DA takes the Expropriation Act to court

The Democratic Alliance is taking the Expropriation Act to Court amidst an international outcry over the law.

DA Federal Council Chairperson Helen Zille has commissioned court papers to challenge the Expropriation Act in Court, with her stating that the DA has been opposed to the Bill since its inception in 2018.

The Expropriation Act allows the state to expropriate pieces of land in the public interest, with very strict criteria for expropriation without compensation.

She said that the law opens the door to power abuse in taking people’s property without compensation in an open-ended way.

She added that this opposes the DA’s policies and its interpretation of the Constitution.

This is not the first time that the second biggest member of the Government of National Unity (GNU) raised the alarm over the law.

The DA’s Federal Leader John Steenhuisen and Public Works Minister Dean Macpherson were critical of the President refusing to notify them of the signing of the law.

Despite being a DA member, Macpherson’s department oversees the Expropriation Act.

Macpherson noted that no expropriation without compensation would occur under his watch.

The Act has received international attention, with US President Donald Trump stopping funding to South Africa due to a perceived unethical taking of land from Afrikaans farmers in particular.

Trump also signed an executive order, which outlines plans for the resettlement of white South African farmers and their families in the United States as refugees.

Government responds

The Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) expressed deep concern over Trump’s executive order.

Dirco said that the order is based on news that is factually inaccurate and is based on misinformation and propaganda.

In an official statement, DIRCO said that the order appears to be based on misinformation and propaganda, misrepresenting the realities of South Africa’s past and present.

President Cyril Ramaphosa’s office also issued a response stating that the Expropriation Bill does not constitute land confiscation, arguing that it provides a legal framework for land redistribution fairly and lawfully.

The Presidency also noted that an expropriating authority can only expropriate property for a public purpose or in the public interest.

In addition, expropriation cannot be exercised unless the expropriating authority fails to reach an agreement with the owner or holder of a right in property on reasonable terms.

South Africa’s government noted that the Expropriation Act is similar to the USA’s Eminent domain.

Zille’s move also adds further confusion to the DA’s position on the law.

The DA’s position on the law, at least from Steenhuisen, has changed since the debacle with Trump started.

Following Trump’s executive order, Steenhuisen said that it is not true that the act allows land to be seized by the state arbitrarily,

He noted that it requires fair compensation for legitimate expropriation in terms of section 25 of the Constitution.