Expropriation Bill public hearings

Meeting report

Chairperson's Opening Remarks
The Chairperson welcomed all Members and the delegates from respective organisations. He stated that this was the second meeting to continue with the public hearings on the Expropriation Bill because they could not finish the first meeting discussions. He stated that they had the opportunity to be given a lecture by experts on the concepts of property, the meaning of expropriation, what can be expropriated, the legislation that enables expropriation, and a briefing from the Department. He mentioned that the oral presentations can continue, starting with the Socio-Economic Rights Institute.

Socio-Economic Rights Institute of South Africa (SERI)
Mr Edward Molopi, Research and Advocacy Officer, SERI, stated that they work with communities, social movements, individuals, and other non-profit organisations in South Africa and beyond to develop and implement strategies to challenge inequality and realise socio-economic rights. He mentioned that a key component of their work is advocating for security of tenure and greater access to land for the urban poor. He commented on the Bill by stating that the Expropriation Bill is a welcome affirmation of the state's role in unlocking land for development and redistributive purposes.

He mentioned the opportunity to ensure that the Bill is situated within a more thoroughly worked-out programme of urban land reform. He stated that expropriation works as a true reflection of and can assist in urban land reform programmes. The Bill on expropriation as a method of land reform is a response to the context of the land reform project and the inadequacies of past attempts to redress the unequal distribution of land in South Africa. He stated that many communities remain without tenure security and often fight evictions from state or privately owned land.

He mentioned that expropriation should be directed at securing the tenure of poor people where they currently live and that properly implemented expropriation can be used to address the problem of insecure tenure in informal settlements and densely populated urban centres. He stated that the initiation and activation of expropriation depend on the willingness of the state to use expropriation as a policy tool. “Past experience has shown that we cannot rely on the state to expropriate in the public interest”, he added. He emphasised that the key to proper implementation is to ensure that citizens have the power and that the voices of the landless are heard to activate expropriations.

In terms of transparency, monitoring, and public participation, he stated that elite capture was a serious challenge in land reform efforts conducted post-94. On the NIL compensation provisions, he stated that SERI welcomes the provisions, especially the inclusion of speculatively held land, abandoned land, and land that poses a danger to people. He stated that it spreads the responsibility for the country's land reform programme, reducing the anticipated burden on state coffers. He concluded that they welcome the Bill, especially the provisions for nil compensation, which should strengthen the expropriation process.

See attached for full submission

Discussion
The Chairperson stated that Mr Molopi was very clear, since there were no questions or comments from the Members.

Freedom of Religion SA (FORSA)
Ms Daniela Ellerbeck, Attorney and Legal Advisor for Freedom of Religion South Africa, stated that their submission will be brief and provide a unique perspective that would assist the Committee in drafting a law that practically benefits South Africa.

Ms Liesl Pretorius, Attorney and Legal Advisor at Freedom of Religion South Africa, stated that Section 15 of the Constitution – Freedom of Religion, Belief, and Opinion ("religious freedom") – states that everyone has the right to freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief, and opinion. On constitutional considerations, she mentioned that the state has a duty to respect and protect the religious convictions and beliefs of those believers who choose to meet together to practice their faith. Section 7(2) of the Constitution requires the state to respect, protect, promote, and fulfil all the rights in the Bill of Rights, and Section 8(1) of the Constitution states that the Bill of Rights applies to all laws and binds the state, including Parliament.

She stated that their procedural concern is the Constitution Eighteenth Amendment Bill [B18-2021], which attempted to amend Section 25 of the Constitution to allow expressly for expropriation without compensation (EWC) but was rejected by Parliament on 07 December 2021. She mentioned that this opens the Expropriation Bill to an immediate constitutional challenge because it cannot circumvent the Constitution by empowering the Minister of Public Works and Infrastructure to expropriate property for "nil compensation" since it would be against the rule of law (specifically, the principle of legality).

