Land expropriation without compensation all but guaranteed

[BusinessTech]

Land expropriation without compensation all but guaranteed

Parliament's Joint Constitutional Review Committee (CRC) has effectively confirmed that the Constitutional amendment allowing for land expropriation without compensation will go ahead.

 

[Scooby_Doo]

 

[Deadmanza]

TIA.
Surprised?

 

[Nod]

The hearings was just the rubber stamp. The text have been written long before.

 

[LazyLion]

Still has to pass constitutional review. If the courts think that any proposed clause is in conflict with the rest of the constitution it will be struck out.

 

[ToxicBunny]

Still has to pass constitutional review. If the courts think that any proposed clause is in conflict with the rest of the constitution it will be struck out.

So pretty much all of it will be struck out then really...

 

[Ho3n3r]

Still has to pass constitutional review. If the courts think that any proposed clause is in conflict with the rest of the constitution it will be struck out.

Legalised theft? Against the consitution? NO! You for real?

 

[Visser]

He he he he he Bye bye land....

 

[konfab]

Still has to pass constitutional review. If the courts think that any proposed clause is in conflict with the rest of the constitution it will be struck out.

That is not how it works bucko.
Courts have no say in a constitutional amendment, except to make sure that they follow procedures.

Amendments to the Constitution passed in accordance with the requirements of section 74 of the Constitution become part of the Constitution. Once part of the Constitution, they cannot be challenged on the grounds of inconsistency with other provisions of the Constitution. The Constitution, as amended, must be read as a whole and its provisions must be interpreted in harmony with one another. It follows that there is little if any scope for challenging the constitutionality of amendments that are passed in accordance with the prescribed procedures and majorities.

https://www.biznews.com/thought-leaders/2018/08/08/changing-sa-constitution-pierre-de-vos

There is nothing in the constitution that says it is not allowed to contradict itself. This is why we live in a non racial country with laws that discriminate against people based on their skin colour.

 

[konfab]

Still has to pass constitutional review. If the courts think that any proposed clause is in conflict with the rest of the constitution it will be struck out.

So pretty much all of it will be struck out then really...

That is not how it works bucko.
Courts have no say in a constitutional amendment, except to make sure that they follow procedures.

Amendments to the Constitution passed in accordance with the requirements of section 74 of the Constitution become part of the Constitution. Once part of the Constitution, they cannot be challenged on the grounds of inconsistency with other provisions of the Constitution. The Constitution, as amended, must be read as a whole and its provisions must be interpreted in harmony with one another. It follows that there is little if any scope for challenging the constitutionality of amendments that are passed in accordance with the prescribed procedures and majorities.

https://www.biznews.com/thought-leaders/2018/08/08/changing-sa-constitution-pierre-de-vos

There is nothing in the constitution that says it is not allowed to contradict itself. This is why we live in a non racial utopia where the government has laws that discriminate against people based on their skin colour.

 

[ToxicBunny]

That is not how it works bucko.
Courts have no say in a constitutional amendment, except to make sure that they follow procedures.

https://www.biznews.com/thought-leaders/2018/08/08/changing-sa-constitution-pierre-de-vos

There is nothing in the constitution that says it is not allowed to contradict itself. This is why we live in a non racial utopia where the government has laws that discriminate against people based on their skin colour.

True, but there is a good chance that processes will initiate in relation to Section 74 and how it doesn't provide guidance on how to deal with public participation figures.

 

[Jet-Fighter7700]

south Africa to turn into a failed state all but guaranteed

FTFY

 

[LazyLion]

That is not how it works bucko.
Courts have no say in a constitutional amendment, except to make sure that they follow procedures.

https://www.biznews.com/thought-leaders/2018/08/08/changing-sa-constitution-pierre-de-vos

There is nothing in the constitution that says it is not allowed to contradict itself. This is why we live in a non racial country with laws that discriminate against people based on their skin colour.

And you take everything that Pierre De Vos says as the Gospel?

 

[Visser]

That is not how it works bucko.
Courts have no say in a constitutional amendment, except to make sure that they follow procedures.

https://www.biznews.com/thought-leaders/2018/08/08/changing-sa-constitution-pierre-de-vos

There is nothing in the constitution that says it is not allowed to contradict itself. This is why we live in a non racial utopia where the government has laws that discriminate against people based on their skin colour.

100% correct.

No political party will succeed in going to court over procedural problems, this far.

They will have to wait for the constitution to be changed and then until one property is taken without compensation. They can then take that incident up for review and see if it passes constitutional muster.

Nonetheless, by then it will be too late. Our constitution will already be against international principals guaranteeing property rights, which could well see a number of actions taken against South Africa.

 

[Jet-Fighter7700]

Our constitution will already be against international principals guaranteeing property rights, which could well see a number of actions taken against South Africa. .

and then what will happen?, what measures can the rest of the world perform against us?

 

[Aghori]

and then what will happen?, what measures can the rest of the world perform against us?

Trade sanctions, Visa restrictions, loans, etc etc

 

[Visser]

and then what will happen?, what measures can the rest of the world perform against us?

The definite first action will come from the USA and you will see the expulsion of SA from Agoa. To be part of Agoa your country must adhere to simple things, one of them guaranteeing property rights. This is why the USA is not negotiating or speaking to the ANC. This is also what the Clintons came to warn about. This will kill what is left of the small remaining farming industry. Trade exclusions, travel restrictions, will follow. And, this will only be the beginning.

The full blown actions, such as sanctions against government officials, seizing their assets, and sanctions against South Africa as a country will follow the day a single property is expropriated. Our debt will be downgraded so bad, not even China will borrow CR a R5 coin.

 

[ToxicBunny]

Travel Restrictions?

For who Visser?

 

[konfab]

And you take everything that Pierre De Vos says as the Gospel?

I am taking what the constitutional court says on the matter as what will happen.

Amendments to the Constitution passed in accordance with the requirements of section 74 of the Constitution become part of the Constitution. Once part of the Constitution, they cannot be challenged on the grounds of inconsistency with other provisions of the Constitution. The Constitution, as amended, must be read as a whole and its provisions must be interpreted in harmony with one another. It follows that there is little if any scope for challenging the constitutionality of amendments that are passed in accordance with the prescribed procedures and majorities.

http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/2002/21


The more interesting point would be when they do change the constitution and a case involving expropriation without compensation comes up.
Section 1 says:

“The Republic of South Africa is one, sovereign, democratic state founded on the following values:

(a) Human dignity, the achievement of equality and the advancement of human rights and freedoms.

(b) Non-racialism and non-sexism.

(c) Supremacy of the Constitution and the rule of law.

(d) Universal adult suffrage, a national common voters roll, regular elections and a multi-party system of democratic government, to ensure accountability, responsiveness and openness.”

It would be up to the constitutional court to decide whether the government stealing the property of an innocent person,and sending them into poverty would be for the "advancement of human rights and freedoms".

 

[Jet-Fighter7700]

The definite first action will come from the USA and you will see the expulsion of SA from Agoa. This will kill what is left of the small remaining farming industry. Trade exclusions, travel restrictions, will follow. And, this will only be the beginning.

The full blown actions, such as sanctions against government officials, seizing their assets, and sanctions against South Africa as a country will follow the day a single property is expropriated. Our debt will be downgraded so bad, not even China will borrow CR a R5 coin.

sounds nasty, even more than what we have had so far being downgraded to junk status ect...
would a political shift make any discernible difference? IE if the ANC lost majority, and was forced into a coalition, would the situation reverse itself?