TUESDAY, 4 DECEMBER 2018
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL AASEMBLY
CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW COMMITTEE ON REVIEW OF SECTION 25 OF THE CONSTITUTION, 1996
Mr M S A MAILA: Hon House Chair, hon members, guests in the gallery, South Africans from all walks of life, good afternoon. During his state of the nation address, President Cyril Ramaphosa made a call for the acceleration of land redistribution programme in order to, amongst others, correct the original sin of land dispossession. We meet here today 10 long months after this House gave the Constitutional Review Committee the mandate to review section 25 of the Constitution and other clauses where necessary, to make it possible for the state to expropriate land in the public interest without compensation, and propose the necessary constitutional amendments where necessary. In doing so the committee was expected to engage in a public participation process in order to get the views of all stakeholders about the necessity of, and mechanisms for expropriating land without compensation.
From the outset it should be clarified that this House did not give the committee a mandate to conduct a referendum. As a result, anyone who makes an overemphasis on numbers will be grossly out of order. The committee adopted various forms of public participation which included public hearings, written submissions and oral submissions. It should be understood that there was no form of public participation which carried any weight above the other. It should also be noted that the public participation process that followed is unprecedented in the history of our democracy. As a precursor, the committee hosted a preparatory colloquium which laid a foundation for members to engage with inputs from members of the public meaningfully.
I will deal with each form of public participation as it was engaged by the committee starting with the contentious written submissions. Advertisements were put in national and local newspapers calling for members of the public to make submissions on the necessity of, and mechanisms for expropriating land in the public interest without compensation or the contrary thereof. Members of the public were given until the end of May which was extended to the 15 of June. A total of 449 552 authentic written submissions were received. Though it is of no significance, 65% of the written submissions were against the amending the Constitution. Written submissions became a subject for litigation which I will deal with later on. The committee made use of the parliamentary staff and an external service provider to determine those in favour of and those against the amendment of the Constitution.
Now, with oral submissions, amongst those members of the public who made written submissions, there were those who made requests to make oral submissions. The committee allowed them space to make oral submissions in Parliament for or against changing the Constitution. With oral submissions, the committee was divided into two teams which travelled the length and breadth of the country visiting every province and listening to the masses of our people about what they want, how they view their future and their views about resolving the national grievance, the land question.
The report before the House captures the views of South Africans. Their arguments enabled the committee to make a resolution which says that section 25 of the Constitution should be amended to allow for expropriation of land without compensation. The Constitution should be explicit that expropriation without compensation is one means that can be used to address skewed land ownership patterns. Mostly, the people were not comfortable with the 1913 cut off claiming that the original sin is as old as when Jan van Riebeeck set foot at the Cape on 6 April 1652 at four o’clock. [Applause.]
Litigation against the process was unavoidable. Mr Swart of the ACDP addressed the Gonubie Farmers Association on the 29 August 2018, where a decision was taken on litigation. By then the committee was still busy with oral submissions, but a decision to litigate was already taken. Therefore, it was unavoidable.
Hon Carter of Cope has been crying foul ever since the process started. Her claim has always been that 200 000 submissions from Cope were not considered. What is surprising, hon members, is that during the 2014 general elections, Cope was voted for by 123 235 people, and this number includes members, supporters and sympathisers. The under performance of Cope since 2014 has seen to the gradually erode of this number. Now, it becomes surprising that all of a sudden Cope can be able to get 200 000 submissions.
Hon Breytenbach of the DA claims that she went to the holding room where the submissions are kept and she could not find submissions by the DA. According to her, the fact that she, herself, could not find those submissions by Cope means that the process was flawed. This is very unconvincing.
There is a very thin line that separates FF Plus from Afriforum. With the FF Plus, there is a very thin line that separates this party from Afriforum. It might as well be said that in court it was Afriforum and the FF Plus.
The litigation in question is mainly about written submissions. Written submissions are mainly made by those who are resourced. Being resourced is not a problem; the problem is whether written submissions make meaningful public participation. We learned several lessons from this process. It is the production computer generated template designed by one person, populating the template with his views, and then allowing other people to factor in their names and contact numbers, to be referred to as meaningful public participation?
Is the mass production of templates merely saying yes or no aimed at inflating numbers so that the community may not be able to do its work - meaningful public participation? Should public participation be aimed at making it possible for Parliament to do its work or should public participation be aimed at holding Parliament at ransom? These are the questions that we need to answer. The lessons learnt from this process should be able to give Parliament a better idea on how engage in meaningful public participation, especially relating to public submissions.
