by the appointed Minister.

      What this in reality means, is that the current minister of land affairs can decide that your local municipality can take your house and they don’t have to give you a red cent for it. And if you think their expropriation/nationalisation/steeling of your property is illegal/unfair, you have to take them to court and pay for your legal expenses yourself – because you are the applicant in the case and not the defender, as would be the case under the current law. All the while, during your prolonged, drawn-out court case, you and your family will be living under a cardboard box next to the local highway, because you will also have been evicted from you house.

      Don’t let certain commentators, especially the one above, with the infamous name, fool you into believing that this law is not going to be as bad as the IRR is making it out to be.

      In my opinion, the IRR and its writers and commentators, are still presenting this whole disastrous, cataclysmic misuse of governmental control through rose-tinted glasses. They are still not explaining exactly what the real consequences of this law is going to be.

      Do yourself a favour and watch an old movie called “Dr Zhivago”, the title role was played by Omar Sharif. The story unfolds during the Bolshevik (communist) revolution in Russia and portrays exactly what is meant by expropriation without compensation.

      • I am so glad you brought up the film Dr. Zhivago. I never forgotten that scene when his beautiful mansion was taken over by the Bolsheviks masses. One room allocated to one family! I can see that happening to my house. I also read the book Wild Swans which is about the communist regime in China. It was the most terrible existence you can imagine, and what about Russia under Stalin. How in your wildest dreams could you think that would happen in this wonderful country. This must be stopped at all costs. Where is big business, the banks the wealthy – no word from them. They will just leave the rest of us to suffer – they are cowards not to speak out. Where is the press to paint the true picture?

        • Unfortunately, the main stream press are pressured by the governing party’s muscle men (EFF) to only print / broadcast what the ANC wants the ignorant masses to know.

          Yeah, Stalin was a monster of another nature, wasn’t he? Killing 20 million of his own countrymen because they didn’t want to support his ideology – probably what will happen in South Africa once the ANC and EFF merges, as planned, as Julius becomes president.

          “How in your wildest dreams could you think that would happen in this wonderful country.” – Don’t you mean “How in your wildest dreams could you think ONLY that would happen in this wonderful country”?

          Culture, my dear, culture. The base culture of the masses controlled by the ruling party, develops a different type of character than what you and I have, which is grounded on and developed through the cultural values of the Western European, Christian traditions. That does not imply that all of us are necessarily practitioners of the Christian religion, but our morals are based on its teachings.

  26. “and to vest these in the hands of a powerful political elite intent on pursuing a socialist NDR.”
    I disagree with the statement that the ANC and political elite is pursuing a Socialist NDR.
    That is only the pretext for them to grab total power and all assets.
    That was the intent from day one. Socialism and communism is only the front for powerful individuals to own and control all and everything via supposedly justifiable means. That is what happened in all communist countries. SA have just taken the long route as a military takeover was not possible.
    The “people/ workers” is controlled and exploited so that the self made political elite can wrest power and wealth from the hard working middleclass, entrepreneurs and landowners.
    This is what must happen in South Africa and they will not rest until it is done or they are overthrown.

  27. This must be stopped. Disastrous!! Whatever needs to be done must be done to halt this Bill in its tracks!!!!!

  28. This must be stopped. This cannot be allowed to happen in this country. Do they really want a failed state. All they want is to line their pockets and force the masses work in the mines and factories which they have expropriated from hard working citizens. It is hard to believe that our so called leaders, can really be so ignorant of the outcome of this Bill. Please can some knowledgeable business people explain to the government what damage this will do to the country. But perhaps the real motive is to chase the whites all out of the country or force them to live and die in poverty when all their possessions have been stolen.

  29. Do we really stand a chance in hell to ‘kill this destructive EWC BILL’? We have a communist/socialist ANC regime hell bent on pushing through this bill totally against the Constitution as it presently stands. However if the Constitution requires to be changed to accommodate the bill, then the Constitution is no longer worth the paper it is written on and will have to be consigned to the waste paper basket.
    The tragedy of our situation is we have an opposition so weak, the ANC can push through any junk that suits their idiotic minds.
    Another disaster to befall us is the whole legal system (including the Concourt) seems to have now been captured by the ANC. Short of a violent revolt I’m not sure what more can be done to remove this evil mob of gangsters who have hijacked and devastated our country almost beyond repair.
    Given the dire ramifications of this bill, no one in their right mind would or could support it.

  30. We are well on our way to being another miss managed African Country….regrettably there are no African leaders who can successfully run a country with a competent management team , they are blinded by short term gains and cannot see the bigger picture for the country …they are too intent on their own agendas and are incapable of leading and being accountable ……this bill will add another nail to a coffin !!

  31. The constitution was an appeasement document. Those who signed and agreed to to it have taken the money they were offered and have stashed it away in safe havens offshore.

  32. This bill is unconstitutional. Land and property have been bought with hard earned money but in many cases with loans from banks. The bank has to paid back, not so?

  33. What I Paid for and work hard for all my live and let this theaves that rule this country come and steal everything that will be the day they never work for what they want they steal it now they want more

  34. This is absolute crap, the ANC has been given functional a country and destroyed it. It would appear that there is nobody in government who isn’t corrupt. They have destroyed the economy and now want to do the same with our farms.
    This is totally unacceptable

  35. This is crap. The ANC took over a functional country and through greed have destroyed it. Very few ANC officials aren’t corrupt. They have destroyed the economy and now want to do the same with the farms.
    Absolute bullshit

  36. The ANC took an oath to uphold the widely acclaimed Constitution.
    The Freedom Charter is NOT the SA Constitution…
    The ANC is continually violating the intent of the Constitution if which they were co-authors by continually eroding the original Constitution by the numerous bills to shift good governance into communistic central and dictatorial control. This is UNACCEPTABLE.
    the ANC by thus weakening the Constitution have failed the law abiding citizens of South Africa in upholding the original Constitution.

    The intent of the ANC clearly deviates and removes the objectives and principles of Democracy in SA.

    “BLANKET” POLICIES. SUCH AS THE INTENT OF EWC ARE UNLAWFUL AND UNACCEPTABLE.

  37. Don’t pass the EWC bill. Its meant for landgrabs and cronies enrichment. It will ruin the prop market and economy

  38. EWC is nothing less than common theft!! Land had been bought, taxes paid, rates paid, VAT paid….all paid an accepted by the government, which means this was legally purchased (not stolen) from the indigenous people. If not, then the government owes the owners ALL the taxes etc. paid on these properties. Those thinking that they are going to receive FREE STUFF (properties an land)….think again, nothing comes for free, you’ll pay just to rent from the government, which they stole from the legal owners. If all the property was stolen from all the legal owners in this country an given to the have-nots, the majority of them will still be landless. The poor an landless outnumber the haves, something like 11 to 1, so still won’t sort the problem out.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here