South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa has signed a landmark bill into law, granting the state the authority to seize land without compensation under specific conditions.
This controversial move, aimed at addressing long-standing racial disparities in land ownership, has sparked both support and dissent across the political spectrum. Despite the end of apartheid over three decades ago, a significant portion of farmland remains under the control of the white minority, leaving Black South Africans owning only a small share.
The slow pace of land reform has fueled frustration, with many calling for accelerated action. Ramaphosa’s African National Congress (ANC) has lauded the new legislation as a “transformational milestone” for the nation. However, factions within the coalition government have raised concerns, with some signaling potential legal challenges.
The law, which replaces the 1975 Expropriation Act, provides a framework for land expropriation, emphasizing that it can only occur under circumstances deemed “just, equitable, and in the public interest.” Key provisions include the ability to seize land that is unused, poses risks, or lacks plans for development or profit generation.
ALSO READ: Do you know the Saudi Royal Family is the richest royal family in the world?
Presidential spokesperson Vincent Magwenya stressed that the law prohibits arbitrary expropriation, stating, “The state must act in the public interest and make reasonable attempts to negotiate with property owners before proceeding.”
This legislation follows five years of consultations and recommendations from a presidential advisory panel on land reform.
Criticism has emerged from within the coalition government. The Democratic Alliance (DA), a pro-business party, has expressed opposition, arguing that the parliamentary process to enact the law was flawed. The Freedom Front Plus, a party advocating for the rights of the white minority, has vowed to challenge the law’s constitutionality, citing concerns over its implications for private property rights.
Meanwhile, the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), known for its radical stance on land nationalization, dismissed the bill as a “legislative compromise” that falls short of resolving the land restitution crisis.
While the law’s supporters view it as a step forward in addressing historic injustices, critics argue that its implementation could ignite further tensions over land ownership in South Africa.