In delivering the 14th Chief Albert Luthuli Memorial Lecture, the Chancellor of the University of Kwazulu-Natal Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng said that the solutions to the land expropriation without compensation challenge in South Africa must ensure enduring peace, stability and shared prosperity. He went on to say that war is not an option. Strategies that militate against peace and stability are not an option. However, silence and inaction in the face of life threatening and dehumanising migration, abject poverty and landlessness are also not options.
The Chief Justice advocated for dialogue between the dispossessed and those who own land and who seem to be sworn defenders of the status quo. In the same breath, we call on Afriforum and all those parties that support Afriforum, those who are taking the people to court to reconsider their stance. We urge you as this House to adopt this report. We urge you to make it possible for President Cyril Ramaphosa, the “Thuma Mina” volunteer in chief, to make right what is wrong. The people want their land. Give the people what they want. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Thank you. Our honourable guests who are very welcome to this Chamber, I just want to say that by the rules of this House unfortunately you are not allowed to participate in the proceedings. That means by way of clapping hands or making some shouts, or even taking photos. Therefore, I urge you to sit there and listen and just go with the flow with the smile. Thank you very much. Hon Mbabama!
***
Ms T M MBABAMA: Hon House Chair, the DA acknowledges that effective land reform must be prioritized and pursued with greater urgency to redress past land dispossessions. South Africa suffers from a history of black people being denied land ownership, but to address this, we do not need to change the Constitution; we need to change the government. The DA wants all South Africans to own their land and property. We want land owners, not tenants.
Let us be clear, effective land reform is possible without threatening food security, without undermining commercial farming, without destroying social cohesion and without changing our precious Bill of Rights. It is obvious that, from the onset, the integrity of the Joint Constitutional Review Committee was compromised by collusion between the wily EFF and the beleaguered ANC. It was apparent that the tail was wagging the dog as the red berets ran roughshod over the two cowering ANC chairpersons and all but took over the process of the Joint Constitutional Review Committee, CRC. One of the chairpersons ultimately resigned from the committee amid the Bosasa scandal.
When their duplicity was pointed out, the EFF reacted with the usual impertinence that is so characteristic of these rude, rabble- rousing red berets who surely have had no parental guidance whatsoever in their formative years.
IsiXhosa:
Andizukuthetha nokuthetha ke ngezinye iingqeqe ezi zikhonkotha ecaleni kwe EFF ne ANC...
English:
...they are just cheerleaders masquerading as independent political parties.
THE HOUSE CHAIRPERSON: Order hon members, let me hear.
Ms T M MBABAMA: The DA would like to state upfront that the recommendation of the Constitutional Review Committee to amend the Constitution to allow for expropriation without compensation was a forgone conclusion. That is why the ANC President, Cyril Ramaphosa cynically made a late night announcement in July, that the ruling party had decided to go ahead with changing the Constitution to allow for expropriation without compensation.
This was before the committee had even started its work in the Western Cape, thus reducing the whole process to a farce. Even now the NCOP is set to debate this report tomorrow, despite the fact that this House has not yet adopted it.
Is it not obvious to South Africans what is actually happening here? It was certainly obvious to the ANC in 2017, when debating and voting against expropriation without compensation in this very House. The ANC Chief Whip, Jackson Mthembu said and I quote:
“Section 25 of our Constitution is more of an abler for land reform than a barrier. We failed to take advantage of its provisions, full stop.” He added:
THE HOUSE CHAIRPERSON: (MS MG BOROTO):Hon Mbabama please take your seat. Hon Mnguni what point are you rising on?
Mr P J MNGUNI: Hon House Chair, please call the member to order. She may not refer to any member of the House by name. She has to say either, Mr. or Honourable, that is what is in the rule book. Thank you very much.
THE HOUSE CHAIRPERSON: (MS MG BOROTO): Who did she refer to?
Mr P J MNGUNI: She has said, Jackson Mthembu.
THE HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (MS MG BOROTO): Okay I heard her, she started by saying the Chief Whip of the ANC. Thank you, continue hon Mbabama.
IsiXhosa:
NKS T M MBABAMA: Uthi uMthembu...
English:
... blaming the Constitution for the embarrassingly slow...
Mr P J MNGUNI: Exactly House Chair, order, order. This is now a vernacular version of the same thing she is doing exactly the same. Please call her to order.
