6 February 2025
Blaai af vir Afrikaanse weergawe.
The Free Market Foundation (FMF) notes with concern that Business Unity SA (BUSA)’s recent equivocal statement on the Expropriation Act is liable to cause confusion among property owners and international investors. The Act is to be unambiguously opposed.
BUSA, which represents primarily large enterprises, has not sufficiently reckoned with how the state’s new expropriation policy would affect ordinary South Africans and small businesses. Unlike BUSA’s members, small enterprises and individuals cannot afford to litigate against abusive government action for extended periods of time.
“The FMF, founded in 1975, has a long history of opposing threats to property rights (under apartheid and post-1994) and has been actively involved in the public commentary and consultation process surrounding the Expropriation Bill since its inception,” says David Ansara, Chief Executive Officer of the FMF. “Now that the Bill has become an Act, our position on its harmful contents have not changed. BUSA has no reason to be so sanguine about expropriation without compensation.”
Some in organised business argue that the state must first seek an “agreement” with their intended victim about the property concerned. This is not only an insufficient safeguard in the Act, but it is no safeguard at all.
There is no scope for a voluntary agreement between the state and a private party when the threat of expropriation (in the event of a “failure” to come to an “agreement”) is constantly hanging over the negotiation. Victimised property owners will feel compelled to accept the state’s below-market-value offers if the alternative is potentially “nil compensation.”
BUSA has acknowledged that the provision for nil compensation “understandably raises considerable anxiety,” and acknowledges that there must be payment for expropriations. If BUSA is serious, it should itself be more anxious about the open-ended power granted to government for no-compensation expropriations in section 12 of the Act.
“Many eyes are now on South Africa, including those of Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and Marco Rubio, to determine American policy toward the country. The equivocal statements by BUSA and other business representatives causes confusion, particularly among foreign governments and investors,” says Ansara.
With the “custodial taking” of mineral and water rights in the late 1990s and early 2000s – and the water and mining crises that resulted in the years thereafter – the socio-economic consequences of a government that does not respect private property have already been revealed, especially to business. BUSA should have taken the opportunity to learn from these policy missteps.
“Either the state pays for expropriation by means of compensation, or the rest of us, especially the most destitute, pay for it in the form of economic decline. But somebody will have to pay,” Ansara argued. “If land reform is one of the state’s top priorities, paying innocent owners the fair value of their expropriated property must not be seen as a burden.”
“The private sector in South Africa should say with one voice that constitutional property rights must not be undermined by the rent-seeking and authoritarian designs of the African National Congress-controlled Government of National Unity,” concludes Ansara.
Ends.
***
BUSA moet sy standpunt oor OSV verduidelik, sê Vryemarkstigting
6 Februarie 2025
Scroll up for English version.
Die Vryemarkstigting (FMF) neem met kommer kennis daarvan dat Business Unity SA (BUSA) se onlangse dubbelsinnige verklaring oor die Onteieningswet moontlik verwarring onder eienaars en internasionale beleggers kan veroorsaak. Die wet moet in geheel teengestaan word.
BUSA, wat hoofsaaklik groot ondernemings verteenwoordig, het nie voldoende gereken met hoe die staat se nuwe onteieningsbeleid gewone Suid-Afrikaners en kleinsake sal raak nie. Anders as BUSA se lede, kan kleinsake en individue nie bekostig om vir lang tydperke teen skadelike regeringsoptrede te litigeer nie.
“Die FMF, wat in 1975 gestig is, het ‘n lang geskiedenis van opposisie teen bedreigings vir private eiendomsreg (tydens apartheid en na 1994) en was aktief betrokke by die openbare kommentaar en konsultasieproses rondom die Onteieningswetsontwerp sedert dié se onstaan,” sê David Ansara, Hoof Uitvoerende Beampte van die FMF. “Noudat die wetsontwerp ‘n wet geword het, het ons standpunt oor die skadelike inhoud daarvan nie verander nie. BUSA het geen rede om so ongestoord oor onteiening sonder vergoeding te wees nie.”
Sommige in georganiseerde besigheid voer aan dat die staat eers ‘n “ooreenkoms” met hul beoogde slagoffer moet aangaan oor die betrokke eiendom. Dit is nie bloot ‘n onvoldoende beperking in die wet nie, maar bied hoegenaamd géén beskerming nie.
Daar is geen ruimte vir ’n vrywillige ooreenkoms tussen die staat en ’n privaat party wanneer die dreigement van onteiening (in die geval van ’n “mislukking” om tot ’n “ooreenkoms” te kom) voortdurend oor die onderhandeling hang nie. Geviktimiseerde eienaars sal gedwing voel om die staat se onder-markwaarde aanbiedinge te aanvaar indien die alternatief moontlik “nul vergoeding” is.
BUSA het erken dat die aansienlike angs wat die voorsiening vir geen vergoeding wek verstaanbaar is en gestel dat daar betaling vir onteienings moet wees. As BUSA ernstig is, behoort hy self ook meer angstig oor die ruim mag wat aan die regering verleen word vir onteienings sonder vergoeding in artikel 12 van die wet te wees.
“Baie oë is nou op Suid-Afrika, insluitend dié van Donald Trump, Elon Musk, en Marco Rubio, om die Amerikaanse beleid teenoor die land te bepaal. Die dubbelsinnige stellings deur BUSA en ander sakeverteenwoordigers veroorsaak verwarring, veral onder buitelandse regerings en beleggers,” sê Ansara.
Die van konfiskering van mineraal- en waterregte in die laat 1990’s en vroeë 2000’s onder die dekmantel van sogenaamde “kuratorskap” – en die water- en mynbedryf-krisisse wat die jare daarna tot gevolg gehad het – ontbloot reeds die sosio-ekonomiese gevolge van ’n regering wat nie privaat eiendom respekteer nie, veral vir sakeondernemings. BUSA moes die geleentheid gebruik het om uit hierdie beleidsfoute te leer.
“Iemand sal moet vir onteiening betaal hetsy die staat deur middel van vergoeding, óf die res van ons, veral die mees behoeftiges, in die vorm van ekonomiese agteruitgang,” het Ansara aangevoer. “As grondhervorming een van die staat se topprioriteite is, moet dit nie as ‘n las beskou word om onskuldige eienaars die billike waarde van hul onteiende eiendom te vergoed nie.”
“Die privaatsektor in Suid-Afrika behoort met een stem te sê dat grondwetlike eiendomsreg nie ondermyn moet word deur die skadelike en outoritêre planne van die African National Congress-beheerde Regering van Nasionale Eenheid nie,” sluit Ansara af.
Einde.
