16 August 2025
Blaai af vir Afrikaanse weergawe.
The Free Market Foundation (FMF) has called upon Parliament to repeal the Expropriation Act of 2024 and set about introducing a just and equitable land reform programme that adheres to the text and spirit of the Constitution.
The FMF launched its report, “Constitutional Land Reform: Alternatives to Confiscation and Land Retribution,” at a press briefing on Wednesday, 6 August 2025. It forms part of the FMF’s broader Liberty First initiative.
FMF Head of Policy, Martin van Staden, author of the report, explained that the Expropriation Act is not only dangerous and unconstitutional, but cannot achieve any land reform gains.
Expropriation Act
“Expropriation law is the institutional arrangement that circumscribes when and how the state may take property non-consensually, in an effort to safeguard – as a matter of public interest – the interests of property owners against potential abuse,” says Van Staden. “The Expropriation Act flips the script on its head.”
As a result, Van Staden emphasises that the Expropriation Act is not strictly a law of expropriation as contemplated by the Constitution, but a law enabling confiscation, which the Constitution prohibits.
It is on this and other bases that the FMF is joining litigation to have the Act declared unconstitutional.
“But more than that: While the Act is portrayed as necessary to bring about justice and land reform, it is not a land reform statute,” adds Van Staden. “It deals exclusively with bestowing new – again, unconstitutional – powers upon the state. It imposes few substantive obligations, and not one of these few includes the pursuance of land reform.”
Constitutional land reform
The report explains that secure private property rights are a necessary ingredient to an economically prosperous, and politically free, society.
“After all, it is precisely because the former minority regime denied private property to the majority of South Africans across the majority of the country, that they became not only destitute, but unfree and subject to the whims of petty state officials,” explains Van Staden. “That the democratic government has chosen to oppose the strict constitutional guarantee of secure property is condemnable.”
Section 25 of the Constitution comprehensively balances security of property, the desirability of expanded private ownership, and the imperative of restorative justice.
“These three interweaving dimensions of section 25 are not inherently in tension with one another, despite the best efforts of political actors to pretend that land reform is only possible on the back of disastrous policies like expropriation without compensation or even outright nationalisation,” says Van Staden.
Expropriation control
The most important short-term recommendation is that the current Expropriation Act must be replaced with an Expropriation Control Act, which normalises expropriation law in South Africa and brings it in line with other open and democratic societies.
“There are two key features of a good Expropriation Control Act,” says Van Staden. “The first is that there must be a high degree of respect and deference by the state in favour of the property owner being expropriated. Remember, these people have not been found guilty of a crime or a delict – they are innocent victims of state policy. Expropriation law around the world bears this out.”
“The second is that market value compensation is as close to a sacrosanct principle of expropriation as one can find among free and prosperous countries,” Van Staden continues. “This is simply not debatable: investors and citizens require nothing less than an absolute guarantee that if the state requires their property for some legitimate reason, they will not be wiped out in the process and will be compensated fully.”
Constructive alternatives
The report sets out multiple constitutionally permissible avenues of substantive land reform that can be undertaken without jeopardising South Africa’s economic future. These include:
- Reducing the red tape and compliance costs that are associated with property acquisition and transfer, which are prohibitive to the poor.
- Eliminating extractive measures like capital gains taxes, and capping municipal property rates, both of which have the state profiting off of South Africa’s quest to become a property-owning society. Many potential beneficiaries of land restitution claims likely choose financial compensation instead, having been advised that property taxes will categorically exceed their ability to pay if they take the land.
- Adopting housing vouchers as advocated by the South African Institute of Race Relations.
- Undertaking a comprehensive audit of all (municipal, provincial, and national) state fixed property with a view to transferring most of it, in full ownership title, to those lawfully living and/or working on the property.
- Strengthening the 1994 Restitution of Land Rights Act by eliminating claims periods and increasing the annual restitution budget. The principle that once restituted, a piece of land falls out of future consideration for any land reform programme, should also be introduced.
- Undoing the past three decades’ nationalisations of natural resources – such as water, minerals, and petroleum – and restoring private ownership (whether in the form of individual or community title).
