3 February 2025
Blaai af vir Afrikaanse weegawe.
The Free Market Foundation (FMF) has noted with concern the spread of misinformation among South African commentators that the Expropriation Act does not allow for property confiscation, as recently pointed out by the President of the United States, Donald Trump. Like him or not, Trump is right about the risks of expropriation without compensation (EWC).
The Expropriation Act – recently signed into law by Cyril Ramaphosa – does provide for property confiscation, in particular section 12(3) where it allows government to take property for “nil” compensation.
“Section 25 of the Constitution is clear that there must always be payment of an amount of just and equitable compensation,” says FMF Head of Policy, Martin van Staden. “Concealing the absence of compensation in appeals to ‘nil’ compensation does not cure the Expropriation Act of its confiscatory nature or unconstitutionality.”
The approximately $400 million in foreign aid that South Africa reportedly receives from the United States, which Trump has threatened to cease, does not compare to the immense damage that property confiscation will do to South Africa’s economy and its people.
“The patriotic thing for South Africans to do is to oppose the government’s attempts to implement expropriation without compensation, not to get upset when foreign actors point it out,” says Van Staden. “All successful countries follow the model of market-based compensation upon expropriation. This must be the only standard. The developed world’s resistance to the course chosen by the South African government can therefore not shock or surprise us.”
The state’s pursuance of confiscation also threatens the preferential trade access South Africa has to US markets through the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). South Africa need simply respect its own constitutional values to remain compliant with AGOA.
Property owners in South Africa have never been accorded the respect they are due.
“Prior to 1994, the majority of South Africans were told where they may and may not own property. After 1994, owners were subject to further abuse when the state nationalised privately owned water and mineral rights. Now it has its eyes on all fixed property, primarily agricultural land,” says Van Staden. “Trump saying that this class of people – property owners – have been treated terribly by the state is therefore also not incorrect.”
The fourth estate, which includes journalists and thought leaders, has a responsibility to truthfully convey the risks posed to the constitutional rights of ordinary South Africans. That many in these professions are now rallying to the government’s defence because they have misgivings about the personality of a foreign leader, is regrettable.
The FMF is convening a crisis roundtable on Tuesday, 4 February, that will bring together various civil society organisations to consider not only a legal response to the Expropriation Act, but also how to muster and direct foreign and international pressure on political actors to abandon confiscatory policies like EWC.
Ends.
***
Trump is reg oor eiendomskonfiskering in SA, sê FMF
3 Februarie 2025
Scroll up for English version.
Die Vryemarkstigting (FMF) het met kommer kennis geneem van die verspreiding van misinformasie onder Suid-Afrikaanse kommentators wat aanvoer dat die Onteieningswet nie toelaat vir eiendomskonfiskering nie, soos onlangs deur die president van die Verenigde State, Donald Trump, uitgewys is. Of jy nou van hom hou of nie, Trump is reg oor die risiko’s van onteiening sonder vergoeding (OSV).
Die Onteieningswet – wat onlangs deur Cyril Ramaphosa onderteken is – maak wel voorsiening vir konfiskering van eiendom, veral artikel 12(3) waar dit die regering toelaat om eiendom teen “nul” vergoeding te neem.
“Artikel 25 van die Grondwet is duidelik dat daar altyd ‘n bedrag van regverdige en billike vergoeding betaal moet word,” sê FMF se beleidshoof, Martin van Staden. “Om die afwesigheid van vergoeding te verswyg in ‘n beroep op ‘nul’ vergoeding, genees nie die Onteieningswet van sy konfiskerende aard of ongrondwetlikheid nie.”
Die ongeveer $400 miljoen se buitelandse hulp wat Suid-Afrika glo van die Verenigde State ontvang, wat Trump gedreig het om te staak, vergelyk nie met die geweldige skade wat eiendomskonfiskering aan Suid-Afrika se ekonomie en sy mense sal aanrig nie.
“Die patriotiese ding wat Suid-Afrikaners moet doen, is om die regering se pogings om onteiening sonder vergoeding in werking te stel teen te staan, pleks daarvan om ontsteld te raak wanneer buitelandse akteurs dit uitwys,” sê Van Staden. “Alle suksesvolle lande volg die model van markgebaseerde vergoeding by onteiening. Dit moet die enigste standaard wees. Die ontwikkelde wêreld se weerstand teen die rigting wat die Suid-Afrikaanse regering inslaan, kan ons dus nie skok of verras nie.”
Die staat se nastrewing van konfiskering bedreig ook die voorkeurhandelstoegang wat Suid-Afrika tot Amerikaanse markte het deur die African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). Suid-Afrika moet bloot sy eie grondwetlike waardes respekteer om aan AGOA te voldoen.
Eiendomseienaars in Suid-Afrika is nog nooit die respek betoon wat hulle toekom nie.
“Voor 1994 is die meerderheid Suid-Afrikaners voorgeskryf waar hulle eiendom mag en nie mag besit nie. Na 1994 was eienaars onderhewig aan verdere mishandeling toe die staat water- en mineraalregte in private besit genasionaliseer het. Nou het die staat sy oë op alle vaste eiendom, hoofsaaklik landbougrond,” sê Van Staden. “Vir Trump om te sê dat hierdie klas mense – eienaars – verskriklik deur die staat mishandel is, is dus ook nie verkeerd nie.”
Die vierde stand, wat joernaliste en denkleiers insluit, het ‘n verantwoordelikheid om op ’n eerlike wyse die risiko’s aan die grondwetlike regte van gewone Suid-Afrikaners oor te dra. Dat baie in dié beroepe nou tot die regering se verdediging toetree omdat hulle bedenkings oor die persoonlikheid van ‘n buitelandse leier het, is betreurenswaardig.
Die FMF belê op Dinsdag, 4 Februarie ‘n krisisberaad wat verskeie burgerlike organisasies byeen sal bring om nie net ‘n regsreaksie op die Onteieningswet te oorweeg nie, maar ook hoe om buitelandse en internasionale druk op politieke rolspelers te rig ten einde konfiskerende beleide soos OSV te laat vaar.
Einde.
