South Africa's President Cyril Ramaphosa faces a political firestorm following his assent to the Expropriation Act, a controversial law that grants the state powers to expropriate private land without compensation in specific circumstances. This legislation has not only ignited intense domestic debate but has also served to antagonize former US President Donald Trump, who asserts it discriminates against white farmers.
Critics, including centre-right political parties and lobby groups, are opposed to the Act, vowing judicial challenges on grounds that it imperils property rights. Ramaphosa's administration counters that the law provides for compensation in the vast majority of cases, emphasizing its necessity for addressing historical imbalances and increasing black land ownership, as most private farmland remains in white hands, a lingering legacy of apartheid.
Legal experts Bulelwa Mabasa and Thomas Karberg clarified that expropriation without compensation (EWC) would be limited to specific scenarios, such as when an owner holds land for "speculative purposes" or has "abandoned" it. They maintained that productive agricultural land would likely still necessitate compensation for buildings and natural resources, despite the change from "market value" to "just-and-equitable" compensation, a shift the government contends is more aligned with the constitution.
The act's implementation, however, remains in limbo. Trump's strong opposition, manifested through aid cuts and tariff threats, complicates South Africa's pursuit of a trade deal with the US. Domestically, the Democratic Alliance (DA) is spearheading a robust judicial review and challenging the law's constitutionality.
Despite these challenges, Public Works Minister Dean Macpherson, breaking ranks with his DA party, defends the Act as a "dramatic improvement" offering greater safeguards for owners. He cites cases like Eskom's land acquisition for infrastructure or the repurposing of derelict urban buildings, where "nil compensation" could be justified against unreasonably high demands or abandoned properties, arguing it serves the broader public interest.
The deep political fissures within South Africa are starkly evident: some parties, like the EFF, argue the law doesn't go far enough to address racial inequality, while others fear its implications for property rights. With land being such an emotive issue, an easy resolution seems elusive, ensuring continued tensions both within South Africa and in its international relations.