Clarifying the grey areas in Land Act

It’s no secret US President Donald Trump wants to flex his muscles in his second term in office.

From giving Panama an ultimatum over their canal, to expressing interest in Greenland, to imposing huge tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China in a trade war, Trump has hit the ground running since entering the White House again last month.

If there’s a global talking point, chances are he’s getting involved – even if it doesn’t directly involve him or his country. He wants to be seen making a difference.

It was only a matter of time before Trump weighed in on South Africa’s expropriation Act – signed by President Cyril Ramaphosa last month without informing all of his government of national unity (GNU) partners.

Trump started the week off by writing on his Truth Social platform yesterday: “South Africa is confiscating land and treating certain classes of people very badly. I will be cutting off all future funding to South Africa until a full investigation of this situation has been completed!”

ALSO READ: ANC blames AfriForum for Trump funding fiasco

South African-born Elon Musk, one of his lieutenants, quickly jumped on the bandwagon, writing on X: “Why do you have openly racist ownership laws?” in response to Ramaphosa’s response that it was a misconception that land was being confiscated.

It’s not true. There are grey areas in the new Act, which is why Ramaphosa should have taken more time in ironing out the differences with his GNU partners. But no-one is confiscating land.

Ramaphosa insists “it is a constitutionally mandated legal process that ensures public access to land in an equitable and just manner as guided by the constitution”. He is seeking a time where he could engage with the Trump administration over our land reform policy.

Trump is serious when it comes to who he will and won’t work with. Poor communication and misconceptions will do us no good, especially if we can’t even sort out our own affairs at home.