CAPE TOWN — In a major constitutional showdown, the Democratic Alliance challenges the Expropriation Act in the Western Cape High Court, seeking to have the legislation declared invalid and unconstitutional. The opposition party has strongly condemned the law, dubbing it the “ANC’s Land Grab Act,” and argues that the legislative process used to pass it was fundamentally flawed and in direct violation of constitutional property rights.
Addressing the media outside the Western Cape High Court, DA spokesperson Bongi outlined the party’s long-standing opposition to the legislation, tracing the legal battle back several years. She noted that in 2016, under former President Jacob Zuma, an earlier Expropriation Bill passed Parliament but lapsed before being signed into law. The DA also heavily opposed the 2018 parliamentary debates surrounding the amendment of Section 25 of the Constitution—the section protecting property rights—an attempt that ultimately failed.
The current iteration of the bill began its journey in 2020, processed through the public works and infrastructure committee. Despite vigorous opposition from the DA, who warned it would compromise property rights, the ANC and the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) joined forces in 2022 to pass the bill through the National Assembly. This occurred prior to the 2024 elections and before the ANC lost its parliamentary majority. President Cyril Ramaphosa subsequently signed the Expropriation Act into law in January 2025, a move the DA strongly objected to as a partner in the Government of National Unity (GNU).
DA spokesperson Asha detailed the specific legal grounds for the court application, emphasizing that the party will not accept a bill that legalizes land grabs in a constitutional democracy. The DA argues that Section 19 of the Act is irrational due to an “irresolvable circularity” that renders the law inoperable.
Asha explained the contradiction between Section 8(3)(g) and Section 19. Section 8(3)(g) requires a notice of expropriation to reflect compensation agreed upon or decided by a court under Section 19. However, Section 19 dictates that the timeframes for instituting court proceedings only begin on the date the notice of expropriation is issued. “It can’t be both ways,” Asha noted, explaining that Parliament failed to properly consider this circular law, as one action cannot happen without the other.
Furthermore, the DA is challenging severe procedural irregularities within the National Council of Provinces (NCOP). Asha argued that provincial delegates were not lawfully authorized to vote on the bill in the “dying days” of the previous majority. The Constitution requires at least five provinces to vote in favor of a bill in the NCOP. However, the DA contends that fewer than five provincial delegations had lawful authority on the voting day. Specifically, four delegates were given final mandates by the speakers of their legislatures—who lack the constitutional power to confer such mandates—and three delegates received mandates that contravened their provincial legislature rules.
The legal application names several high-profile respondents, including President Ramaphosa, the Minister of Public Works, the Chairperson of the NCOP, the Speaker of the National Assembly, and the speakers of the nine provincial legislatures.
When questioned by the media about the position of the current Minister of Public Works, Dean Macpherson, who is a DA member but listed as a state respondent, Asha clarified the separation of party and state. Macpherson’s legal council will represent the state in court. The DA emphasized that it would be highly irregular to speak on behalf of the state, noting that Macpherson neither tabled nor supported the bill when it was processed through Parliament under the previous administration and former Minister Patricia de Lille.
The DA’s application is not the only one; other parties, including AfriForum and an unnamed NGO, have launched separate challenges against the bill on different legal grounds.
Responding to questions about the country’s need for land reform given its history of forced removals and arbitrary property deprivation, the DA maintained that South Africa requires stable legislation that attracts investment and builds intergenerational wealth rather than creating economic uncertainty. The party advocates for a law that protects rights and only permits expropriation for specific public purposes—such as building transmission lines—with fair compensation.
The legal challenge arrives at a critical time, as the Expropriation Act remains a central point of contention in the ongoing diplomatic and economic standoff between South Africa and the United States. The Western Cape High Court is now set to hear arguments on whether the Act can pass constitutional muster.