THE HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (MS MG BOROTO): Now I heard you saying uMthembu.
Ms T M MBABAMA: My apologies Hon House Chair.
IsiXhosa:
Uthi UMthembu ohloniphekileyo...
English:
... blaming the Constitution for the embarrassingly slow pace of land reform is both disingenuous and scapegoating. We failed finish and klaar.
IsiXhosa:
Utsho lo tata.
English:
Hundreds of thousands of South Africans agreed with this sentiment in their written and oral submissions. People like Ntate Rakgatse from Limpopo who has been working on his farm and paying the government rent for more than 40 years, but still does not own it. Do you think that he truly believes that the ruling party will give him a title deed after amending the Constitution?
IsiXhosa:
Bantu baseGwatyu, phaya phezulu eMpuma Koloni, nabanye abafana nani.
English:
Will changing the Constitution...
THE HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (MS MG BOROTO): Order hon members, you are really shouting now please. Continue hon member. Continue hon Mbabama, your time has been stopped, continue.
Ms T M MBABAMA: Will changing the Constitution make the government give you the title deeds to your land that you have been fighting for all these years? Will amending the Constitution revive all the restitution and redistribution farms lying fallow and miraculously turn them into well-run profitable entities? Will amending the Constitution get rid of the corruption we saw in Mala Mala, Mpumalanga, and the Estina Dairy Farm near Frede in the Province of the Free State?
IsiXhosa:
Kubantu bethu abahlala ematyotyombeni, nicinga ukuba lo urhulumente uzakuninika izindlu nee neziqinisekiso bunini zazo, emveni kokuba etshintshe uMgaqo-siseko? Hayi, andiqondi.
English:
Changing the Constitution is to allow expropriation without compensation is just a political ploy to get votes out of desperate, vulnerable people. The DA knows that there is a better way to implement successful land reform. The DA is going to bring change that builds one South Africa for all its people.
IsiXhosa:
Nithanda, ningathandi.
English:
We reject the report of the Constitutional Review Committee for the force that it is. [Applause]
***
Mr J S MALEMA: House Chairperson, we gathered here today to engaging in one of the most important steps in a process of amending the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. This is happening after the successful motion of the EFF to expropriate land without compensation and therefore anyone else who doesn’t want to hear this fact is because that person wants to distort history.
The people of South Africa, of all races, ages, and socio-economic background for the first time they came together to make their inputs in the public hearings. Therefore, we from the EFF confirm that the process was fair. Everybody else was heard; including those had a different view. They were given an opportunity to express themselves.
The intention has never been to run a referendum, because if we had conducted referendum, you can be guaranteed that 90% of South Africans would have voted for expropriation of land without compensation. We say so because the parties that support the land expropriation without compensation in this House constitute more than two third majority and therefore if that was to be translated into the outcomes of a referendum, you can be guaranteed that you will lose.
So, we really want to commend the patience of the chairpersons of both committees. They were patient and allowed us if when at times the debate became more robust. They kept their cool and called everybody to order so that public hearings can continue peacefully. We have experienced that and we want to congratulate them for having conducted a very dignified and peaceful process of listening to our people.
There is one thing that all of you must actually acknowledge, that all white people who came, poor or rich, all of the landless white people came in Unisom and opposed the expropriation of land without compensation, because the reality is that where white interest and privilege is threatened, they protect one another. They don’t care whether the other one is in the wrong or not. Why would people think alike like that, if is not an issue of racism and privilege which seeks to perpetuate landlessness amongst those who were conquered by criminals who came into our country and took our land.
We amongst black people and Africans in particular, there were different views, because we don’t come from a process that seeks to isolate anyone, but we came from a background that seeks to win a debate through an honest engagement. Here, you have a group of people, not only in the referendum or consultation who 90% of them vote for the same party. You ask yourself, what is this? This is white privilege. This is in defence of white privilege, which seeks to perpetuate landlessness amongst our people. Therefore, the black unity and in particular African unity is very important when it comes to this issue. Thank you very much. [Time expired.]
***
Inkosi M E BUTHELEZI: Hon Chairperson, expropriation of land is essential in addressing the injustices of the past. The IFP supports the expropriation of land and we are very clear on our stands that our position advocates for expropriation of land with reasonable compensation.
The IFP has always been in favour of ensuring that people that people own land and this was shown how the Ingonyama Trust came about to protect the remnants of what was left when the total mass of land was taken by the apartheid regime.
The IFP has been a forerunner for restoring the dignity of the majority people who have suffered at the hands of colonial and apartheid oppressors in protecting traditional land through the Ingonyama Trust.
During the public hearings and the submissions made before the committee, I was inspired to see a renewed sense of hope among black and white South Africans willingly offering their support for the process of expropriation of land in the interest of the public of South Africa. This is almost unthinkable to do so without providing a reasonable compensation for land.
No one in this House disputes the fact that we are aiming for a peaceful transition. Yet, not all agree that compensation is a way in which to keep the entire project of redistribution civil.
The process in which the ANC and it’s alliance partners here in this house tried to rush a Report through the committee without having to include all written submissions by the public is wrong, shameful and must be condemned.
It is very interesting to see how the ANC and its unholy alliance committee members failed to find a balanced view and reach compromise and consensus on compensation. If the majority in public hearings called for zero compensation and the majority of written submissions called for reasonable compensation, how can we simply take a skewed stance in favour of the public hearings by simply ignoring the written submissions?
These two processes have the same status. We have seen what flouting process have brought us in this country. It has two-word names, the state capture.
This government has failed. It can’t be trusted and it is not doing this process in good faith. The people of South Africa must know who is rushing this Report and what is in their interests, the answers to this can be found in state capture and VBS looting. The IFP rejects this report.
***
Mr S C MNCWABE: Hon Chairperson, perhaps in moments like this its proper to start by quoting what one of the late struggle veterans, Mr Harry Gwala of Natal Midlands said when he was addressing a peace rally here in Cape Town in 1991, he said and I quote: “when a mother cant give birth a natural way, then a caesarean section must be used, because a child must be born”.
The NFP supports the amendment of the Constitution to allow the expropriation of land without compensation. The NFP considers the willing buyer, willing seller strategy to have been the most accommodative and much fair strategy the government used in addressing the land question in this country, but sadly as we all know this strategy has been a dismal failure and a Budget couldn’t carry it any further.
This therefore means, the new much radical but progressive strategy must be adopted and in our view that strategy is the expropriation of land without compensation. Those who colonised us, and those who oppressed us made the land question a forbidden fruit for the majority of the population in this country and now the time has come that we cut this fruit and share it with everyone, especially those who were denied it.
As the NFP, we want to once again argue that the big battles that our forefathers fought against the western settlers in this country were not battles for the right to vote, access to water, but those battles were in defence of their land., for example the battle of the Isandlwana of 22 January 1879 was never about the freedom of speech or gathering.
When the Zulu warriors under the command of Ntshingwayo kaMahole Khoza, were approaching the British army, they had one thing in their minds our motherland, our inheritance, with that spirit they defeated the British army and embarrass the entire British Empire.
The Afriforum, last week in the Western Cape High Court tried to do what the British army did, and yes we defeated them as the Constitutional Review Committee and this House. The Afriforum must be told here and now, that their racist argument that the land was not stolen but was discovered empty, is the insult to the bones of our forefathers.
The leadership of Afriforum and its allies must be advised to accept in their minds that indeed land in SA will be expropriated without compensation. As we adopt this Report, let us not do it for this generation, but let us tell our forefathers that they must rest in genuine peace. The land is back. Thank you
***
Mr W L M FILTANE: [Singing.] Chairperson,
“The old order changeth; yielding place to new, And God fulfils himself in many ways, lest one good custom should corrupt the world".
The time for that change is now. For far too long, millions of black South Africans have been landless, unbankable, poor and burdensome on the state. This resulted in them being firm ground for restlessness.
Research tells us that a restless community cannot focus on self-development and is not receptive to development assistance from outside. It is fertile ground for corruption, in return for short-term self-gains. This is the ugly social state we have in our country. Faced with a challenging situation back in
Our response to that is and I quote: “for things to change, you have got to change the way you do things”. Jeffry Sachs, the erstwhile economic advisor to Kofi Annan and Ban Ki-Moon, in their respective terms as Secretary Generals of the UN, lists natural endowments like land as the number one requirement for development, and S.A. is a developmental state.
We know of no economists who advocate for landless economic grow in any country or community. Therefore, people who stand for a landlessness majority in our country are actually advocating poverty. The current situation in S.A. is that over 13 million people are experiencing food insecurity daily.
Yet with land at their disposal they could practice what is called cashless economy, and be able to produce food at minimal cost to the fiscus. The current commercial farmers produce so much food that they even export some for personal gain. How does that state of affairs help the public interest?