She mentioned that FORSA requests to obtain a declaratory order from the Constitutional Court regarding whether "nil compensation to be paid" (i.e., EWC), as proposed in clauses 12(3) and (4) of the Bill, qualifies as "just and equitable" payment (i.e., is constitutional) as contemplated in Sec. 25(8) of the Constitution. She stated that their substantive concern is that, since the Expropriation Bill intends to deal with the expropriation of immovable property (specifically land) and appropriate affected land-related property rights and not movable and intellectual property, the definition of property must be corrected. She mentioned that vague terms prevent legal certainty and are open to abuse.

Ms Ellerbeck stated that EWC will not only affect property rights (sec. 25 of the Constitution) but is also a constitutionally unjustifiable limitation of religious freedom rights (secs. 15 and 31 of the Constitution). She mentioned that FORSA's critical question is whether the EWC of religious communities' property is a reasonable and justifiable limitation on the right to religious freedom and religious communities' rights to own such property. The limitation analysis findings were that the rights in the Bill of Rights may be limited only in terms of the law of general application to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality, and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors, including the nature of the right, the importance of the purpose of the limitation, the nature and extent of the limitation, the relation between the limitation and its purpose, and less restrictive means to achieve the purpose.

Limiting the communities expropriation, she stated that, on urgent expropriation, clause 20(1) allows an expropriating authority to temporarily use property it urgently requires for up to 18 months with clause 20(7)(c), subject to just and equitable compensation being provided to the owner (clause 20(4), which may be nil compensation where land is concerned clause 12(3).  She mentioned that FORSA recommends limiting the definition of "property" in clause 1 to land and appropriate affected land-related property rights only. Aligning the definition of "public interest" in clause 1 with the Banjul Charter by including "to meet a public need" Inserting a clause exempting land owned or used by religious communities from expropriation, she stated that the Select Committee approached the Constitutional Court for a declaratory order regarding whether the "nil compensation" (i.e., EWC), as proposed in clauses 12(3) and 12(4) of the Bill, would qualify as "just and equitable" payment (i.e., pass constitutional muster) under Section 25(8) of the Constitution as it currently stands.

See attached for full submission

Discussion
The Chairperson stated that the presentation was very clear in terms of the areas of emphasis. He commented that the recommendations made their work easier in terms of community focus.

Mr M Rayi (ANC, Eastern Cape) stated that most of the input by FORSA and the policy they raise do not require questions for now. They will be subjected to deliberation after engaging with the other inputs from stakeholders, including the negotiating mandate from the provinces. He stated that he wanted clarity on the recommendation that, in terms of definition, property should be limited only to land, but the Constitution, in terms of Section 25, outlines that property is not limited to land.

Mr T Brauteseth (DA, KwaZulu-Natal) questioned if FORSA is planning a constitutional court challenge should the Bill pass. He mentioned that he wanted to challenge the presenters of FORSA. He noted that they mentioned that the Bill is intended for land reform. “This is an Expropriation Bill, and it is supposed to be for the public good”, he said. His concern was that the presentation was about the Expropriation Bill, but he mentioned that the Bill is intended to be a land reform bill. He stated that it is not a land reform Bill but rather a normal Expropriation Bill with numerous concerns about which property can be expropriated.

The Chairperson said that, as pointed out, the Bill was used in the past (during the Apartheid era) to advance a particular era. He asked if they would agree that there is a need to amend the Bill and align it with the current constitutional dispensation. He mentioned that their angle is more of a religious point of view and the assumption that no right in the Constitution is absolute, hence FORSA mentioned the limitation clause in terms of Section 36.

FORSA Response 
Ms Ellerbeck responded that the reason they are saying the Constitution does not amend property is just because the Bill deals with the purpose of land reform. In order to achieve its purpose, the Bill should only focus on land and property-related rights such as buildings. She stated that, for the Bill to achieve its purpose and goals, it needs to limit the definition of property and only deal with land and appropriate land rights. She stated that the reason the presentation was about the Expropriation Bill but mentioned that the Bill is intended to be a land reform Bill was because, when the Bill was read, it seemed to focus and give the impression that it is mainly on land reform.

