Daily Maverick
Dailymaverick logo

South Africa

South Africa, World

DA files court papers to challenge ‘irrational’, ‘unconstitutional’ Expropriation Act

DA files court papers to challenge ‘irrational’, ‘unconstitutional’ Expropriation Act
Victoria O’Regan
By Victoria O’Regan
10 Feb 2025
Facebook
0
The DA wants the high court in Cape Town to declare the contentious Expropriation Act invalid in its entirety.

The DA has filed court papers in the Western Cape High Court, challenging the constitutionality of the recently enacted Expropriation Act. 

DA federal chairperson Helen Zille said in a statement on Monday that her party was challenging the constitutionality of the Act – which President Cyril Ramaphosa signed into law last month – on both procedural and substantive grounds.

“The purpose of this court action is to have the Act nullified in its entirety,” she said. 

“Apart from compelling legal shortcomings, the DA strongly opposes the substance of the Act, which seeks to fulfil the mandate of the ANC’s elective conference in 2017, which mandated the ANC to include expropriation without compensation as an instrument of law.

“After the DA defeated the ANC’s plan to amend section 25 of the Constitution to enable expropriation without compensation, amending this Act became a blunt instrument of ANC majoritarianism in the last Parliament,” Zille continued. 

Read more: The new Expropriation Act: SA’s chance to face its imperial past




The Expropriation Act has been a sore point in the Government of National Unity (GNU). The Act has been met with opposition from GNU parties including the DA, Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP), Freedom Front Plus (FF Plus) and the Patriotic Alliance (PA), Daily Maverick’s Lerato Mutsila reported. 

Following Ramaphosa’s signing of the Act into law, the DA declared a formal dispute over the Expropriation Act and the National Health Insurance (NHI) and called for a “reset” of the GNU’s relationship with the ANC. The party also said it would fight the Expropriation Act in court.

DA leader John Steenhuisen, however, made it clear the call for a “reset” was not an ultimatum to leave the 10-party coalition. 

Read more: DA leader Steenhuisen to meet Ramaphosa to iron out GNU tensions

Minority civil rights organisations including AfriForum and the Solidarity Movement, of which AfriForum is part, have also lobbied against the Act.  

The DA’s court papers were filed in the high court in Cape Town on Friday, and name President Cyril Ramaphosa, DA Public Works Minister Dean Mcpherson, the chairperson of the National Council of Provinces (NCOP), the Speaker of the National Assembly and several provincial legislatures as respondents. 

Its legal proceedings follow US President Donald Trump’s false accusation on his social media site last week that the South African government is “confiscating land” under the Expropriation Act and “treating certain classes of people very badly”.

Following Trump’s claims, the DA issued a statement attempting to clarify misconceptions surrounding the Act and what it seeks to achieve. In the statement, Steenhuisen stressed the Act did not allow for land seizures without compensation, as suggested by Trump. 

He said: “It is not true that the Act allows land to be seized by the state arbitrarily, and it does require fair compensation for legitimate expropriations in terms of section 25 of the Constitution. It is unfortunate that individuals have sought to portray this Act as an amendment to section 25 of the Constitution to allow for expropriation without compensation.”

However, speaking to 702’s John Perlman on Monday afternoon, Zille said while there may be no expropriation without compensation happening now, the Act allowed for it. 

“The Expropriation Act in its current form, it [sic] certainty opens the door to everything that President Trump was saying. Where President Trump got it wrong, is his implication that this is what is happening now. In order to advance South Africa’s interest, the DA has to stop it from happening, obviously,” said Zille. 

While the Expropriation Act allows for nil compensation in particular circumstances, legal experts and agricultural economists have argued this does not mean that expropriation without compensation is inevitable. As lawyer Tembeka Ngcukaitobi recently wrote for Daily Maverick, the Act remains subject to section 25 of the Constitution, which requires compensation to be just and equitable. 

Read more: Ramaphosa fires back at Trump’s executive order, rejects claims of ‘race-based discrimination’ in SA

On Friday, Trump ordered all US foreign assistance to South Africa to be halted and that his administration promote the resettlement of “Afrikaner refugees escaping government-sponsored race-based discrimination” in South Africa. 

In the order, Trump accused the South African government of seizing “ethnic minority Afrikaners’ agricultural property without compensation” under the Expropriation Act, a claim that the South African government has refuted. 

Procedural and substantive grounds


In her founding affidavit, Zille argues for the DA that the process to pass the Expropriation Act is unconstitutional, because five of the seven provincial delegations that voted in favour of the Act in the NCOP, did not follow the Constitution in doing so.

“The DA’s primary submission is that of the seven provinces that voted for the Expropriation Bill in the NCOP, only two validly voted. The NCOP did not have the five required votes to pass the Bill, because the five final mandates were conferred contrary to the Constitution and the Mandating Act. The mandates were conferred by the Speaker – not the provincial legislature,” said Zille. 

“They voted in terms of final mandates that were issued contrary to the Constitution. This renders the Act unconstitutional in its entirety.”

In the court papers, Zille also argues that section 19(2) and (3) of the Expropriation Act are vague and contradictory, which renders it unlawful. 

“Section 19(2) and (3) of the act is irrational. The provision contains an absurdity relating to the period by which a disputed expropriation can be resolved by a court. This absurdity renders the entire Act inoperable. The Act must accordingly be declared invalid in its entirety. Alternatively, section 19(2) and (3) should be declared invalid to the extent of its inconsistency with the Constitution,” said Zille.

In terms of section 19(2) and (3), if the expropriating authority (government) and the property owner do not agree on the “amount, time and manner of payment of compensation” they can attempt to settle the dispute through mediation.

If the mediation fails, either party may institute court proceedings within 180 days of the notice of expropriation to decide “the amount, time and manner of payment of just and equitable compensation”. Alternatively, the property owner may request the expropriating authority to institute legal proceedings within 90 days of the notice of expropriation, which the expropriating authority must then institute within 180 days of receiving such a request.

Responding to the DA’s legal challenge, Presidency spokesperson Vincent Magwenya said Ramaphosa’s legal team would study the papers and respond in accordance with the established legal process.

“South Africa is a constitutional democracy that is governed by the rule of law. The Constitution provides for such matters to be decided by the courts in the event of a dispute,” said Magwenya. DM

If you wish to comment on this issue, please send an email to [email protected]

Categories:

Tags: