CAPE TOWN, Western Cape — President Cyril Ramaphosa has officially acknowledged that specific provisions within the Expropriation Act are problematic, a significant admission made by his legal counsel on Wednesday during a major constitutional challenge at the Western Cape High Court.
The high-stakes legal battle was brought forward by a coalition of applicants, including the Democratic Alliance (DA), AfriForum, Die Vaderland Stigting, and the Institute for Race Relations (IRR) Legal. Over the course of two days, the applicants argued that core elements of the legislation are unlawful, warning that the current framework paves the way for legislated land grabs.
In response, counsel representing President Ramaphosa argued that any constitutional challenges to the Expropriation Act must be carefully viewed through the lens of broader constitutional objectives. The President’s legal team also raised a preliminary procedural hurdle, suggesting that the current court may not have the proper jurisdiction to decide on the sweeping challenge to the legislation.
However, despite the jurisdictional argument, Ramaphosa’s team made a notable concession regarding the mechanics of the law. They agreed with several objections raised by the applicants, specifically admitting that Sections 19(2), 19(3), and 19(4) of the Expropriation Act are problematic. These specific clauses dictate the strict timeframes relating to a notice of expropriation—the critical window when a property owner is first formally informed of the state’s intention to appropriate their land.
While the notice timeframes were conceded as flawed, Section 25 of the act remained the absolute crux of the arguments this week. Section 25 governs the highly debated principles of “just and equitable compensation.” This is the section that addresses the controversial concept of nil compensation, attempting to identify specific instances where offering zero financial remuneration for expropriated land might be deemed just and equitable in the public interest. Furthermore, the broader legislative intent of the act is to repeal the outdated Expropriation Act of 1975 and provide for connected regulatory matters.
Rather than seeking to have the entire law struck down, Ramaphosa’s legal team has asked the court to declare only the problematic sections invalid. To remedy the legislative flaws, the President’s counsel is calling for a “reading-in” or a targeted judicial correction of the specific wording within the Expropriation Act.
The Western Cape High Court hearings are scheduled to continue on Thursday as both sides finalize their arguments.
