Cyril Ramaphosa admits Expropriation Act is unconstitutional
President Cyril Ramaphosa has admitted under oath that Sections 19(2), (3) and (4) of the new Expropriation Act are unconstitutional.
This is because they “in error” provide that expropriation can take place before the landowner can challenge the matter in court.
Ramaphosa also admitted that these sections may “render the provisions void for vagueness” and contradict other sections of the Act.
This admission is contained in Ramaphosa’s answering affidavit in a court case about the Expropriation Act.
AfriForum and other parties are seeking to have the Expropriation Act declared unconstitutional in the Cape Town High Court.
In his affidavit, Ramaphosa asked the court to “remedy the unconstitutionality” of the article by “reading in” amendments to the articles.
In the replying affidavit, Kallie Kriel, CEO of AfriForum, welcomed Ramaphosa’s acknowledgement that parts of the Expropriation Act are unconstitutional.
However, Kriel argues that, due to the extent of the amendments proposed by Ramaphosa, the courts are not in a position to amend the legislation.
This is the task of parliament. Ramaphosa should have asked parliament to correct the unconstitutionalities before he signed the bill into law on 20 December 2024.
In Kriel’s affidavit, AfriForum argues that the court should declare the Expropriation Act unconstitutional in its entirety.
Alternatively, the unconstitutional parts thereof should be referred back to parliament to make amendments.
“Ramaphosa’s admissions confirm that he and the ANC have been telling lies by dismissing concerns about the unconstitutionality of the Expropriation Act,” Kriel said.
According to Kriel, Ramaphosa must be held personally responsible for the negative consequences of his signing of the Expropriation Act on the country.
“Within 10 days of Ramaphosa announcing that he had signed the Expropriation Act, President Donald Trump announced that he would be imposing punitive measures against South Africa,” he said.
“There is, therefore, a direct link between Ramaphosa’s reckless signing of the Expropriation Act and the US’s actions against South Africa.
“Any job losses and growing poverty that result from this must, therefore, be laid directly at the door of Ramaphosa and other ANC leaders.”
Expropriation Act unconstitutional
In a letter to Ramaphosa on 15 April 2024, AfriForum officially requested the President to refer the Expropriation Act back to parliament, as it was unconstitutional.
“Although the President knew that this Act was unconstitutional, he ignored the requests of AfriForum and others,” Kriel said.
“This was because he mistakenly thought that it would aid the ANC in regaining lost support in the election.”
“Ramaphosa was therefore prepared to sacrifice the interests of the country and its citizens for the sake of his own and the ANC’s party-political interests.”
Kriel maintained that Ramaphosa attempted to mislead the court in his affidavit by claiming that the Government Printing Works was closed over the festive season.
“Ramaphosa made this misrepresentation to try to justify why the Act, which he had already signed in secret on 20 December 2024,” he said.
The Expropriation Act was only published in the Government Gazette 35 days later, on 24 January 2025.
In terms of Section 80 of the Constitution, one-third of members of parliament can refer an Act to the Constitutional Court for review within 30 days of signing.
Ramaphosa’s secret signing of the Act therefore deprived members of parliament of this constitutional right.
Kriel expressed concern that Ramaphosa continued to argue that Section 12(3) of the Expropriation Act, which allows for expropriation without compensation, is not unconstitutional.
Kriel said AfriForum will fight the Expropriation Act in the interest of the country all the way to the highest court.
Loading ...