CAPE TOWN, Western Cape — The ongoing Expropriation Act constitutional challenge brought forward by the Democratic Alliance (DA) and AfriForum lacks any legitimate legal foundation, according to National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza. During day five of deliberations at the Western Cape High Court, Didiza’s legal team firmly pushed back against the opposition’s claims, arguing that the lawsuit attempting to invalidate the controversial legislation is entirely without a constitutional hook.
The high-stakes legal battle centers primarily on two major pillars: the legislative mandates used to pass the bill and the framework for property compensation. The DA argues that the Expropriation Act should be invalidated because four members of the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) voted in favor of the legislation without receiving proper mandates from provincial legislators in a pleenary session.
However, Senior Counsel Kate Hofmeyr, representing the Speaker, dismantled this argument before the court. Hofmeyr pointed out that the Mandating Act and the Expropriation Act hold equivalent parliamentary status. Therefore, she argued, one cannot deem a piece of legislation unconstitutional simply by claiming it is inconsistent with another Act of Parliament.
Furthermore, the Speaker’s legal team highlighted a critical procedural flaw in the opposition’s stance: the DA holds seats in the NCOP and failed to raise any objections regarding the mandates during the actual vote. Adding to the complexity of the mandate dispute, five provincial legislators are also actively contesting the DA’s claims regarding how the voting procedures were handled.
Didiza’s legal council did not hold back in characterizing the opposition’s legal strategy, labeling the DA a “prolific litigator.” Borrowing terminology from previous Constitutional Court rulings, the legal team noted that the DA is far from an “indigent or bewildered litigant adrift on a sea of litigious uncertainty.” Instead, the party was described as a calculated political entity that now sits in government and makes deliberate, strategic choices when engaging in frequent litigation.
Beyond the procedural mandate dispute, the court is also heavily examining Section 19 of the legislation, which deals with the highly debated issue of property compensation. The court is expected to weigh arguments on the specific criteria and factors that must be considered to determine when “nil compensation” is deemed fair and equitable.
The broader legal battle features roughly 13 respondents, including the President and the Minister of Land Affairs. As the Western Cape High Court continues to hear arguments from the various factions, the fate of the country’s land expropriation framework remains firmly in the hands of the judiciary.
