Malema warns DA yet again about how much longer they will rule metros

In his response to the debate on the EFF’s motion to amend section 25 of the constitution to allow land expropriation without compensation, EFF leader Julius Malema retaliated against some of the parties who opposed his motion.

He firstly took a jibe at the ANC, saying that his party with 6% of the vote had achieved more than one with 60% on this issue. “Imagine what we could have achieved if we had 60%.”

Malema then criticised Congress of the People leader Mosiuoa Lekota, who he accused of having lost his revolutionary spirit and had become an embarrassment.

He then expressed his doubt that the EFF would continue to support the DA in the metros where its support is essential to allow the DA to govern, particularly in Tshwane and Johannesburg. The EFF also voted with the DA in Nelson Mandela Bay (Port Elizabeth).

We, the leadership of the the EFF, have officially instructed the leadership of the EFF in the EC to start process of tabling a motion of no confidence against DA Mayor in Nelson Mandela Bay, & publicly state that if the ANC presents a credible candidate, we will vote with them!

— Floyd Shivambu (@FloydShivambu) February 27, 2018

Malema said they would be bringing a motion of no confidence against the mayor there “as a warning shot” to the DA, which had pointed out that land reform with compensation had not been the primary hurdle to meaningful land reform and that land often constituted only 10% of the value of a farm and its operations. They had concerns about the billions in debt that would become an issue if land were simply taken away. They questioned the apparent “obsession” with private land and pointed to the DA-led Western Cape as a province where they had led a better approach to reforms.

Malema had earlier spoken passionately about how Jan van Riebeeck allegedly introduced an attitude in the 1600s that black people could not be considered the owners of land in South Africa, as they were “like animals” and could not produce title deeds.

Malema has called on black South Africans to stand together on this issue, describing it as “constitutional to change the constitution” and “return the land”.

If the ANC and EFF combine their seats in parliament they will have a two-thirds majority to change the constitution and adapt the section on property rights.

The EFF wanted an ad-hoc committee to review and amend section 25 of the constitution to make such expropriation legal, although they accepted the ANC’s suggestion that there should instead be a constitutional review over coming months.

Malema couched this as a necessary step to return dignity to black people and change the dynamic of them being “beggars” in South Africa.

Instead of paying compensation to white owners of land, he described this as unnecessary, as the land was allegedly acquired illegally, and to support compensation would therefore be to support a crime. The time for reconciliation had passed, and it was now time for justice.

The ANC has reportedly said that although they agree with the EFF in principle, they disagree on some of the “modalities” of how expropriation should happen. The ANC nevertheless expressed support for expropriation without compensation, along with other parties such as the National Freedom Party and the United Democratic Movement.

Lekota warned against the motion, saying it sent the message that white people were not considered South Africans and that the EFF and the other political parties who were supporting them were seeking to “dominate whites”, which could not be considered the route towards social equality.

The Freedom Front Plus warned against “unforeseen consequences” if the law was changed. They pointed out that “all land”, including in towns and cities could be expropriated, and that it would not be limited to agricultural land.

The African Christian Democratic Party warned against legal “aberrations” that could occur if property were expropriated without compensation. They said two wrongs could not make a right, and ownership of land being solely in the hands of the state would destroy the economy.