Ramaphosa scores major own goal for South Africa
President Cyril Ramaphosa may have scored a major own goal for South Africa after praising Zimbabwe’s land reform programme, a policy widely viewed as disastrous for the Zim economy.
His comments, made during the official opening of the Zimbabwe Agricultural Show in Harare on Friday, 29 August 2025, have drawn sharp criticism and could raise fears among investors about the direction of land reform in South Africa.
In his address, Ramaphosa framed Zimbabwe’s land seizures in the early 2000s as part of a necessary process of correcting historical injustices.
“On independence in 1980, the new democratic government of Zimbabwe had to take on the momentous task of dismantling colonial-era patterns of land ownership,” he said.
“Most of the country’s commercially productive land and large-scale commercial farms were owned by whites.
“The black majority in Zimbabwe was confined to communal lands and all but completely excluded from commercial farming. This mirrored our own experience in South Africa.”
Ramaphosa argued that the reforms were essential to ensure justice, food security, and long-term growth.
He congratulated the government of Zimbabwe for its efforts to revive agriculture through “policy reforms, investment in irrigation and mechanisation, and empowering large- and small-scale farmers.”
The remarks were made in the presence of Zimbabwean President Emmerson Mnangagwa and immediately sparked concern.
Willie Aucamp, the Democratic Alliance’s national spokesperson, said Ramaphosa’s comments were ill-judged and dangerous for South Africa’s economic future.
“If you look at what happened in Zimbabwe, it is exactly an example of how not to do land reform,” Aucamp said.
“Years later, we are seeing the effects of the land grabs that took place in Zimbabwe, and for our president to praise Zimbabwe for how they did land reform is just unacceptable. It should not happen.”
Aucamp pointed out that Zimbabwe is still paying the price for those policies, with farmers being compensated decades later and an economy that has never recovered.
“What we saw in Zimbabwe over the last 25 years was a total decay of the economy. The economy collapsed. Their currency collapsed. There was famine,” he said.
People literally went hungry to bed on a daily basis, where Zimbabwe was once referred to as one of the food baskets of Africa.”
Economic consequences
The timing of Ramaphosa’s remarks has heightened concerns because they come so soon after South Africa’s own Expropriation Act was passed.
Not only has the Expropriation Act draw criticism from local political parties and commentators, it has also been explicitly mentioned by the Trump administration as a point of contention and alarm.
The DA is already challenging the law in court, warning that it could open the door to property seizures. Aucamp said Ramaphosa’s words only deepen those fears.
“The Expropriation Act has been passed, and the DA is taking that to court. But if you then hear utterances like this from our president, you’re getting into a position where you are very afraid of what the real ideological ideas behind the Expropriation Act are,” he explained.
“People can often tell you that they don’t want to do A, B, and C with this act. But if your president goes to another country and praises land grabs, which property owners in this country fear because we know what our neighbours went through, then it’s very upsetting.”
According to Aucamp, the problem is not just about perception but about the real-world consequences for South Africa’s investment climate.
“If you’ve got a president standing on an international stage, praising an absolute catastrophe of land reform implementation, it is going to deter investors away from our country, and it’s going to harm our economy,” he said.
The DA insisted it supports land reform but stressed it must be carried out constitutionally.
“The Democratic Alliance is totally in favour of the redistribution of land. We don’t have any problem with that, but it must take place within the bounds of the constitution,” Aucamp said.
He emphasised that Section 25 of the Constitution requires fair compensation determined by the courts, not government officials.
The party is also challenging the legality of how the Expropriation Act was passed. “In only two of the nine provinces were there sittings to mandate the National Council of Provinces,” he explained.
“In five, there were no sittings at all, and one province did not even give a mandate. The NCOP was used as a rubber stamp.”
He added that the party is quite sure that the court will agree with us that this process was flawed and that it must be referred back to the National Assembly to start afresh.
Loading ...