MK party MP Mzwanele Manyi has tabled a private member’s bill that seeks to rewrite section 25 of the Constitution and redefine how land and natural resources are owned and governed.
The Constitution Twenty-Second Amendment Bill proposes all land and natural resources be declared collectively owned by the people, with custodianship vested in the state and traditional or Khoi-San leadership.
If passed, the bill would remove the current constitutional protection of private property and allow expropriation without compensation, provided it is done through a law of general application and for a public purpose or interest.
The bill also seeks to extend the restitution cut-off date from June 19 1913 to April 6 1652 — the date often cited as the beginning of colonial dispossession. This would significantly expand the scope of land claims and require a major overhaul of the current restitution framework.
Manyi argued that the current section 25 was “anti-poor and anti-black” and that the amendment was necessary to correct historical injustices. In his memorandum, he cited the 2018–2019 public consultation process, which received more than 700,000 submissions in support of expropriation without compensation.
The proposal introduces a new subsection affirming collective ownership and custodianship, while repealing existing provisions in the constitution that require compensation. It also mandated parliament to pass enabling legislation to operationalise the new custodianship and expropriation model.
Once that legislation was enacted, the current subsections (2) to (8) of section 25 of the constitution would be repealed.
The bill is introduced under section 74(2) of the constitution, which governs amendments to the Bill of Rights. It must be referred to the National House of Traditional and Khoi-San Leaders under the Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Act, 2019, and will require a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly and support from six provinces in the NCOP.
While the bill itself does not carry direct financial implications, its implementation would require new laws, administrative systems and oversight mechanisms.
Removing compensation provisions could trigger constitutional challenges, particularly around the rule of law and investor protections.
The bill also raises questions about how traditional leadership structures would manage custodianship and whether this model can be reconciled with existing land governance systems. Its success would depend on the clarity of the enabling legislation and the political will to implement it.
If enacted, the amendment would mark a major shift in SA’s constitutional approach to land, replacing individual ownership with a custodial model rooted in historical redress. Whether it can meet legal, administrative and political tests remains to be seen as it moves into committee stages.
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.