Let us get together as fellow South Africans and craft the terms on which our Constitution should be amended. The latest cases emanating from our high courts with regards to land send a clear message that community rights must be protected and enhanced. Amongst these are the Constitutional Court, ConCourt, Judgment by Justice Petse, Justice Poswa, as well as judgement by Basson on Xolobeni. The time for change is now.
After twenty four years of a development path, which heavily relied upon foreign assistance, as a nation, we need to rethink and redefine our path to development. The means of achieving that, needs to be steered and emphasised through the effective usage of land and thus agriculture as the way to development comes to the fore
As elected legislators, we shall not outsource this responsibility to other nations outside of the borders of South Africa. We shall resist burdening the courts with matters that are not placed on their desk by our Constitution.
In this regard, the UDM would make a call to all citizens of South Africa to get together and craft the terms on which the Constitution must be amended. The people who are landless want their Constitution to be amended in order for them to have land. I thank you
***
Mr C P MULDER: Hon Chairperson, every one of us stood in front of this podium on Wednesday 21 May 2014. Here we swore an oath to uphold and defend this Constitution and we swore that oath in front of the Chief Justice, Mogoeng Mogoeng.
Today you are being asked to say Nah, let’s forget that and remove a fundamental principle, a cornerstone and a basic right that goes to the very heart of the rule of law in the same Constitution. You all swore that oath.
The expropriation without compensation is a very powerful tool and threat in the hands of any government, until you actually use it. Then, it becomes a poisoned chalice and your real troubles start. Mark my word today.
We are in this mess, because the EFF tricked the ANC on 27 February 2018 to support their motion in this House. I warned the ANC Chief Whips, but they didn’t listen. From that moment on the EFF had the initiative and the ANC followed. Even the final recommendation in this report was proposed by the EFF and seconded by the poor ANC.
Today, Parliament is being misled by preparing this Report that will embarrass Parliament and it could embarrass the President. It is not the product of public participation. It is not the product of a debate
The written submissions on 14 March 2018, the President stood here and invited the public to make public submissions. The people listened. More than 630 000 submissions were made, but until today, no report that deals with those written submissions was ever adopted or discussed by the committee.
However, 75% of them said no to the amendment of the Constitution. Then, we had civil society who came to make representations. They were ignored and 77% of those said no don’t amend the Constitution and Mr Malema won’t know because he didn’t attend any of those.
No debate was ever allowed in the Constitutional Review Committee on this process. No debate. It was the first time since 1994 that no debate was allowed on the substance of one single issue even in this regard and you want to take a decision today in that regard. The fact of the matter is you have made a huge blunder and the poor ANC is like a drunken sailor falling over a wheelbarrow again.
Unfortunately, this whole process was a charade. We wasted the time and the money of thousands of South Africans. We are talking about amending the Bill of Rights. You want to do it in a wishy-washy way that you have done today.
The first speech today by the hon chairperson, just indicate to you how wishy-washy this whole process was. This Report is not worth the paper it is written on and it should be completely rejected.
***
Ms D CARTER: Chairperson, COPE is adamant. The injustices and divisions of our past must be healed and this includes land reform. We support expropriation of land with compensation.
It is important to put the myths to bed for the property clause was not negotiated at the Convention for a Democratic South Africa, CODESSA. The progressive forces got precisely what was required in our final Constitution and an explicit mandate for land reform.
It empowers and compels government to undertake land reform and ensure equitable access to land. It explicitly provides for expropriation. Nowhere does our Constitution insist on willing buyer, willing seller compensation. No where. It was the ANC that decided to go this route so that fraud and corruption could happen at all times.
The ANC failed and they have never used the power to expropriate for land reform purposes. Just and equitable compensation, could very well mean little or no compensation depending on the circumstances involved. The alternative to the current clause is the unjust, inequitable and the arbitrary confiscation of land.
The High Level Panel Report and the views of academics and authorities all point to the ANC’s lack of political will and for dismal failure of government to effect the meaningful land reform; mal—administration; corruption and the elite capture of land reform projects like the dairy farm saga.
The key remains to align our expropriation legislation to the prescripts of our Constitution. Yet, government relies on an Expropriation Act 63 of 1975 when B J Vorster, the Verwoerd’s successor was Prime Minster of the pariah apartheid state!
It is our Expropriation legislation that should make explicit what is implicit in the Constitution.
