Tempers flare at Parliamentary hearing on land expropriation
There remained concern about who would take ownership of expropriated land however, with some residents insisting land not be given to Government
Lolo Madonsela
Tempers flared at the public hearing on expropriation of land without compensation (EWC), as submissions on the matter differed.
The oral submissions presented to the Parliamentary Ad Hoc Committee on EWC at Cecil Emmett Hall last Friday afternoon, had a majority of residents calling for the amendment of Section 25 of the Constitution.
However, when some residents submitted that EWC should not be approved, chaos ensued.
The situation first took a turn when one resident in particular, who claimed to be a member of the ANC, stated: “We get assistance from white farmers therefore we do need them; we need to have an equitable share with them.”
At this, a group of residents in ANC T-shirts stood up and expressed their outrage, stating the first speaker was not in accordance with with party guidelines and could not claim to represent the ANC with his words. A farmer then stood up and danced, while Parliamentary officials attempted to contain the volatile situation.
Members of the local farmers association submitted they were against the amendment of Section 25, stating it would lead to investment in the agricultural sector and on claims that only 30 per cent of commercial farms are being utilised.
Also read:Â Today is the last day that South Africans can comment on land reform
Other residents stated land must expropriated game reserve owners and from those farmers who were ill-treating farm workers and farm dwellers.
There remained concern about who would take ownership of expropriated land however, with some residents insisting land not be given to Government lest corrupt officials hand over title deeds to friends or take the compensation for themselves.
In general however, members of both the ANC and EFF sang the same tune in supporting EWC.
ANC Regional Secretary in Mzala Nxumalo, Zakes Buthelezi commented, “On Clause 2 we make the following amendment: add a new sub-clause 2c which must read as follows: ‘subject to without compensation or nil compensation under conditions laid out in a law of general application’. On Clause 3, we make the following amendment at the start of the clause which now reads as follows: ‘Where compensation is payable the amount of the compensation and the time and manner of payment must be just and equitable, reflecting an equitable balance between the public interest and the interests of those affected, having regard to all relevant circumstances, including – (a) the current use of the property? (b) the history of the acquisition and use of the property? (c) the market value of the property? (d) the extent of direct state investment and subsidy in the acquisition and beneficial capital improvement of the property? and (e) the purpose of the expropriation.”
Buthelezi said in terms of Clause 8, the following amendment was sought to the first line – ‘No provision of this section, including the payment of compensation, may impede the state from taking legislative and other measures to achieve land, water and related reform, in order to redress the results of past racial discrimination, provided that any departure from the provisions of this section is in accordance with the provisions of section 36 (1)’.
The EFF submitted that, “The State should be custodian of South Africa’s natural resources, inclusive of land, mineral resources and water, and relevant legislation should be passed to clearly define and contexualise State custodianship of natural resources.”
Other submissions by residents were that land should be owned by citizens and not by Government. Resident, Sibusiso Nkosi believes there were ‘substantial grounds’ to change Section 25 because in the same section, sub-section (7) made provision for Government to expropriate land without compensation, to redress imbalances of the past.
“Secondly, Government must address the issue of corruption that seems to plague the Department of Land Affairs. It is also any insult to people to suggest the State must be a custodian of the land, as if black people are incapable of looking after their valuable assets. When the land is expropriated, it must be given the people, not the State. The revelations at the Zondo Commission has showed us deep is the corruption in this Government and there is no political will to deal with it, therefore it cannot be trusted with a responsibility to look after land on behalf of the people.”
The period for written submissions closed on January 31, with oral submissions having commenced across the country.
Make sure you follow us on our social media platforms for regular updates
