20 July 2026
Blaai af vir Afrikaanse weergawe.
The Free Market Foundation (FMF), through its Rule of Law Project, has been admitted as an amicus curiae (friend of the court) in the High Court application brought by AfriForum and IRR Legal against the Expropriation Act of 2024. The Rule of Law Project filed its written submissions last week Wednesday, 15 July.
This intervention forms part of the FMF’s long-standing opposition to the Expropriation Act and to the broader policy of expropriation without compensation. The FMF has opposed the legislation at every stage: from detailed submissions on the successive versions of the Expropriation Bill; through public warnings around the failed Eighteenth Constitutional Amendment in 2021; to the strong condemnation that followed Cyril Ramaphosa’s assent to the Act in January 2025; the convening of civil-society roundtables; and the publishing of various reports and research briefs around the harms of the policy.
The Rule of Law Project’s submissions focus on the constitutionality of section 12(3) of the Act, which empowers government to expropriate property for “nil compensation” in an open-ended set of circumstances.
“Section 25(2)(b) of the Constitution is unambiguous: expropriation is ‘subject to compensation’, the ‘amount’ of which and the ‘time and manner of payment’ of which must be agreed or determined by a court,” says Dr Martin van Staden, FMF Head of Policy. “Nil is not an amount. The absence of payment is not payment. And nil payment cannot compensate anything. To treat ‘nil compensation’ as constitutionally permissible is to ignore the ordinary meaning of the words and meaning the Constitution actually uses and intends.”
The amicus submissions demonstrate that the text, surrounding context, purpose, and drafting history of section 25 all confirm that the constitutional negotiators deliberately rejected the possibility of expropriation without compensation. The distinction between deprivation (which may occur without compensation) and expropriation (which requires compensation) was carefully drawn and accepted by all parties during the 1993 multi-party negotiations.
More to the point, section 12(3) of the Act seeks to achieve, by ordinary legislation, precisely what Parliament failed to achieve when the Eighteenth Amendment Bill was defeated in December 2021.
“This is constitutionally impermissible,” Van Staden continues. “The Constitution is the supreme law. Legislation cannot rewrite a constitutional standard that a proposed constitutional amendment was unable to change. That inverts the constitutional order.”
The Rule of Law Project further submits that section 12(3) fails the rationality test: government has offered no coherent justification for the provision, given that sections 12(1) and (2) of the Act already regulate the determination of “just and equitable” compensation. It is constitutionally suspect for Parliament to dictate the possibility of a specific “amount” of “compensation” (being nil).
In addition, an interpretation of section 25 that permits no compensation would place South Africa in conflict with customary international law, which requires compensation for expropriation, and would produce the absurd and discriminatory result that foreign owners would be entitled to compensation while South African owners would not.
The FMF has repeatedly stated that property rights are not a negotiable policy preference but a foundational requirement of a free and prosperous society. The Expropriation Act masquerades as an expropriation law, when it is in fact a confiscation statute that empowers the political elite at the expense of ordinary South Africans.
Real, constitutionally compliant land reform remains both necessary and possible, as set out in the FMF’s “Liberty First: Constitutional Land Reform” policy proposal.
The Rule of Law Project will assist the Court with written and oral argument focused on the correct interpretation of section 25 of the Constitution and the clear unconstitutionality of section 12(3) of the Act.
The Project is represented by attorneys KWV Inc and advocates Mark Oppenheimer and Kessler Perumalsamy.
Click here to read the full heads of argument of the Rule of Law Project.
Ends.
***
Vryemarkstigting gaan hof toe om die Onteieningswet uit te daag
20 Julie 2026
Scroll up for English version.
Die Vryemarkstigting (FMF), deur middel van sy Rule of Law Project, is as amicus curiae (vriend van die hof) toegelaat in die Hooggeregshofaansoek wat deur AfriForum en IRR Legal ingestel is teen die Onteieningswet van 2024. Die Rule of Law Project het sy skriftelike voorleggings verlede Woensdag, 15 Julie, ingedien.
