The chair of parliament’s ad hoc committee tasked with the redrafting the property clause of the constitution has rubbished suggestions that SA’s drive to address skewed land ownership patterns echoes Zimbabwe’s land grabs of two decades ago.
The catastrophic land grabs in Zimbabwe resulted in an economic and social crisis from which it has struggled to recover. Under former president Robert Mugabe’s land reform programme between 2000 and 2001, thousands of white farmers were forced from their farms, often violently. However, earlier in the year, the Zimbabwean government said it will start paying compensation to many white farmers who lost land, as it ramps up efforts to mend ties with the West.
It set aside $17.5m in this year’s budget for the compensation drive.
There are growing fears that wholesale expropriation without compensation will discourage investment in SA, threaten food security and negatively affect economic activity and job creation. This at a time when the country is battling to tackle low growth and high unemployment.
“I went to Zimbabwe to talk to politicians and other people [and asked] whether they have been observing what we are doing and whether there are similarities on how they handled things and how we handle things, and they said no,” committee chair Mathole Motshekga said on Thursday.
“This is because in Zimbabwe we had Zanu-PF. It was not a multi-party [process] like ours. Here we can pride ourselves on not being a one party state; we are a multi-party democracy and we listen to all the voices. So there is no comparison between us and Zimbabwe,” he said.
The Banking Association SA (Basa), the industry body representing all registered banks in the country, has previously said that while it is essential for the country to deal with land reform‚ it has to be done without discouraging investment.
During public hearings in 2018, Basa warned that a policy of expropriation without compensation would result in high levels of debt impairments and the value of property as security would be reduced‚ with many investors looking to divest from property to avoid future losses.
Section 25 of the constitution
In 2018, parliament agreed to establish a multi-party, ad hoc committee after it adopted a report of the constitutional review committee on the review of section 25. The report recommended that parliament amend section 25 of the constitution to make explicit that which is implicit regarding expropriation of land without compensation, as a legitimate option to tackle skewed land ownership patterns dating back to the apartheid and colonial eras.
The committee met on Thursday to consider the nuts and bolts of how the clause should be redrafted. This process will require further public participation and the final bill is likely to be published by the end of March 2020.
The draft bill suggests that national legislation must set out specific circumstances in which a court may determine that the amount of compensation be nil, which specific circumstances are yet to be outlined.
So there could be a situation in which payment for expropriated land is not made but this “must be just and equitable, reflecting an equitable balance between the public interest and the interests of those affected, having regard to all relevant circumstances”.
The DA and other opposition parties, including the ACDP, remain firmly opposed to expropriating land without compensation. ACDP MP Steve Swart said it is also crucial for the committee to consider an opinion by the department of trade and industry regarding the impact on the economy, particularly as SA is rapidly approaching a fiscal cliff.
In November, department officials warned against expropriating land owned by foreign nationals, saying it contravenes existing bilateral investment treaties, adding that doing so could also result in SA being denied access to key markets, such as the US. – Source: Business Day (SA)