Ms Pretorius stated that they understand that property is not land. However, as mentioned by Ms Ellerbeck, the Bill focused on land and land property-related rights. She mentioned that the definition of property is wide, which may include intellectual property. The broad definition would need another level of Consideration and deliberation to ensure that fundamental constitutional rights are protected because the Constitution knows no hierarchy of rights. She stated that, looking at the definition of public interest that the Bill uses, land reform is the strongest theme in the Bill. She stated that, as the Chairperson has mentioned, their focus is fundamental religious freedom, but they are limited to it. She stated that their concern is that religious groups do not lose their property.

South African Institute for Race Relations (IRR)
Dr Anthea Jeffery, Head: Policy Research, South African Institute for Race Relations (IRR), stated that the IRR agrees that they need a better expropriation Bill that is in line with the Constitution. However, as amended, the Bill before the National Council of Provinces suffers from numerous defects and is still unconstitutional. She mentioned that the Bill is enormously important because it covers property of all kinds, not only land. She mentioned that it cannot take land reform from failure to success and may pose harm to many black South Africans who own houses (9.75 m), pensions, and land and will not expand black property ownership.

She mentioned that the Bill has many highly damaging provisions, as the definition of 'expropriation' may lead to nil payment on custodial and regulatory takings. She mentioned that in custodianship of land, there is no private ownership; all previous owners become tenants of the state, resulting in less production and higher prices. She stated that 'Nil' compensation for losses is because there is supposedly no expropriation by the state. She mentioned that IRR emphasises that notice of expropriation 'must' include 'amount of compensation' as agreed or 'decided by a court under Section 19' [Clause 8(3)(g), Bill]. In addition, she stated that notice of expropriation must now include the 'future date of expropriation', when ownership will pass automatically to the state.

She stated that changes needed to bring the Bill in line with the Constitution are to replace the definition of 'expropriation', remove 'nil' compensation provisions, and require a prior court order for disputed permanent expropriations, as the Bill already does for temporary expropriations and for investigatory inspections. She mentioned that EA must prove the validity of its proposed expropriation of compensation offered and attach a court order confirming its notice of expropriation. There must be appropriate time periods for the passing of ownership and possession must be inserted (e.g., 180 days for ownership), compensation must be paid before ownership passes, failing which notice of expropriation becomes invalid, and damages for direct losses must be included.

See attached for full submission

Discussion 
The Chairperson commented that there are various pieces of legislation in terms of which the state may expropriate. He asked whether there was no need for overarching legislation to set out procedures to be followed. In the current version of the Bill, he stated that it does not make a provision for a counteroffer in case there are disputes after the notice of intention to expropriate. He asked their view concerning the insertion of expropriation that allows agreement to eb reached between parties based on a counteroffer in response to a notice of intention to expropriate.

Dr Jeffery responded that there is a need for better expropriation in the country. She stated that the framework law must be within the constitutional framework, must be minimally damaging to the Constitution, and should have all the changes they have suggested that would help cure the current Bill's defects and bring it in line with the Constitution. She stated that there should be a uniform law, but it should be constitutional and have the changes they have outlined. She suggested that it is important to change the definition of expropriation, remove nil compensation provisions, and ensure a prior court order before an expropriating authority proceeds with a disputed permanent expropriation.

Mr Brauteseth stated that he needs clarity first on the difficulty around the reference to public interest because expropriation is always referred to as a public good around the world, and the addition to public interest makes it a subjective exercise as to what public interest is. Secondly, he asked if IRR would consider constitutional court challenges if the Bill was passed. He asked if there is any protection or cover for individual property owners to challenge the state in court.

Dr Jeffrey responded that most expropriations are for the benefit of the public, such as building roads. She mentioned that, as they have defined public interest consideration, it can only come into play where the property being expropriated is linked to land reform and greater access to natural resources. She stated they are deeply concerned about the damage the expropriation Bill would do in an economy where unemployment is high. She stated that IRR will ensure rules and laws are fair.