Hierdie ingryping maak deel uit van die FMF se langdurige teenstand teen die Onteieningswet en die breër beleid van onteiening sonder vergoeding. Die FMF het die wetgewing op elke stadium teengestaan: van gedetailleerde voorleggings oor die opeenvolgende weergawes van die Onteieningswetsontwerp; deur publieke waarskuwings rondom die mislukte Agtiende Wysigingswetsontwerp tot die Grondwet in 2021; tot die sterk veroordeling wat gevolg het op Cyril Ramaphosa se bekragtiging van die Wet in Januarie 2025; die byeenroeping van burgerlike samelewing-rondetafelberade; en die publikasie van verskeie verslae en navorsingsnotas oor die skade van die beleid.
Die Rule of Law Project se voorleggings fokus op die grondwetlikheid van artikel 12(3) van die Wet, wat die regering bemagtig om eiendom te onteien vir “nul vergoeding” in ’n oop stel omstandighede.
“Artikel 25(2)(b) van die Grondwet is ondubbelsinnig: onteiening is ‘onderworpe aan vergoeding’, die ‘bedrag’ waarvan en die ‘tyd en wyse van betaling’ waarvan ooreengekom of deur ’n hof bepaal moet word,” sê dr. Martin van Staden, Beleidshoof by die FMF. “Nul is nie ’n bedrag nie. Die afwesigheid van betaling is nie betaling nie. En nul-betaling kan niks vergoed nie. Om ‘nul vergoeding’ as grondwetlik toelaatbaar te behandel, is om die gewone betekenis van die woorde en die betekenis wat die Grondwet werklik gebruik en bedoel, te ignoreer.”
Die amicus-voorleggings demonstreer dat die teks, omliggende konteks, doel, en opstelgeskiedenis van artikel 25 bevestig dat die grondwetlike onderhandelaars doelbewus die moontlikheid van onteiening sonder vergoeding verwerp het. Die onderskeid tussen ontneming (wat sonder vergoeding kan plaasvind) en onteiening (wat vergoeding vereis) is sorgvuldig getref en deur alle partye aanvaar tydens die veelparty-onderhandelinge in 1993.
Meer pertinent, artikel 12(3) van die Wet poog, deur gewone wetgewing, om presies te bereik wat die Parlement nie kon bereik toe die Agtiende Wysigingswetsontwerp in Desember 2021 verslaan is nie.
“Dit is grondwetlik ontoelaatbaar,” gaan Van Staden voort. “Die Grondwet is die hoogste wet. Wetgewing kan nie ’n grondwetlike standaard herskryf wat ’n voorgestelde grondwetlike wysiging nie kon verander nie. Dit keer die grondwetlike orde om.”
Die Rule of Law Project voer verder aan dat artikel 12(3) die rasionaliteitstoets druip: die regering het geen samehangende regverdiging vir die bepaling gebied nie, gegewe dat artikels 12(1) en (2) van die Wet reeds die bepaling van “billike en regverdige” vergoeding reguleer. Dit is grondwetlik verdag vir die Parlement om die moontlikheid van ’n spesifieke “bedrag” van “vergoeding” (nul) voor te skryf.
Boonop sou ’n interpretasie van artikel 25 wat geen vergoeding toelaat, Suid-Afrika in stryd bring met die internasionale gewoontereg, wat vergoeding vir onteiening vereis, en sou dit die absurde en diskriminerende resultaat oplewer dat buitelandse eienaars geregtig sou wees op vergoeding terwyl Suid-Afrikaanse eienaars dit nie sou wees nie.
Die FMF het herhaaldelik gestel dat eiendomsregte nie ’n onderhandelbare beleidsvoorkeur is nie, maar ’n grondliggende vereiste van ’n vrye en welvarende samelewing. Die Onteieningswet gee voor om ’n onteieningswet te wees, terwyl dit in werklikheid ’n konfiskeringswet is wat die politieke elite bevoordeel ten koste van gewone Suid-Afrikaners.
Werklike, grondwetlik aanvaarbare grondhervorming bly sowel noodsaaklik as moontlik, soos uiteengesit in die FMF se “Liberty First: Constitutional Land Reform”-beleidsvoorstel.
Die Rule of Law Project sal die Hof bystaan met skriftelike en mondelinge betoog wat fokus op die korrekte interpretasie van artikel 25 van die Grondwet en die duidelike ongrondwetlikheid van artikel 12(3) van die Wet.
Die Projek word verteenwoordig deur prokureurs KWV Inc. en advokate Mark Oppenheimer en Kessler Perumalsamy.
Klik hier om die volledige hoofde van betoog van die Rule of Law Project te lees.
Einde.
