A farmer expressed his shock at what he described as barely concealed hatred against white land owners at a hearing on the provisions of the Expropriation Bill conducted by the Standing Committee on Public Works, Roads and Infrastructure in Polokwane last week.
The hearing was chaired by Rudolph Phala. Many attendees were of the opinion that owners should not have the right to raise objections.
Dissatisfaction
Many attendees voiced their dissatisfaction with the provisions of the Expropriation Bill that allowed for compensation of expropriated land. They were of the opinion that white land owners stole land from black people and no compensation should be paid for land in the hands of white people. The bill states that, after a notice has been served on a land owner and no agreement as to compensation could be reached, the expropriation authority must take the decision whether or not to expropriate. Some attendees felt that a decision to expropriate the land has already been taken when a notice to this effect was handed to the owner of the land, while others felt the bill is flawed where it allows the expropriation authority to be the coach, referee and player.
The bill was introduced in Parliament and referred to the Portfolio Committee on Public Works in February 2015. It was published for comment and the Portfolio Committee hosted public hearings on the Bill in May and June last year. Following extensive deliberations the Portfolio Committee adopted a revised bill on 2 February 2016 and the National Assembly subsequently adopted the Bill on 23 February 2016. The public had time until yesterday (Wednesday) to lodge comment on the bill. The old Act based compensation of property value primarily on market value, while the Bill requires just and equitable compensation determined by having regard for all relevant circumstances without putting any undue weight on any single factor.
Agri Limpopo
Willem van Jaarsveld, Agri Limpopo’s Chief Executive Officer said the official stance of the organisation is that, while Agri Limpopo has shown its strong and active support to land reform, the organisation is alarmed by the interpretation which some political parties, politicians within the ruling party, and most of the officials in the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform (DRDLR) are propagating on the notion of “fair and equitable” compensation in both this act and the Constitution. It should be fair and equitable to all parties involved.
“While Agri Limpopo supports the principle that expropriation can be justified for purposes of national interest, the act should do more to define and balance the term ‘public interest’ in accordance to the Constitution.”
Agri Limpopo maintains that “outside the DRDLR, very few would argue that it can be in the national interest to forcefully replace a productive farmer who employs many workers, with a farmer who does not have the capacity or support structure to guarantee success, maintain jobs, discipline or value of the improvements on the land.”
There are clauses described as discriminatory in nature such as Clause 25 that gives the expropriating authority the right to extend any time period stipulated in the Bill by mutual agreement with the owner or relevant holder of rights, but the same right is not available to the owner. This is discriminatory in nature and should be changed that the same right is available to the other indicated parties involved. Payment in full should be made before date of transfer and the definition of ‘expropriate’ is also not defined in the Bill, according to Agri Limpopo.
Story: NELIE ERASMUS
>>nelie.observer@gmail.com
Photo: Rudolph Phala, Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee of Public Works, Roads and Infrastructure.