Mr M Dangor (ANC, Gauteng) asked whether South Africa is developing an activist court that uses its own judicial system.

Mr Rayi asked about the issue of the prior court order because it is a misinterpretation of the Constitution. He stated that the court decision can only happen when it has to decide if those affected have not agreed on the issue of compensation because affected parties can agree without going to court.

Dr Jeffrey responded that there is no need for activist courts to apply what the Constitution says and what legislation says in line with the Constitution. She stated that it is important to realise that expropriation should always be the last resort. She stated that courts will not always have disputes, but where an expropriating authority cannot reach an agreement with the owner and wants to continue with the expropriation – if there is an agreement – it is the end of a dispute. But if there is no agreement, compensation and time must have been decided by the court before an expropriation can proceed.

FW De Klerk Foundation
Ms Tyla Dallas, Manager: Constitutional Programmes, stated that the objectives of the Foundation are to support and promote the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Rule of Law. She mentioned that it also promotes unity in diversity by working for reconciliation, understanding, and goodwill between South Africans. She mentioned that they support land reform that is constitutionally compliant, that is just and equitable, and that has either been agreed upon by those affected, decided on, or approved by an impartial court. She said that they strongly recommended closer cooperation between government and organised agriculture to achieve such an outcome. Secure property rights are an essential requirement for a free and prosperous society. She mentioned that the Constitution is clear: no law may permit arbitrary deprivation of property.

Lack of constitutionality:
- There are no proper definitions for the key concepts of "public interest," "public purpose," and "land reform”;
- The definition of "expropriation" is vague;
- extends beyond land: "including but not limited to";
- Does not pass the S36 limitations test.

She mentioned that a lack of constitutionality would have negative effects on national unity, the quality of life, freedom, the agricultural sector, and the economy. Suggestions made include withdrawing and replacing it with a constitutionally compliant Bill, supporting and prioritising activities to expand property rights, and looking to other countries for best practices. In closing, she stated that the Bill would severely limit the right to property of all South Africans – an internationally recognised core right. That is a requirement for free and prosperous societies, and it is essential for the empowerment and realisation of the potential of citizens. She mentioned that one cannot have a free and successful society without secure property rights.

See attached for full submission

Discussion
The Chairperson stated that, in the current version of the Bill, after receiving the notice of intention to expropriate, the recipient must accept whether she or he disputes. He stated that, if the amount of compensation is disputed, the person cannot make the counteroffer. Instead, there is a provision for the dispute resolution to be applied. He stated that the parties must either mediate or go to court. He questioned the Foundation's view if there is an insertion of a provision that allows agreement to be reached between the parties on the counteroffer in response to a notice to expropriate.

FW De Klerk Foundation Response
Ms Dallas responded that their direction would be towards Section 25 of the Constitution, which already provides that there is a need for agreement between the affected parties. An agreement needs to be reached, whether through mediation or a court of law. If an agreement cannot be reached, an impartial court will have to weigh in on the decision.

Mr Dave Steward, Chairman of the FW de Klerk Foundation, stated that the idea is that there must be an equitable balance between the interests of the state, expropriation for the purpose of land reform, and the very valid interests of property owners. He stated that there must either be an agreement between the state and the person to be expropriated or a proper court order determining what the court and impartial court believe is equitable compensation for the party to be expropriated. If the state ceases or takes over ownership of the property before compensation payment, it would not be equitable and would be against Section 25.

The Chairperson stated that there currently are a number of pieces of legislation that grant the state the power to expropriate. He mentioned that the procedure needs to be consolidated to ensure consistency in how expropriation must be undertaken.

Mr Steward stated that they agree that there is a need for the new Expropriation Act to be compliant with Section 25. Compensation must be equitable and fair to all parties when it is necessary for expropriation. He stated that there is a need for land reform, and there is enough land in South Africa to achieve the purposes of land reform.