The land owners and the landless have spoken. The researchers and experts; workers; our farming community, business and banking sectors have spoken, but yet, the ANC are hell-bent and brazenly intent to continue with the marriage with the EFF.
And what mandate, we ask, no change. When this process was raised in the state of the nation address, we asked whose land would be targeted, on what basis and to whom would it be given? You want to make South African tenants to date. We have not. That question is not been answered.
Our rejection of the Report and the reasons therefore including Constitutional flaws in the process and the rejection and non-consideration of submissions. I am not going to have time to withdraw. The single South Africans, will say there is still hope. The power to stop this destructive, irrational lunacy is in your hands. The power lies ... [Time Expired.]
***
Rev K R J MESHOE: House Chairperson, the ACDP appreciates that the issue of land reform is a complex and deeply emotive issue. We have observed first-hand during the public hearings how divisive the issue of expropriation of land without compensation can be.
While justice must be done, we are also strong advocates of reconciliation and nation-building. Biblical justice can be achieved through a process of restitution. It is for this reason that we support land reform and the restitution of land in an orderly and lawful manner. We agree that any decision regarding a possible review of section 25 of the Constitution must consider the impact on food security, stability in the agricultural sector and the economy, investor confidence, financial exposure to banks and other financial institutions by commercial farmers. It must also provide adequate support for emerging farmers.
We agree with the SA Human Rights Commission’s, SAHRC, contention that, while they regard expropriation of land without compensation as being just and equitable in appropriate circumstances, the Constitution does not lend itself to amendments in the detail needed to limit expropriation without compensation in the context of addressing the results of past racial discrimination.
Hon members have to remember that land ownership is not only important to the people of this nation, but it is also important to the Almighty God. Seven chapters in the book of Joshua, from chapter 13 to 19, are dedicated to the allotment of land to God’s people.
Jeremiah 37:12 says, “Jeremiah went out of Jerusalem to go into the land of Benjamin to claim his property there among the people.”
All those who qualify must have the right to property and title deeds.
In September, IOL reported that EFF spokesperson on land, Sam Matiase, called for church land to be nationalised for the benefit of the people and said that church land should be treated in the same way as land held by private individuals, including land held by traditional leaders. The ACDP strongly disagrees. We are totally opposed to expropriation of land — whether owned by private individuals, families or churches — without compensation.
In consideration of the Constitutional Review Committee report’s recommendations, the ACDP is of the view that section 25 of the Constitution in its current form is not an impediment to land reform and believes that the Constitutional Court must be approached to give clarity on the full parameters of section 25 of the Constitution.
Any amendment to section 25 has the potential to threaten food security, agricultural reform and discourage investment.
Individual property rights must be protected and title deeds issued to the beneficiaries of land reform.
The ACDP will definitely not support this report.
***
Afrikaans:
Dr A LOTRIET: Voorsitter, grondhervorming en grondrestitusie moet plaasvind. Inteendeel, dit moes al oor die afgelope 24 jaar reeds gebeur het. [Applous.]
Die werklikheid waarmee ons egter vandag gekonfronteer word, is dat die ANC regering dit nie gedoen het nie. Waar hulle wel ’n poging aangewend het, was dit deurspek met onbeholpenheid, korrupsie en begrotings wat totaal ontoereikend is.
Die gevolg is dat daar, ter wille van politieke gewin en opportunisme, ’n proses deur die Grondwetlike Hersieningskomitee gestoomroller is, wat die land nog duur te staan gaan kom.
In plaas daarvan dat die regering introspeksie gedoen het oor sy eie mislukkings en tekortkominge, is daar besiuit dat die eintlike rede vir die trae pas van grondhervorming die Grondwet is. Die Grondwet is nou die sondebok en moet nou ten alle koste gewysig word.
Maar dit gaan nie hier net om die wysiging van die Grondwet nie. Daar word dikwels genoem dat die Grondwet al 17 keer gewysig is. Dit is inderdaad so, maar daardie wysigings was tegnies van aard en het nie die wese van die Grondwet gewysig nie.
In hierdie geval is dit ook nie net ’n wysiging aan die Grondwet nie maar, in besonder, ’n wysiging van Hoofstuk 2, die Handves van Regte — wat nog nooit gewysig is nie.
