[imagesource:here]

The most controversial bill to hit the headlines last year was without a doubt the land expropriation bill, which would amend section 25 of the Constitution, dubbed the property clause.

In November, the draft bill hit a bit of a legal snafu when Department of Trade and Industry officials pointed out that expropriating land owned by foreign nationals could contravene existing bilateral investment treaties, which could result in South Africa being denied access to key overseas markets.

While we haven’t heard much about the bill since January this year, when we were afforded some clarity as to how exactly section 25 of the Constitution would be amended, it’s back in the news after it was gazetted last Friday.

Deputy President David Mabuza stated why the bill was necessary in the first place:

“It is a recognition of the urgency required to address the injustices of the past and restore land rights in a responsible manner, whilst ensuring that food security is maintained; that equitable spatial justice is achieved, and that continuation of investment to expand our industrial base is secured.”

This was reported by Radio 702, along with Bruce Whitfield’s interview with Bulelwa Mabasa, a member of the president’s Land Reform Advisory Panel.

She places emphasis on ‘responsibly’, saying that the legislation clearly and concisely outlines how and when land can be expropriated. The wording of the bill, she says, makes “productive land safe from expropriation”.

“Expropriation is only one tool available to the State… Although it enjoys the lion’s share in the public forum, it won’t be applied widely and only in limited circumferences.”

Mabasa also addressed some of the overarching fears that South Africans have expressed, namely, that with the bill in effect, we could soon find ourselves in a situation similar to that of Zimbabwe.

“Expropriation without compensation is not akin to nationalisation… Quite the contrary to what happened in Zimbabwe… The state has to give good reasons… it has to give the landowner an opportunity to object… Not all expropriations will attract zero compensation… Only under exceptional circumstances.”

BusinessTech goes into some of the ‘exceptional circumstances’ that Mabasa is referencing, including:

• Land that is not being used and is not flagged for development or to generate income. Rather the owner is using it to benefit from its appreciation in market value.
• Where the state owns the land and is not using it, and is unlikely to use it for future purposes.
• Where a landowner has abandoned land by failing to keep control of it.
• Where the market value of the land is the same as, or less than, the present value of direct state investment or subsidy.
• Where the land poses a health, safety or personal risk to other properties or persons.

In order for land to expropriated, notice will have to be given to owners in advance, and the state will be required to provide them with the following reasons:

• Why the government needs this particular land;
• What kind of work has gone into it;
• What is the purpose of the expropriation?

It’s also important to note that not all land will be expropriated without compensation.

You can read the updated draft of the land expropriation bill here, ahead of its official introduction to parliament.

Only time will tell how this all plays out.

Landowners can take some solace in the fact that we have a strong Constitution and a formidable Constitutional Court to back it up.

You can listen to the full interview with Mabasa below:

[sources:702&businesstech]