According to the Centre for Constitutional Rights, “… there is no need to amend the Constitution to secure property rights for all South Africans.” It is therefore a false impression given that the Constitution has to be amended to facilitate expropriation of land. More than 4000 farms that have been expropriated have not been allocated by government, which can be done in accordance with Clause 25 of the Constitution in its present form. Likewise land transformation has taken place. More than half of the NEW land registrations in SA has been done by black South Africans. Note that this excludes those who live in RDP housing as the large majority were not been given title deeds.
It is contrary to the expressed intention of the Economic Freedom Fighters (The EFF) as it will supress Economic Freedom as can be seen by the reaction to the weakening rand when the proposed amendment was adopted, and the weak Zimbabwean currency (1million ZD = to less than 5 SA cent) due to the same policy. We must not fool ourselves that it will be implemented differently in SA. The protection of PROPERTY rights is fundamental to sound economics.
It is falsely presented in the media and otherwise as “expropriation of land”. According to the Centre for Constitutional Rights, Clause 25 explicitly refers to PROPERTY. Such legislation will be the equivalent of some of the Apartheid legislation which led to the oppression of the majority. Property includes your, house, your motor car, your business, etc.
The proposed amendment is the removal of a fundamental human right essential for Democracy, and is the very opposite of that which Mr Nelson Mandela, and the ANC who came into power with him then expressed, when he outlined his legacy in his own words as “a better life for all.”
Expropriation of property will be administered by the state. A warning has already been issued to other “land grabbers” not to interfere. Once the state has expropriated land there is no guarantee that it will be handed out as they have not to date given away their vast ownership of land. Only a small percentage of RDP housing occupants have title deeds, these houses remain state owned. Without a title deed there is no economic freedom.
Synonyms for “expropriation” are confiscate and seizure. These words define the legal action taken by a government agency, such as the SIU, when someone has allegedly, with appropriate substantiating evidence, broken the law and owes the state money. It is a criminal act to take property away from someone which legally is his possession, whilst they are not guilty of anything unlawful. This amendment therefore seeks to legalise a criminal act.
The expressed intention by some to have the right to take land back from those who allegedly wrongfully took it away from its rightful owners, poses a dilemma which clearly exposes false intentions. Historically the Khoikhoi have inhabited Southern Africa for about 2000 years and were the first to meet Jan van Riebeeck. By then other tribes such as the Zulus, Xhosas, Sothos etc. had already occupied the Khoikhoi’s land.
Then we also have the Matabielies who were chased off their land by the Zulus all the way to Zimbabwe. And so we can continue. How far do we want to go back in history? All the way back to the God who created it? Why then not give it back to Him and let Him decide who should get which piece? This scenario exposes an extremely poor motivation to amend Clause 25 of the Constitution.
Two statements by Madiba, as he was fondly known. First, from one of his first speeches as our President of SA and the second towards the end of his term as President of the ANC and SA. Firstly, “A better life for all.” This is the legacy he wanted. This proposed amendment will deny South Africans that regardless of so-called assurance to the contrary.
Secondly, a call to all South Africans that should anyone seek to reintroduce legislation as was in effect in the Apartheid years. Even if it is the ANC, he said, it must be opposed. This proposed amendment has such catastrophic potential. Did Madiba see this coming then already?