Minerals Council for South Africa (MCSA)
Ms Ursula Brown, Head: Legal, Minerals Council for South Africa, stated that the Minerals Council exists as the principal advocate of major policy positions endorsed by mining industry employers and represents these policy positions to various organs of South African national and provincial governments and to other relevant policy-making and opinion-forming entities, both within South Africa and abroad. She mentioned that the Bill was tabled in Parliament by the Minister against the backdrop of the Constitutional Eighteenth Amendment Bill B18-2021, which proposed to amend Section 25 of the Constitution to provide for expropriation without compensation. However, the Constitutional Eighteenth Amendment Bill has been rejected by Parliament and is not being proceeded with.

She commented that the preamble's reliance on the unamended section 25 of the Constitution under the current circumstances is misplaced since the unamended section 25 of the Constitution does not provide for expropriation without compensation or for nil compensation as contemplated in clauses 12(3) and (4) of the Bill. She stated that, under rights and obligations relating to the property after expropriation, the Bill does not stipulate whether the former owner or occupier, expropriating authority, or new owner or occupier will be responsible for the liabilities that relate to the property after it is expropriated and may give rise to various disputes, particularly as the former owner or occupier no longer benefits from the use and enjoyment of the property.

She mentioned that, if the property to which the prospecting or mining right relates is expropriated prior to it being rehabilitated, the former owner or occupier will be precluded from complying with the obligations imposed under Section 28 of NEMA for the following reasons: the holder will no longer have control over the property. They will no longer have access to the property and may be guilty of trespassing if they attempt to do so without the new owner's consent. The expropriating authority may seek to further develop the property, in which case the holder would be prevented from rehabilitating the environment. She mentioned that it also seems neither just nor equitable to hold a former owner or occupier liable for residual liabilities in circumstances where the property has been expropriated.

See attached for full submission

National Employers Association of South Africa (NEASA)
Mr Gerhard Papenfus, Chief Executive, NEASA, stated that NEASA represents employers and businesses in South Africa, lobbying for their rights and ensuring an economic environment in which they can thrive. He mentioned that NEASA agrees that the existing Expropriation Act is outdated and inconsistent with the Constitution or its values. Consequently, the drafting of the Expropriation Bill is necessary and required. He mentioned that the concept and powers of a government to expropriate for a defined public purpose are well established in law and not disputed by NEASA. The Expropriation Bill in its current form poses a number of dangers due to vague and wide definitions and the possibility of abuse due to the provisions of being 'open to interpretation.

He mentioned that private citizens, investors, financial institutions, and farmers are concerned because the Bill creates the opportunity for the state to 'expropriate' private property, including land, possibly at nil compensation, under the guise of land reform as an element of 'public interest'. He mentioned that the NEASA suggested that there should be a restriction to the definition of property to land and natural resources only, defining or qualifying in the Bill that an active farm is a business or livelihood and not land. He stated that they should remove 'land reform' from 'public interest' in the Expropriation Bill and clearly define 'land reform' to exclude 'land redistribution' for purposes of expropriation in the 'public interest' and remove the possibility of expropriation of privately owned land at no compensation.

He mentioned that the recommendations would help with security for farmers, private property owners, and financial institutions, including national food security. They would ensure the continuation of local and foreign investments. Cancellation of the opportunity for abuse of power and fair expropriation for the true purpose of public benefit.

See attached for full submission

Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU)
Mr Matthew Parks, Parliamentary Coordinator, Congress of South African Trade Unions, stated that COSATU will support the Bill and the Constitution. He mentioned that there are dangers in failure to address the land reform. He stated that many African and coloured urban dwellers are condemned to informal areas as backyard dwellers and do not have access to land to build homes on, grow food on, work on, or live on. He stated there is overwhelming white male-dominated land ownership, and lessons should be learned from Zimbabwe. He mentioned that the government has failed to significantly eradicate Apartheid and colonial land ownership patterns since 1994.

