Two years ago I entered the EFF headquarters in Braamfontein and was greeted by a large poster stating the party’s seven cardinal pillars, the most prominent of which was "Expropriation of SA’s land without compensation for equal redistribution".
This week, the EFF finally got the ANC to yield and support its amended motion of "establishing an ad hoc committee to review and amend the Constitution to make it possible for the state to expropriate land in the public interest without compensation".
Simplistically, the purpose of the motion is to solicit information that may be used to support the possible amendment of the Constitution. The EFF’s view of section 25 is that it impedes the process of expropriation and should therefore be amended.
Historically the ANC rejected this approach and stated that the constitutional framework provided sufficient latitude for the state to conduct expropriation in the public interest. However, in December the ANC came out with a resolution that echoed the words of the EFF’s cardinal pillar. The ANC did not bother to explain which part of section 25 was now ripe for amendment.
In support of the EFF motion earlier this week, former rural development and land reform minister Gugile Nkwinti acknowledged that the ANC had been "historically reluctant" to take relook at the Constitution. With perhaps the exception of Mosiuoa Lekota, no one can dispute that the ownership patterns for land are concentrated within the state and minority race groups.
Redistribution is therefore a long-overdue imperative. The point of contention is whether such redistribution can be effected within the confines of the Constitution in its current form. The EFF thinks not. The ANC and the DA have, until now, believed it is possible.
The reality is that whether the current Constitution enables uncompensated expropriation or not, the government has spectacularly failed to allocate sufficient resources to land reform in the past.
It is unclear whether the slow pace is due to constitutional limitations or limited funding. If funding is the issue then we need to question the sparse allocation of resources and tackle it.
Alternatively, if it turns out that the Constitution is indeed the stumbling block, the review process is to be welcomed. But one must also caution against the danger of populist positions on a matter this delicate.
Some interpreters have said the Constitution allows uncompensated expropriation. But such a matter has not been tested by the Constitutional Court. Perhaps a more pragmatic approach would be to request clarity on whether uncompensated expropriation is currently possible.
What might be the real state of affairs is that in the aftermath of the Nasrec resolution, the EFF had to fast-track the process of getting its own cardinal pillar to be tabled before the ANC unilaterally tabled it as its own.
For the ANC, on the other hand, agreeing to the motion has the benefit of denying the EFF the political capital it would otherwise have leading up to the general election in 2019.
If this motion represents the ANC’s newfound commitment to land reform, we must celebrate. Fortunately, we have an opportunity to test their resolve against reality.
On March 13 the Supreme Court of Appeal will hear a case involving 19,000 unprocessed land claims that have been outstanding since 2001. Until now, the state has refused to expedite the processing of the claims. The court’s ruling will provide a clearer picture of whether we are living in an age of reform or are simply caught up in a wave of populism.
• Sithole (@coruscakhaya), a chartered accountant, academic and activist, chaired the Lesedi Education Endowment Fund as part of the #FeesMustFall campaign. He writes in his personal capacity.
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.