Expropriation Act splits GNU — here’s where the parties stand

President Cyril Ramaphosa set the GNU ablaze on Thursday, 23 January when he signed the contentious Expropriation Act. From the Democratic Alliance to Rise Mzansi, member parties of the national coalition have either praised the Act or fiercely criticised it. Here’s where the different parties stand:

DA, IFP, FF+, PA: Against

The Democratic Alliance (DA) has been the most vocal opponent of the Expropriation Act. Daily Maverick journalist Suné Payne has reported that the GNU’s second-biggest party declared a dispute and called for a review of the GNU’s relationship with the ANC after Ramaphosa signed the Act into law.

Among the party’s complaints is that the Act was signed without consulting GNU partners and despite a legal opinion sought by Public Works and Infrastructure Minister Dean Macpherson (DA) that it was unconstitutional.

The DA said it would invoke Clause 19 of the GNU’s Statement of Intent, which outlines procedures for resolving disputes and reaching consensus.

The Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) echoed the DA’s rejection of the Act, stating that Ramaphosa undermined “the spirit of consensus and collaboration that is fundamental to the Government of National Unity (GNU) framework”. While the party expressed support for just and equitable land reform, the IFP raised objections to the following:

• Nil compensation provisions: The party claims these lack legal certainty and create the potential for arbitrary targeting of landowners;


• Clauses 15(3) and 19(8): The IFP argued these clauses unfairly burden landowners by requiring them to cede possession of property even when disputes over compensation remain unresolved; and


• Constitutionality: The IFP called for the Act to be referred to the Constitutional Court for a declaratory order.

On Friday, the Freedom Front Plus (FF+) urged all parties who opposed the Expropriation Bill to unite and challenge its constitutionality in the Constitutional Court, adding that this had to be done within 30 days of the Act being signed into law.

Warning of economic consequences, the FF+ stated that “investors will not easily be persuaded to invest in a country where their property could be expropriated”.

The Patriotic Alliance (PA) also reacted strongly to the signing of the Expropriation Act. PA president Gayton McKenzie accused Ramaphosa of betraying GNU member parties by failing to consult them before signing the Bill into law.

McKenzie said that while the PA supported expropriation, now was not the right time, as the Act risks “destroying the economy”.

Al-Jamah-ah – unclear

Al-Jamah-ah has yet to release a statement clarifying its stance on the Act, but the party criticised the DA’s response to its signing.

The party reminded the Democratic Alliance that the GNU was not exempt from the laws and regulations established by the past six administrations.

“The President has upheld the constitutional integrity of the process, having issued a certificate of constitutional compliance through the Office of the State Advisor, with input from Parliament’s Law and Constitutional Committee. Any further matters regarding irrational processes can and should be addressed by the courts, as the DA claims,” the party stated.

Rise Mzansi, Good party – for

Rise Mzansi’s Songezo Zibi told Daily Maverick his party fully supported Ramaphosa’s decision to sign the Expropriation Act into law. Zibi argued that South Africa’s land problem, which was worsening as more people moved to urban areas and needed housing, could not be resolved without expropriation.

Zibi sought to clear misconceptions about the Expropriation Act, explaining that:

• The Act did not give officials (ie, expropriating authorities) the power to arbitrarily seize land. Expropriation had to have a purpose and had to be rational and lawful; and


• Nil compensation did not mean land would be taken without compensation; it aligned with Section 25 of the Constitution, which set out conditions for nil compensation.

The Rise Mzansi leader dismissed the criticism as manufactured outrage, stating that “there is nowhere in that legislation where it says the minister or any official can simply wake up tomorrow and say, ‘We’re going to take your land and not pay’.”

Good’s Brett Herron welcomed the signing of the Bill, calling it a much-needed improvement on the 1975 Act.

“Land dispossession, the original sin, has been so inadequately addressed by land reform policies since the demise of apartheid. South Africa needs both the tools and political will to set this straight. The sustainability of the constitutional democracy depends on it,” Herron said.

Speaking to Daily Maverick, Herron criticised the DA’s invocation of Clause 19 of the GNU Statement of Intent as nonsensical, explaining that it did not contain an invoking mechanism but simply outlined how GNU decisions should be made.

“The Expropriation Act was approved by a majority in the National Assembly during the 6th Parliament, supported by a majority of parties with a mandate from their voters. It is not a decision to be made by the 7th administration and is not subject to the GNU Consensus agreements,” Herron said.

“The DA cannot expect all decisions lawfully adopted in the 6th Parliament, which had a different electoral mandate, to be subject to their veto. They have no veto power, and their position that previous decisions require their review and concurrence is irrational and absurd,” he said. DM