Never has it been easier for blacks to own and develop land. They have the government on their side, they have BEE on their side, and they have globalist finance ready to plough investment. Why do they not simply get on with proving that they are resourceful and capable?

There are several instances where established farming enterprises have been ceded to black ownership in terms of land restitution, yet they have failed.  Instead, such enterprises were subjected to asset stripping, stalled or discontinued production, exacerbated by communal conflict. Where would we all be if all the productive, white-owned farming enterprises were expropriated to correct the “historical imbalances?” Zimbabwe’s experience provides an indicator.

Yet that is what the ANC’s roadmap, the Freedom Charter, strives to achieve – “All shall have the right to occupy land wherever they choose.” Ironically, while Mr Nkoana hammers on about demographic imbalances in land ownership, the Freedom Charter declares that “restrictions of land ownership on a racial basis shall be ended.”

What that single statement conceals is the aim for all land to be owned by the socialist government, euphemistically, on behalf of the people. Put bluntly, private ownership of land would cease, and occupation of land or property would be as a tenant of the government. Already, state ownership of all water and mineral resources is an established beacon on the road to that destiny.

From another perspective, the rise of the Indian community to become an established, thriving and enterprising sector of the population should be an object lesson for the likes of Mr Nkoana. He would do well to ponder how they achieved that in the face of the same historical, colonial and apartheid restrictions to which blacks were subjected.

The post Significant Omissions in the ANC’s Quest for the Land appeared first on Duncan Du Bois.

Given his globalist moorings, Khan disparages what he calls “white nationalist posturing,” which projects “an image of white victimhood” and which seeks “a return to lost glory.” In short, he discards Afriforum and President Trump’s involvement in this subject as a “tragicomic farce” based on “stupidity.”

Among the various sources he cites is George Orwell’s profound statement that “political language is not meant to reveal truth but to conceal it.” If Khan removed his tinted lenses, he would see that there is nothing concealed about the laws, regulations, statements and exhortations that threaten minorities in South Africa.

• How does Khan’s step around the index of 142 racially discriminatory laws and regulations?
• How does he fail to recognise the concealed truth in the Expropriation Act?
• How did he fail to join the dots from 1998 when the Employment Equity Act was first passed, to its tightening up in 2003 as B-BBEE?
• How does he not see individuals of merit being discriminated against and disadvantaged because they belong to a minority group?
• How does he dismiss the application of racial discrimination within the fabric of society—business, employment, university admissions—as not being reverse discrimination?

He dismisses Afriforum’s case as a “stupendous folly” based on an “interplay of ideology and emotion.” But if he ditched the globalist jargon, he would see that Afriforum’s case is built on historical records, legal developments and empirical evidence.

Why is Khan silent on the archived exhortation of Paul Mashitile stating that property will be expropriated without compensation? What about Julius Malema’s promise to slaughter whites and kill farmers? What about MKP member Andile Mngxitima’s undertaking to kill five whites for every black victim?

It is ironic that in concluding his harangue, Khan looks forward to a “society where the voice of reason triumphs over the siren of unreason.” If he reconsidered his case, he would see that it is not on the side of reason.

The post Nothing “Stupid” About Afriforum’s Case appeared first on Duncan Du Bois.

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.

The post Short and Long-term Perspectives Needed On EWC Act appeared first on Duncan Du Bois.

Given the ANC’s adherence to the Marxist Freedom Charter’s declaration that the land belongs to the people who “have the right to occupy land wherever they choose,” Dr Hoeane should have no illusions that the purpose of the Expropriation Act is to fulfil the holy writ of the Charter.

If that is not the case, then why are the provisions of Section 25 of the Constitution suddenly no longer adequate?

Running out of options to hang onto power and with the totalitarian MK Party threatening its diminishing power base, Ramphosa’s ANC needs populist appeal to sustain itself politically. Beating the drum of land disparities enables the ANC to outflank the MKP threat.

One should not be naïve about the Machiavellian nature of the phrase “public interest” in motivating the Act and the claim that the process would be subject to legal procedure. Public interest can be contrived by rent-a-crowd antics. Legal costs are prohibitively expensive and would oblige most property owners to forego that route.

The fact that 90% of land claims thus far concluded have resulted in the disadvantaged accepting a financial settlement rather than the actual land in question, should indicate that as an issue land is exploited for political purposes.

By noting in his final paragraph that “the real victims of land disparities—the black majority—continue to be victimised,” Dr Hoeane regrettably echoes the propaganda of the Left and thereby contradicts his attempt to deny the ideological purpose of the Expropriation Act.

The post Expropriation Act Is Motivated By Freedom Charter appeared first on Duncan Du Bois.

The post EWC Debate Ignores Freedom Charter’s Role appeared first on Duncan Du Bois.