South African Parliament Approves Land Expropriation Bill

South Africa’s Parliament has approved a bill that will allow the government to make mandatory land purchases from whites and redistribute it in a way deemed fair by its representatives. This comes 20 years after the end of apartheid, reports BBC News.

With elections coming up in August, the African National Congress (ANC) has promised to expedite the process of implementing its Expropriation Bill. The National assembly has, after adding changes, passed the bill, and it is now headed for President Jacob Zuma’s office to be signed. This could take anything from a week to a few months.

The bill entails a series of measures that will ensure the land is expropriated “in the public interest” and for “public purpose.” In a statement, the ANC said, “The passing of the bill by parliament is historic and heralds a new era of intensified land distribution program to bring long-awaited justice to the dispossessed majority of South Africans.”

Since 1994, about 20 million hectares of land has been transferred to black owners, translating to 10 percent of what the whites owned. It is the ANC’s aim to up this to 30 percent.

The Democratic Alliance (DA) voted against the bill amid concerns regarding the lack of clarity as to how the measures are to be implemented. The party offered four main reasons for their rejection of the bill in a statement which read the following.

“Firstly: In his state of the nation address earlier this year, the President promised that all legislation will be subjected to a socio-economic impact study. Like so many other promises, this promise has also been broken and no impact study has been done for the proposed Expropriation Bill.”

“Secondly: ‘Property’ is not properly defined. The current interpretation stretches far beyond immovable assets and includes assets such as pension funds and cattle, which could potentially also be expropriated – to the detriment of many ordinary citizens.”

“Thirdly: The scope of ‘expropriation’ is not defined. This means that state guardianship over assets could potentially not qualify as compensation, and as a result citizens could lose the right of use of their property – without any compensation.”

“Fourthly: There is no guarantee in the bill that stipulates whether compensation offered for expropriated property would cover outstanding bank loans. It is therefore possible that an expropriated owner could end up without a house or farm, and would still need to pay installments on an outstanding bank loan. Which bank would grant such loans?”

“The DA will only be able to vote for the Expropriation Bill if these four principles are adhered to. This, however, is not currently the case.”

The United Democratic Movement (UDM) voted against the bill on the grounds that it did not apply to those who were evicted before the Land Act of 1913.

Economists and farmers have also voiced concern over the effects the bill will have on foreign investment in the country.

The government has promised South Africa that it would not allow the same type of land seizures that occurred in Zimbabwe that scared off investors by threatening foreign companies with closure unless 51 percent of their shares were sold to black Zimbabweans. Zimbabwean president Robert Mogabe has targeted white farmers, and it has been reported that 40 percent of all land taken from them – sometimes by violence – now belongs to his supporters. The difference in the South African scenario is that the landowners will be compensated.”

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153362061621638&set=pb.700656637.-2207520000.1464554317.&type=3&theater

“It is essential that all citizens know that their property rights are secure. Moreover it is crucial for foreign investment that property rights are secure. The bill in its current form impedes on this confidence,” said Anchen Dreyer, DA MP.

[Image via Shutterstock]