The ANC insists that a controversial clause allowing for expropriation of land and any improvements on it for the purposes of land reform should remain in the final bill that is expected to be tabled in parliament by September 10.
The long-drawn-out proposed constitutional amendment to expropriate land without compensation has spooked investors and polarised the nation.
Parliament’s ad hoc committee tasked with amending section 25, or the property clause, is in a race against time to finalise its report by November 10. The committee was initially scheduled to conclude its work by the end of August, but parliament granted it an extension to allow for more public submissions to be considered before the final bill is drafted. The committee plans to adopt a final bill by Friday.
Opposition parties and various stakeholders have raised concern about the clause in the bill, which goes beyond expropriating the land to include the improvements on it. The clause arguably goes beyond the ANC’s conference and national executive committee (NEC) resolutions that only sought to make expropriation without compensation explicit, without threatening food security or hurting the rest of the economy.
In a recent letter to the ANC, former president Thabo Mbeki said the clause covering the improvements on the land will lead to a “very serious disincentive to investment which our country cannot afford”.
On Wednesday during deliberations of parliament’s ad hoc committee tasked with amending section 25, ANC MP Cyril Xaba, who has been at the forefront of the talks on the matter, shot down suggestions that the clause referring to improvements on property should be removed. He said it did not necessarily mean compensation wouldn’t be paid on land with improvements, but the clause would bring “clarity”.
“The doctrine of our law makes it a presumption that land includes any improvement on it. In other words, fixed improvements on it,” Xaba said.
“Even if we remove the improvements thereon, it doesn’t affect the substance. Because we are making explicit that which is implicit, I would prefer we retain those words [any improvements thereon] because it puts the section beyond any doubt as to what we are talking about,” he said.
He pointed out, however, that this doesn’t necessarily mean there will be no compensation payable for improvements on the land.
Opposition parties warn that allowing for land expropriation without compensation even with improvements will devastate the economy; not least the agricultural sector as it will lead to a marked drop in capital investment.
“The sense one gets [from the public submissions] is that the whole bill should be scrapped and a report be submitted to the National Assembly that it is not necessary to amend the constitution,” DA MP Annelie Lotriet said.
The Freedom Front Plus’s Corné Mulder said expropriating land to include the improvements on it makes matters worse, and thus the clause should be removed.
“The clause would make it worse and send a clear a message to land owners that not only will they lose their land, but all the improvements they have done on the property,” Mulder said.
“So, practically it’s going to make it [expropriation] worse. We will obviously not support the clause,” he said.
As stands, the committee processes are academic as the bill is very unlikely to pass in the National Assembly since the ANC does not have the required two-thirds majority. It was banking on the EFF’s support, the third-largest party in parliament, to reach the threshold, but the two differ fundamentally on the issue of state custodianship of land, and compensation. The EFF did not participate in Wednesday’s deliberations, a clear sign the party is no longer interested in the process.
The EFF maintains the amendment should categorically state that all land be placed under state custodianship without compensation. This is effectively a form of nationalisation, though the red berets dismiss this interpretation.
In its stance, the ANC opposes any form of nationalisation and wants to give tenure to locals. Broadly, the governing party supports mixed land ownership: private, state and communal tenure.
The committee is scheduled to continue deliberations on Friday.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.