[ad_1]
As South Africa revises its legal framework to facilitate the taking of properties without paying for them, the nation’s land minister has ensured that the contentious process will not degenerate into a battle against everyone.
The ruling African National Congress decided in December 2017 to change the constitution to explicitly allow expropriation without compensation. Lawmakers have been deliberating ever since on how the changes should be made.
This month, the government released a revised version of its Expropriation Bill that has been in the works since 2008 and specifies what property can be taken, including land for speculative purposes or owned by absentee owners.
The government has engaged with investors to clarify why land reform is necessary, emphasized that there will be no widespread publication of land for confiscation, and appointed the courts to be the final arbiters in any dispute, Minister of Agriculture, Reform Agrarian and Rural Development, Thoko Said Didiza.
“The response has been positive, there is an appreciation for what we are doing,” he said in an interview. “I think everyone wants to be sure that it will be done in a legal and fair manner.”
Racially skewed land ownership patterns in South Africa stemming from colonial rule and the white minority persist more than a quarter century after the ANC took power, a status quo that has caused growing resentment among citizens. blacks representing more than 80% of the population. .
Farmer lobbyists argue that constitutional changes are unnecessary and will deter investment, and accuse the government of failing to implement existing land reform policies.
Didiza defended the changes, saying that the constitutional amendments will establish general policy parameters and the Expropriation Bill will provide a legal framework so that there is no ambiguity about what the government can or cannot do.
Constitutional amendments will require the backing of two-thirds of lawmakers, a margin that the ANC lacks. While the radical Economic Freedom Fighters, who support the nationalization of all lands, could provide the additional support needed, the two sides disagree on what needs to change.
The EFF has already opposed the Expropriation Bill on the grounds that it “presumes that the constitutional amendment process will not result in fundamental changes to the land laws in this country and that it will continue to operate as usual.”
He has also objected to the courts playing a role in determining the amount of compensation to be paid for the land.
“I do not think that the right of people to appeal to the courts for the adjudication of a dispute can be avoided” over the amount of compensation that is paid even if it results in delays, Didiza said. “That’s what the courts are for.”
Read: Why South Africa’s Land Takeover Won’t Be Like Zimbabwe
[ad_2]