He stated that the determination of the compensation amount must include: how a property was acquired; its current usage; the purpose for its expropriation; its market value; improvements; and public interest. In conclusion, he mentioned that COSATU supports the Expropriation Bill. The Bill is constitutional and in line with international norms—a rational, fair, and equitable compromise. He stated that the Bill compels and empowers the government to accelerate land reform and address the legacies of Apartheid and colonialism. He mentioned that the Bill provides protection for affected parties, particularly workers, and that COSATU urges Parliament to pass the Bill.

See attached for full submission

Banking Association of South Africa (BASA)
Presenting on behalf of Ms Bongi Kunene, Managing Director of BASA, Mr Gilly Dlamini, General Manager: Public Policy, Banking Association of South Africa, stated that BASA acknowledges that current land ownership and food production in South Africa is not sustainable and has their origins in colonialism and Apartheid. He mentioned that BASA is committed to supporting sustainable land reform that will enhance inclusive economic growth and food security. The Expropriation Bill creates policy uncertainty for banks and investors. The rights of bondholders and banks need to be protected in the event of compensation below market value or expropriation without compensation. The government should automatically guarantee the difference between "just” and “equitable" compensation and market value.

He stated that bondholders will remain liable for the full debt on expropriated property under the current property and contractual regime. He mentioned that the government needs to ensure that banks can fully recover depositors' funds which have been extended as credit. He commented that the Constitution defines property in its broadest sense, and the Bill is aligned with this. He stated that the definition of property that can be expropriated should be restricted to tangible property. Intellectual property must be removed from the scope of the Bill. He mentioned that the Banks Act imposes an obligation on banks to value property at market value to meet their capital, solvency, and liquidity requirements.

He stated that Section 12 must include a closed list of properties that will qualify for EWC, clarity on the specific instances where EWC will apply, and the wording in the introductory paragraph must be amended to limit instances where EWC can apply to a closed list. He concluded by suggesting that land reform must be implemented faster and more effectively, especially in urban areas, where about 1.2 million families live in informal settlements. He stated that uncertain property values would inhibit banks' ability to provide credit to residential property developers, buy-to-let investors, homebuyers, and tenants, placing greater demands on the government to supply residential stock.

He stated that clear legislation is needed to remove policy uncertainty and ensure that more than 230 state entities, which are empowered to expropriate property, do so in a prudent and balanced manner, aligned with Section 25 of the Constitution. He mentioned that the financial sector is committed to working with the government to ensure land reform is undertaken in a legal, constitutional, inclusive, and sustainable manner that continues to protect property rights.

See attached for full submission

Discussion
The Chairperson asked Members for input and comments.

Mr Rayi stated that they welcome all the presentations, but they do not have enough time to get to the Parliament and will engage when the debate is at a later stage. He noted that BASA supports the idea of expropriation without compensation and that they are proposing a closed list. He questioned BASA's proposals on the areas where they think expropriation without compensation should apply.

He asked for clarity from the NEASA on the mention that the Bill should be constitutional, while within the Constitution itself, they are saying that they want our data. He mentioned that the Bill would, in terms of the framework of the Constitution, for instance, limit it to the land as well. He stated that limiting it to the land takes away the issue of public interest, yet the public interest issue is also in the Constitution. He mentioned that it should be limited to government land. However, the Constitution does not say which land it is, whether it is private land or government land. It just talks about proper expropriation for the good of the public interest. It does not differentiate between state land and private land. He stated that one should not be selective when talking about the Constitution.

The Chairperson posed a question to all presenters' views in relation to the insertion of a provision that allows agreement to be reached between the parties based on a capital offer, in response to a notice of intention to expropriate. He mentioned it is quite critical because, in the current version of the Bill, the recipient must decide whether he or she accepts the disputes after receiving the notice of intention to expropriate. If the amount of compensation is disputed, the person cannot make a capital offer. The dispute resolution must be applied, and the parties must either mediate or go to court.

