The controversy surrounding Act 13 of 2025, the Expropriation Act, needs to be considered from two perspectives—the short term and the long term.
Regarding the short term, a careful perusal of the Act should reveal that it is being widely misinterpreted because of one section, namely, 12 (3) and (4).
The key words, “having regard for all relevant circumstances,” in the event an expropriation would qualify for nil compensation, make it clear that due process informs the decision. The exceptions are sections 12(3)(a) and (c), which deny compensation to land abandoned by an owner (based on 1937 legislation) or making no use of land while waiting to benefit from a rise in market value.
What needs emphasis is that nil compensation is applicable in very limited circumstances. Moreover, in that the constitution is the supreme law of the land, Section 12 of Act 13 can be challenged.
What also needs to be clarified is that Act 13 would have no significant impact on land reform in urban and developed areas. As such, it should not be seen as a panacea for “fast tracking land reform and settling outstanding claims,” as Deputy President Paul Mashatile recklessly claims.
Nonetheless, the emotional heat the Act is generating serves to boost the ANC’s flagging political fortunes. Phrases like “subverting the needs of the historically marginalised” are useful in recouping voter support.
However, from the long-term perspective, what Act 13 of 2025 does, albeit narrowly, is to widen the extent to which nil compensation may apply, thereby paving the way for Section 25 of the constitution to be amended. Already, inconclusive hearings by a Joint Constitutional Review Committee on Section 25 took place in 2018. Thus, given the long-term motives of the ANC, the Expropriation Act is very likely intended as a means to an end.
But it should not be forgotten that the long-term aim of the ANC and its fellow travellers in the EFF and MKP is to fulfil the Marxist holy writ of the Freedom Charter: state ownership of all land, property and resources in the name of the people.
It is a pity that the DA does not hammer on that ideological reality. It is also a great pity that The Mercury (April 1) does not recognise where Act 13 is headed.
Add Comment