- Moving away from “communal ownership” as a proxy for state ownership, and ensuring that measures like the 2017 Communal Land Tenure Bill instead bestow unambiguous private ownership of property upon community formations without backdoors that enable state rent-seeking.
“It is clear that there are desirable and beneficial ways to undertake equitable land reform without doing harm to the non-negotiable property rights that make a free and flourishing society possible,” concludes Van Staden. “The Expropriation Act of 2024 was by no means inevitable, nor does it represent the best version of a law conducive for land reform or reparation.”
Click here to read the full report.
Click here to view the press briefing of Wednesday, 6 August 2025.
Click here to visit the Liberty First website.
Ends.
***
Herroep die Onteieningswet en streef werklike grondhervorming na, sê FMF
6 Augustus 2025
Scroll up for English version.
Die Vryemarkstigting (FMF) het ‘n beroep aan die Parlement gerig om die Onteieningswet van 2024 te herroep en om ‘n regverdige en billike grondhervormingsprogram in te stel wat voldoen aan die teks en gees van die Grondwet.
Die FMF het sy verslag, “Constitutional Land Reform: Alternatives to Confiscation and Land Retribution,” tydens ‘n perskonferensie op Woensdag, 6 Augustus 2025, bekendgestel. Dit vorm deel van die FMF se breër Liberty First-inisiatief.
FMF Beleidshoof, Martin van Staden, outeur van die verslag, het verduidelik dat die Onteieningswet nie net gevaarlik en ongrondwetlik is nie, maar ook geen grondhervormingsvoordele kan behaal nie.
Onteieningswet
“Onteieningsreg is die institusionele reëling wat bepaal wanneer en hoe die staat eiendom met dwang mag neem, in ‘n poging om – in die openbare belang – die belange van eienaars teen moontlike mishandeling te beskerm,” sê Van Staden. “Die Onteieningswet verdraai hierdie beginsel heeltemal.”
Gevolglik beklemtoon Van Staden dat die Onteieningswet nie streng ‘n wet op onteiening is soos deur die Grondwet beoog nie, maar ‘n wet wat konfiskering toelaat, wat deur die Grondwet verbied word.
Op grond hiervan en ander redes sluit die FMF aan by regsaksie om dié wet ongrondwetlik te verklaar.
“Maar meer as dit: Terwyl die wet voorgestel word as noodsaaklik om geregtigheid en grondhervorming te bewerkstellig, is dit nie ‘n grondhervormingswet nie,” voeg Van Staden by. “Dit handel uitsluitlik oor die toekenning van nuwe – weereens, ongrondwetlike – magte aan die staat. Dit lê min substantiewe verpligtinge op, en nie een van hierdie paar verpligtinge sluit die nastrewing van grondhervorming in nie.”
Grondwetlike grondhervorming
Die verslag verduidelik dat veilige privaat-eiendomsregte ‘n noodsaaklike bestanddeel is vir ‘n ekonomies voorspoedige en polities vrye samelewing.
“Dit is immers juis omdat die voormalige minderheidsregime privaat-eiendomsregte aan die meerderheid van Suid-Afrikaners oor die grootste deel van die land geweier het, dat hulle nie net verarm het nie, maar ook onvry geword het en onderworpe was aan die grille van junior staatsamptenare,” verduidelik Van Staden. “Dat die demokratiese regering gekies het om die streng grondwetlike waarborg van veilige eiendomsregte téén te staan, is veroordelend.”
Artikel 25 van die Grondwet balanseer omvattend die sekuriteit van eiendom, die wenslikheid van uitgebreide privaateienaarskap, en die noodsaaklikheid van herstellende geregtigheid.
“Hierdie drie ineengevlegte dimensies van artikel 25 is nie inherent in spanning met mekaar nie, ondanks die beste pogings van politieke akteurs om voor te gee dat grondhervorming slegs moontlik is op die rug van rampspoedige beleide soos onteiening sonder vergoeding of selfs nasionalisering,” sê Van Staden.
Onteieningsbeheer
Die belangrikste korttermyn aanbeveling is dat die huidige Onteieningswet vervang moet word met ‘n Onteieningsbeheerwet, wat onteieningsreg in Suid-Afrika normaliseer en in lyn bring met ander oop en demokratiese samelewings.
