Parliament approves motion on expropriation without compensation

schumi

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
24,446
Cape Town - On Tuesday, the National Assembly will decide whether to proceed with a process to amend the Constitution to make expropriation of land without compensation possible, as the EFF's motion in this regard is expected to be debated.

The draft resolution, brought by Economic Freedom Fighters leader Julius Malema, states that "South Africa has a unique history of brutal dispossession of land from black people by the settler colonial white minority" and continues that this has left an "indelible mark on social, political and economic landscape of the country, and has helped create a society based on exploitation of black people and sustenance of white domination".

The draft resolution has asked the House to acknowledge that 1994 land reform measures have failed and to recognise that section 25 of the Constitution is "at the centre of the present crisis". Section 25 is the property clause, which, in its current form, requires the state to pay compensation.

The EFF proposes that an ad hoc committee be established to review and amend section 25 to make it possible for the state to expropriate land in the public interest, without compensation.

This would entail public hearings, where members of the public, academics, policy makers and civil society can present their views on expropriation without compensation.

The committee would, if the EFF's proposal is accepted, consist of six ANC MPs, two DA MPs, 1 EFF MP and two MPs from other parties.

At its national conference in Johannesburg in December, the ANC accepted a resolution in favour of expropriation without compensation.

"The conference resolved that the ANC should, as a matter of policy, pursue expropriation of land without compensation. This should be pursued without destabilising the agricultural sector, without endangering food security in our country and without undermining economic growth and job creation," the conference's declaration reads.

'Grave historical injustice'

The debate on President Cyril Ramaphosa's State of the Nation Address (SONA) last week, served as a precursor to Tuesday's debate, with most speakers breaching the subject.

"We will accelerate our land redistribution programme, not only to redress a grave historical injustice, but also to bring more producers into the agricultural sector and to make more land available for cultivation," Ramaphosa said in his SONA.

He said this would include expropriation without compensation.

During the debate, the EFF supported it, but opposition parties such as the DA, Cope and the Freedom Front Plus did not, while the IFP expressed its concern about the possibility of the expropriation of the Ingonyama Trust land, of which the Zulu king is the trustee.

During Ramaphosa's reply on the SONA debate, he said it was necessary to heal the divisions of the past, and said Parliament needs to interrogate the statement that the expropriation of land without compensation was incompatible with a flourishing economy, or that it represented a "violation of the spirit" of the Constitution.

"This is a profound responsibility that has been given to our generation. In dealing with this complex matter, we will not make the mistakes that others have made," Ramaphosa said.

"We will not allow smash-and-grab interventions. That we will not allow."

The sitting of the National Assembly during which the EFF's motion will be debated starts at 14:00.

News24
https://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/...n-expropriation-without-compensation-20180227
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ProfA

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
13,039
This should be pursued without destabilising the agricultural sector, without endangering food security in our country and without undermining economic growth and job creation,"

How do you take land from someone without compensating them for it, and still not destabilise the above?
 

Badprop_za

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
1,460
This should be pursued without destabilising the agricultural sector, without endangering food security in our country and without undermining economic growth and job creation,"

How do you take land from someone without compensating them for it, and still not destabilise the above?

Hopefully taking land away from certain cadres that own agricultural land but not doing anything with it.

I doubt land will be taken away from existing farm owners that is producing product for the markets. Hence his comment as quoted.
 

ProfA

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
13,039
Hopefully taking land away from certain cadres that own agricultural land but not doing anything with it.

I doubt land will be taken away from existing farm owners that is producing product for the markets. Hence his comment as quoted.

But cadres are "previously disadvantaged"? Surely the point of the exercise to give the previously disadvantaged back their land?
 

NarrowBandFtw

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
21,482
How do you take land from someone without compensating them for it, and still not destabilise the above?
You don't, it is impossible. For all the sugar coating they're giving these intended land grabs there is one undeniable fact of history they simply cannot spin out of existence: land grabs always upset the economy, always, no exception. In most cases it completely ruins the economy (see: Zimbabwe).

I guess it's a good thing to have the debate so soon at least, with Zuma, SONA, the budget and the reshuffle out of the way the land grab issue and the promised cabinet reduction are the two remaining big issues to get traction.
 

ProfA

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
13,039
Why don't they give people STATE land of which there is an abundance?
 

Craig_

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 22, 2016
Messages
23,729
If done wrong this could cost the country dearly. If you do start, start with unused land of zwelentini.
 

klasvaakie

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2008
Messages
625
Luckily for me, I can run my company in Botswana just as well as here in South Africa. So...the moment government sanctioned land theft comes into play, I will move.
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
29,544
During Ramaphosa's reply on the SONA debate, he said it was necessary to heal the divisions of the past, and said Parliament needs to interrogate the statement that the expropriation of land without compensation was incompatible with a flourishing economy, or that it represented a "violation of the spirit" of the Constitution.

"This is a profound responsibility that has been given to our generation. In dealing with this complex matter, we will not make the mistakes that others have made," Ramaphosa said.
Every time land has been taken without compensation, the economy collapses.
 

ProfA

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
13,039
Will be interesting to see how the ANC votes on this...

Well according to their conference resolutions, they MUST support the EFF motion? Or they can use the excuse that they wont support the EFF motion, and will rather table a motion of their own so as not be seen supporting an opposition party.
 

Hemi300c

Honorary Master
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Messages
23,478
2 weeks in and everything is turning to shyte very quickly.
Runjoupusaf is more dangerous than zuma, I said it long ago and all those that said yay CR much better than JZ you will be proven wrong.
Zim2
 

Ho3n3r

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 5, 2012
Messages
17,062
Legalised criminal act. Nothing more/better.

But you'd expect nothing less from these career criminals, led by Mr. Kingpin himself, Julius Malema.
 

NarrowBandFtw

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
21,482
section 25 of the Constitution is "at the centre of the present crisis". Section 25 is the property clause, which, in its current form, requires the state to pay compensation

Hope someone has the good sense in parliament to point out this is BS, section 25 does not require compensation, section 25 reads:
Property may be expropriated only in terms of law of general
application—
(a) for a public purpose or in the public interest; and
(b) subject to compensation, the amount of which and the
time and manner of payment of which have either been
agreed to by those affected or decided or approved by a
court

The amount can be zero, and the seller does not need to be willing, so long as a court approves of the reasoning. There's no need to amend that section at all unless you want to do away with court oversight entirely ... and of course that is an excellent idea in this country. :wtf:
 

TheChamp

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
39,829
2 weeks in and everything is turning to shyte very quickly.
Runjoupusaf is more dangerous than zuma, I said it long ago and all those that said yay CR much better than JZ you will be proven wrong.
Zim2

Getting old...
 
Top