FIFI PETERS: From the markets to issues regarding land. We are going to dig into these issues proper now, given the newest developments popping out of the National Assembly yesterday, the place we discovered that the National Assembly had adopted the expropriation bill, a really topical and contentious and emotive and fascinating bill that permits for the expropriation of land with out compensation to happen – however below sure circumstances.
To assist us perceive extra clearly what all of this implies, we’re joined by Bulelwa Mabasa, director and head of land reform restitution at Werksmans Attorneys, whom I haven’t seen currently. How are you doing?
BULELWA MABASA: Always nice to talk to you, Fifi. I’m nice. I’m exhausted, I feel like most of us in the nation in the final months.
FIFI PETERS: You should actually be busy. I’m not bumping into you as a lot as I used to. But let’s talk about what has occurred. Your take, initially, on the stance of the National Assembly yesterday to undertake the expropriation bill and provides it the inexperienced mild? And what’s your takeaway from the rejection of the National Assembly [doing] so by the opposition events.
BULELWA MABASA: Just to remind us the place we come from, you’ll recall that the course of that had began in parliament was a special course of, the place the EFF [Economic Freedom Fighters] tabled the potential modification to Section 25 of the Constitution, as a result of it argued that the structure must put off compensation – after which the ANC supported the movement.
But clearly as a result of each the ANC and the EFF had framed their conceptions of how expropriation ought to occur so in another way, it didn’t move. In different phrases, it didn’t work. Now the expropriation bill is contemplated as a statute that should occur by way of the exact same structure that was alleged to be amended.
In different phrases, the place we’re sitting proper now could be that the expropriation bill, because it has been proposed, is prone to be challenged constitutionally on the foundation that if the state desires to expropriate land with none compensation, so for nil compensation, the present structure doesn’t enable for that.
In different phrases, the present structure permits the state to expropriate maybe at lower than market worth. But a few of us have argued that definitely the structure doesn’t ponder zero compensation.
So we’re sitting with a scenario the place this bill, there’s an excellent chance that it will likely be challenged in the courtroom and that it’s not going to move constitutional muster because it at the moment is being framed.
FIFI PETERS: So you’re saying basically that regardless of the National Assembly seemingly pondering that it’s taken a step ahead and it’s taken a step nearer to offering certainty because it pertains to the expropriation bill, basically we now have gone nowhere on this matter?
BULELWA MABASA: Absolutely. It has been going nowhere slowly and, as you requested in your first query round whether or not the opposition has rightly challenged the constitutionality of the bill, I feel it helps [inaudible] to state that the land reform venture in South Africa, its successes or failures, are usually not depending on this expropriation bill. What do I imply by that?
Currently the state is ready to expropriate land and property, it simply has to take action in a manner that’s framed in Section 25(3) of the Constitution.
Is there a necessity to alter the bill but? There is, as a result of the bill that we’re at the moment utilizing is a bill that was launched in 1975, and it didn’t have the democratic safeguard, and it was closely bent in direction of market-value compensation.
So sure, there’s a necessity for this bill as a result of we have to streamline expropriation together with the structure. In different phrases, expropriation, when it occurs, doesn’t must at all times entice market worth. In sure circumstances it may be lower than market. But what it does is that, if the state desires to acceptable land with out compensation, sadly it might must get a greater modification in the structure.
So, as I mentioned, I feel we’re going nowhere slowly, and in any occasion I don’t consider that the expropriation bill by itself goes to be the treatment for all the defects in the Land Reform Project in South Africa.
FIFI PETERS: But what about the implications then on investments? I used to be talking with a extremely necessary farmer the different day who represents an organisation that represents a complete lot of farmers, and he was expressing his issues about the indisputable fact that farmers are reluctant to place investments into the agricultural house proper now, into land, as a result of they don’t know whether or not they’ll nonetheless have that land or not, given the uncertainty round this bill. I’m questioning what you concentrate on that, and questioning about the sort of questions that you just’ve needed to reply even perhaps from yesterday when the National Assembly adopted this stance on the expropriation bill. What do you suppose the ramifications for investments are going to be as this nonetheless hangs in the [air]?
BULELWA MABASA: I feel the public consciousness and the public messaging round us are crucial. Why I say that’s as a result of expropriation as an idea is used worldwide by most nations.
In truth, expropriation as an idea comes from Roman Dutch legislation, which signifies that all through Europe and the Americas, expropriation is utilized by authorities to expropriate sure land whether it is wanted for a public objective and the public curiosity. So that can’t dissuade traders. I feel traders are educated and complicated sufficient to know that together with any economic system there are powers of the state to acceptable.
What must be ascertained, nonetheless, is the challenge of compensation. So compensation has at all times been tied with expropriation and what the state compensates for. It compensates for the disturbance, the losses of any individual whose land has been expropriated.
Now, the want to establish and to clarify the message comes from the indisputable fact that our structure in South Africa, in contrast to many others – and there are some which are comparable – says that in terms of land reform, for those who want land for land reform, the state won’t provide you with full market worth. Our structure is exclusive in that it gives you these elements on tips on how to attain the sort of compensation it is advisable to get.
So any farmer who’s on land that’s being productive, that’s at the moment getting used, who can present that they’ve additionally invested on the land, would have a proper to withstand that expropriation as a result of it might be unconstitutional.
The structure tells us below what circumstances expropriation would possibly occur, and people circumstances could also be lower than market worth.
But the most necessary crucial points are the following. The present land needs to be in use, you’ve acquired to indicate that there’ve been some direct investments that you just’ve made in enhancements on the land. You’ve acquired to be compensated for that.
Government has to indicate the objective of the expropriation. If the objective of the expropriation is towards the public curiosity, or if it’s towards land reform, a farmer doubtless would have the ability to problem that.
So I feel it’s necessary, after we speak about this expropriation, to make clear these ideas that anybody whose land is in use has [it in] productive use, and it’s the place there are people who find themselves employed on the land, and so forth. Those are circumstances the place expropriation wouldn’t be potential.
So there’s no want for farmers with productive land, who’re using folks, who’ve invested closely on the land, to fret about expropriation, as a result of that’s not what expropriation for land reform functions is designed for.
FIFI PETERS: Okay. I feel we’re going to have much more alternative to speak about these issues and make clear them additional, given your expectation that, regardless of the adoption by the National Assembly the expropriation bill doesn’t meet constitutional muster, and it’s prone to hit a brick wall after we get there – and I’ll see you there and converse to you about it after we get there.
Bulelwa, thanks a lot to your time this night, nonetheless. Bulelwa Mabasa is the director and head of land reform restitution at Werksmans Attorneys.
