CAPE TOWN, Western Cape — President Cyril Ramaphosa has formally acknowledged that expropriation remains subject to compensation, framing it as a crucial mechanism for addressing South Africa’s historic land issues. During day three of a high-stakes constitutional challenge at the Western Cape High Court, the President’s legal team defended the contested South Africa Expropriation Act against claims that it unlawfully undermines domestic property rights.
The Democratic Alliance (DA), AfriForum, and several other advocacy groups are currently challenging the constitutionality of the legislation. Leading the proceedings on the third day, a spokesperson for the Rule of Law Project argued that specific provisions of the act disproportionately disadvantage local citizens compared to foreign investors.
The spokesperson for the Rule of Law Project warned that Section 12(3) of the act could potentially allow the government to expropriate a South African citizen’s property for nil compensation. However, the organization highlighted a significant legal disparity regarding international property owners. They argued that if Section 12(3) is applied to foreign nationals holding property within the country, those individuals would remain entitled to compensation via international tribunals. According to the Rule of Law Project, foreign investors would almost universally receive payouts exceeding standard equitable compensation, often securing full market value, while local citizens face the risk of receiving nothing.
In response, a spokesperson for the President’s legal team emphasized that the national constitution strictly governs the application of international law within the domestic justice system. Citing Section 39(1)(b) and Section 39(2) of the Bill of Rights, the defense noted that while courts must consider international law when interpreting the constitution, the primary mandate of the document is to rectify the gross injustices of the past. The legal team stressed that historical land dispossession has resulted in severe housing shortages and a trampling on the dignity of the majority of South Africans, making transformative land reform an urgent necessity.
However, the President’s defense clarified that this transformation does not equate to the total erasure of property rights. Referencing Section 7(3) of the constitution, the spokesperson for the legal team explained that the right to property is framed in a “negative fashion.” This means the state asserts that no individual can be arbitrarily deprived of their property or face expropriation without compensation outside the bounds of a law of general application.
The defense maintained that the judiciary must strike a delicate balance: reversing historical injustices while simultaneously respecting existing property rights. Ultimately, the President’s legal team argued that under the current constitutional framework, property rights are neither supreme nor absolute.
The President’s legal team is scheduled to conclude their arguments in the Western Cape High Court on Thursday.