MCSA Response
Ms Brown stated that parties should be afforded an opportunity to agree on the amount of compensation. She mentioned that there is a provision in Clause 19 of the Bill that provides for the process of mediation and determination by the court. She stated that the intention is that, through the mediation process, parties come to an agreement on the amount of compensation, which will allow the owner or the holder of the right to make a counteroffer, which can be tackled in the mediation process. She mentioned that it might be an issue that, from a timing perspective, one does not want protracted delays between the parties to come to an agreement. References may be needed to the mediation process that needs to be implemented to facilitate an opportunity to come to an agreement on the amount of compensation. She stated that, although there is no specific provision for the account to offer, there is a process through which an account to offer can be used in effect.

NEASA Response
Mr Jaco Swart, Provincial Manager, National Employer Association of South Africa, answering Mr Rayi's question, stated that one needs to look at the purpose of the Bill. If the purpose of the Bill is land reform, amongst others, as stated, then the focus should be on it. He mentioned that, as they indicated, they find it difficult to foresee a situation where they will expropriate other intangible rights for purposes of land reform or to grant equitable access to natural resources. He mentioned that the purpose of the Bill limits the definition. He asked why it was only government property. He mentioned that they believe that, where government property is unused and is used for land reform, it will cause the least economic harm and possibly unlock economic opportunities for farmers and businesses without sacrificing the property rights of private owners.

Regarding the question posed by the Chairperson, he stated that, as previously stated by other speakers, there is a provision for a mediation-type process. He stated that he does not see a problem with the provision of a counteroffer to try and settle the disputes around the compensation to avoid disputes going to court, and he will obviously fast-track the process.

COSATU Response
On the question about the insertion of an additional clause around an agreement relating to a counteroffer, Mr Parks stated that they would support it, which makes sense. He mentioned that the whole purpose of the Bill and the kind of detail around facilitation and mediation are to try to facilitate the insertion of additional clauses. He stated that getting issues into court is going to take time, it is going to cost everybody money, and there should be some way of resolving it. On the question of remunerations Mr Rayi raised, he stated that people have taken a narrow interpretation of the Constitution. He emphasised that the Constitution is very thoughtfully written, very eloquently, and very clear in many areas. He stated that the Constitution must ensure that access is equitable, has equality, and specifically addresses the legacy of Apartheid, colonialism, and dispossession.

He stated that they do not want any state to be given a blank check because people in the state can abuse it, as seen in municipalities, where many people collude with municipal officials to expropriate and profit on the land. He mentioned that they should assist the agriculture sector because it is very important for food security and because it provides employment for about 800 000 farm workers directly and for hundreds of thousands of workers in the food value chain.

BASA Response
Mr Dlamini's question is about their view on expropriation without compensation. He asked which properties actually fall into those categories. He stated that they are against financing criminality. Any property acquired through criminal means or purported criminal activities should qualify for expropriation without compensation. He mentioned that they do not want to be misled into believing that properties are acquired to do a good and honest business. He mentioned that, if they find out that property was acquired through criminal means, they would work with government in that space to expropriate without compensation.

He indicated that, as the previous speaker mentioned, they acknowledge that the Bill really is meant to do good for the country, and the government will not be reckless in the determination of qualifying assets or properties for expropriation. He stated that, in the compensation space, they need to put together a clear consultation process with the affected parties. The banks are also affected parties, and it is the way that expropriation and governance have been instituted.

Chairperson’s Closing Remarks
The Chairperson stated that it is important to indicate to the Members that there will be an opportunity for the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure (DPWI) to respond, on 25 October, where the responses will be given both orally and in submissions in relation to all the presentations that were made right from the first time they met. He mentioned that the DPWI had announced that the role of the Bill, in respect of the land reform, would be enhanced if its application is extended to expropriation for the benefit of the parties. Letters indicated that, on 24 October, the Department will provide detailed responses to both foreign and sub-nations on the Bill.

The meeting was adjourned.