“Daar is twee sleutelkenmerke van ‘n goeie Onteieningsbeheerwet,” sê Van Staden. “Die eerste is dat daar ‘n hoë mate van respek en tegemoetkoming deur die staat moet wees teenoor die eienaar wat onteien word. Onthou, hierdie mense is nie skuldig bevind aan ‘n misdaad of ‘n delik nie – hulle is onskuldige slagoffers van staatsbeleid. Onteieningswetgewing wêreldwyd bevestig dit.”
“Die tweede is dat markwaarde-vergoeding so na as moontlik ‘n heilige beginsel van onteiening is wat mens in vrye en voorspoedige lande kan vind,” gaan Van Staden voort. “Dit is eenvoudig nie onderhandelbaar nie: beleggers en burgers vereis niks minder nie as ‘n absolute waarborg dat indien die staat hul eiendom vir ‘n legitieme rede benodig, hulle nie in die proses uitgewis sal word nie en volledige vergoeding sal ontvang.”
Konstruktiewe alternatiewe
Die verslag stel verskeie grondwetlik-toelaatbare weë vir substantiewe grondhervorming voor wat onderneem kan word sonder om Suid-Afrika se ekonomiese toekoms in gevaar te stel. Dit sluit in:
- Die vermindering van die burokratiese- en nakomingskostes wat verband hou met eiendomsverkryging en -oordrag, wat vir armes onbetaalbaar is.
- Die uitskakeling van ekstraktiewe maatreëls soos kapitaalwinsbelastings, en die beperking van munisipale eiendomsbelastings, wat beide veroorsaak dat die staat wins maak uit Suid-Afrika se strewe om ‘n eiendom-besitende samelewing te word. Baie potensiële begunstigdes van grondrestitusie-eise kies waarskynlik finansiële vergoeding, omdat hulle geadviseer word dat eiendomsbelastings hul vermoë om te betaal kategories sal oorskry indien hulle die grond neem.
- Die aanvaarding van behuising-“vouchers” soos bepleit deur die Suid-Afrikaanse Instituut vir Rasseverhoudinge.
- Die uitvoering van ‘n omvattende oudit van alle (munisipale, provinsiale, en nasionale) vaste eiendom in staatsbesit met die oog daarop om die meeste daarvan, in volle eienaarskap, oor te dra aan diegene wat regtens daarop woon en/of werk.
- Die versterking van die 1994 Wet op die Herstel van Grondregte deur die uitskakeling van eisperiodes en die verhoging van die jaarlikse begroting vir restitusie. Die beginsel dat sodra grond gerestitueer is, dit uitgesluit word van toekomstige oorweging vir enige grondhervormingsprogram, moet ook ingestel word.
- Die ongedaanmaking van die afgelope drie dekades se nasionalisering van natuurlike hulpbronne – soos water, minerale, en petroleum – en die herstel van privaateienaarskap (hetsy in die vorm van individuele of gemeenskapstitel).
- Die afskaffing van “gemeenskaplike eienaarskap” as ‘n eufemisme vir staatseienaarskap, en die versekering dat maatreëls soos die 2017 Wetsontwerp op Gemeenskaplike Grondbesit duidelike privaateienaarskap aan gemeenskapsformasies toeken sonder agterdeure wat staats-rentesoekery moontlik maak.
“Dit is duidelik dat daar wenslike en voordelige maniere is om billike grondhervorming te onderneem sonder om skade te doen aan die nie-onderhandelbare eiendomsregte wat ‘n vrye en florerende samelewing moontlik maak,” sluit Van Staden af. “Die Onteieningswet van 2024 was geensins onvermydelik nie, en dit verteenwoordig ook nie die beste weergawe van ‘n wet wat bevorderlik is vir grondhervorming of regstelling nie.”
Klik hier om die volledige verslag te lees.
Klik hier om die perskonferensie van Woensdag, 6 Augustus 2025, te besigtig.
Klik hier om die Liberty First-webwerf te besoek.
Einde.
