3 August 2026
Blaai af vir Afrikaanse weergawe.
The Free Market Foundation (FMF)’s Rule of Law Project is in the Western Cape Division of the High Court, Cape Town, today as an amicus curiae (friend of the court) in AfriForum and IRR Legal’s constitutional challenge against the Expropriation Act. The Project will be in court for the remainder of this week.
“As a civil society organisation dedicated to the protection of private property rights and the rule of law, the FMF has a duty to intervene in this landmark litigation. The Expropriation Act is unconstitutional, irrational, and contradicts customary international law,” says David Ansara, CEO of the FMF, from court.
The Rule of Law Project is represented by advocates Mark Oppenheimer and Kessler Perumalsamy. The submissions to the High Court substantially concern the following:
Section 25(2) of the Constitution plainly requires that whenever the state expropriates property, it must be subject to the payment of an amount of compensation. Section 12(3) of the Expropriation Act, which purports to allow the state to expropriate at “nil compensation”, serves no purpose other than to undermine and nullify this constitutional requirement in practice. On this point alone, the Expropriation Act is on its face, unambiguously unconstitutional.
Section 25(3) of the Constitution and sections 12(1) and (2) of the Act already set out the factors that must be taken into account to determine compensation. Section 12(3) of the Act, by specifying an “amount” (nil) under particular circumstances, is therefore irrational. The state has made no attempt to justify why a specific “amount” is being dictated when the amount will always necessarily turn on the facts of each separate case.
Customary international law has long recognised that when state governments expropriate the property of their subjects, compensation must be rendered. Among other places, this was articulated in the first systematic and comprehensive statement of international law by Hugo de Groot in On the Law of War and Peace (1625), from which modern international law was born. This principle has subsequently been affirmed by, among others, the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the Permanent Court of International Justice, the SADC Tribunal, and the African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights.
“This is a clear and simple case of constitutional invalidity. Ordinary legislation may not allow what the Constitution explicitly disallows,” says Dr Martin van Staden, FMF Head of Policy, who is also in court in Cape Town.
The FMF Rule of Law Project intends to see the matter through to the end, and will seek to join any appeal or review proceedings should they arise after the High Court gives judgment.
Click here to read the full heads of argument of the Rule of Law Project.
Ends.
***
“Nul” kan nie vergoeding onder die Grondwet wees nie, sê FMF aan die Hooggeregshof
3 Augustus 2026
Scroll up for English version.
Die Vryemarkstigting (FMF) se Rule of Law Project is vandag in die Wes-Kaapse Afdeling van die Hooggeregshof, Kaapstad, as amicus curiae (vriend van die hof) in AfriForum en IRR Legal se grondwetlike uitdaging teen die Onteieningswet. Die FMF sal die res van hierdie week in die hof wees.
“As ’n burgerlike samelewingsorganisasie wat toegewyd is aan die beskerming van private eiendomsregte en die oppergesag van die reg, het die FMF ’n plig om in hierdie baanbrekende litigasie in te gryp. Die Onteieningswet is ongrondwetlik, irrasioneel, en strydig met die internasionale gewoontereg,” sê David Ansara, Hoof Uitvoerende Beampte van die FMF, vanuit die hof.
Die Rule of Law Project word verteenwoordig deur advokate Mark Oppenheimer en Kessler Perumalsamy. Die voorleggings aan die Hooggeregshof handel wesenlik oor die volgende:
Artikel 25(2) van die Grondwet vereis ondubbelsinnig dat wanneer die staat eiendom onteien, dit onderworpe moet wees aan die betaling van ’n bedrag vergoeding. Artikel 12(3) van die Onteieningswet, wat voorgee om die staat toe te laat om teen “nul vergoeding” te onteien, dien geen ander doel as om hierdie grondwetlike vereiste in die praktyk te ondermyn en vernietig nie. Op hierdie punt alleen is die Onteieningswet op die aangesig daarvan ondubbelsinnig ongrondwetlik.
Artikel 25(3) van die Grondwet en artikels 12(1) en (2) van die Wet stel reeds die faktore wat in ag geneem moet word om vergoeding te bepaal. Artikel 12(3) van die Wet, deur ’n “bedrag” (nul) onder besondere omstandighede te spesifiseer, is daarom irrasioneel. Die staat het geen poging aangewend om te regverdig waarom ’n spesifieke “bedrag” voorgeskryf word wanneer die bedrag noodwendig altyd van die feite van elke afsonderlike saak sal afhang nie.
Die internasionale gewoontereg erken lank reeds dat die regering van state die eiendom van hul onderdane onteien, vergoeding betaal moet word. Onder andere is hierdie beginsel uiteengesit in die eerste sistematiese en omvattende stelling van die internasionale reg deur Hugo de Groot in On the Law of War and Peace (1625), waaruit die moderne internasionale reg gebore is. Hierdie beginsel is sedertdien bevestig deur, onder meer, die Permanente Hof van Arbitrasie, die Permanente Hof van Internasionale Geregtigheid, die SADC Tribunaal, en die African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights.
“Dit is ’n duidelike en eenvoudige geval van grondwetlike ongeldigheid. Gewone wetgewing mag nie toelaat wat die Grondwet uitdruklik verbied nie,” sê dr. Martin van Staden, Beleidshoof van die FMF, wat ook in die hof in Kaapstad is.
Die FMF Rule of Law Project beoog om die saak tot die einde toe te voer, en sal aansoek doen om by enige appèl- of hersieningsverrigtinge aan te sluit sou dit na die Hooggeregshof se uitspraak ontstaan.
Klik hier om die volledige hoofde van betoog van die Rule of Law Project te Lees.
Einde.