Die Handves van Regte is die hoeksteen van ’n demokrasie en beskerm bestaande regte wat aan alle mense beskore is. ’n Wysiging hiervan is dus ’n wysiging van reeds bestaande regte waaroor almal beskik. Hierdie Handves staan as buffer tussen alle burgers van hierdie land en enige arbitrêre handeling van die staat.
Artikel 25 spreek juis een van die kernelemente van enige demokrasie en ekonomie aan, naamlik die reg op eiendom. Geen ekonomie kan groei en suksesvol wees as daar nie beskerming van eiendomsreg is nie, en waar daar ook nie remedies is teen arbitrêre onteiening deur die staat nie. Let wel, arbitrêre onteiening.
Die motivering wat voorgehou word vir die wysiging van artikel 25 is dat dit wat implisiet is, eksplisiet gemaak moet word. Daar moet blykbaar groter duidelikheid gegee word oor wat bedoel word met artikel 25.
Die werklikheid is dat hierdie bloot ’n rookskerm is om regverdiging te verskaf aan ’n proses wat selfs nie eers deur almal in die ANC volledig ondersteun word nie.
Die Grondwet is nie ’n stel regulasies nie. Dit bied riglyne en norme waaraan handelingegwette moet voldoen en gemeet kan word. Die wyse hoe dit in praktyk gedoen moet word, word hanteer deur die algemeen geldende regsvoorskrifte soos na verwys word in artikel 25(1). Wetgewing is die meganisme waardeur grondhervorming moet plaasvind onder leiding van ’n regering met die nodige politieke wil en kapasiteit om dit te doen. Dit word nie gedoen deur die Grondwet te wysig nie.
Daar moet altyd onthou word dat die Grondwet daar is ongeag watter party aan bewind is. Die Grondwet is daar om die burgers van ’n land teen die vergrype van die staat te beskerm. [Applous.] Hierdie aanbeveling dat artikel 25 gewysig moet word alhoewel dit nou ook voorgehou word as ‘n minimale wysiging, maak die deur oop vir enige toekomstige wysigings aan die Handves van Regte. As dit nou met so ’n gebrekkige proses aanvaar en deurgevoer word, skep dit die presedent vir enige wegkalwing van die menseregte van die burgers van Suid-Afrika.
Die DA sal nie enige wysiging van artikel 25 ondersteun nie. Die DA se beleid stel ’n behoorlike effektiewe, versnelde proses van grondhervorming voor.
Ons kan en sal nie die regte van Suid-Afrikaners op die altaar van politieke opportunisme opoffer nie. Dankie. [Applous.]
***
Ms M R M MOTHAPO: Chairperson, hon members, let me start by welcoming the announcement of Advocate Shamila Batohi as the new head of the National Prosecuting Authority. [Interjections.] [Applause.] Advocate Batohi is the first woman to be the National Director of Public Prosecution and this can only happen under the ANC government. [Interjections.]
From the onset, we, the ANC categorically state our support for the Joint Constitutional Review Committee Report recommending that section 25 of the Constitution be amended to make explicit that which is implicit in the Constitution with regards to expropriation of land without compensation. This is indeed a legitimate option for land reform to address the painful history of arbitrary dispossession of land. Land is a very emotive issue and cannot, and will not be left unattended by the ANC. It is in the interest of social and economic stability that racially skewed patterns of ownership of land be addressed.
The land question is not new to the ANC. In fact, the formation of the ANC is as a result of the dispossession of land of the indigenous African people. The ANC was formed as a result of the Glen Grey Act of 1894 which sought to make Africans mere wage labourers without means of production. The Glen Grey Act was later incorporated into the Native Land Act of 1913 which forbade Africans to buy land outside of the 13% which was allocated to them for occupation. Hon Mbabama, you are misleading the public, this report has been tabled in both Houses and it is up to each House to decide as to when to debate. For your information, the National Council of Provinces will be debating this report tomorrow. [Interjections.]
The President-General of the ANC, then President Pixley ka Isaka Seme is one of the leading figures in the struggle for land. In 1913, he established South African Native Farmers Association, which bought the Daggakraal and Driefontein farms in the Transvaal. They would have bought more farms but were impeded by the Natives Land Act which made it illegal for Africans to buy farms in the then Transvaal. The forced seizure of land disintegrated Africans from an economic and social life and we are still seized with that legacy to this day.
Hon Meshoe ...
Sepedi:
Modimo ka Beibeleng o re tswalang le ate, le tlale lefase. Bjale, re tlile go tlala lefase lefe ge wena o šomiša mangwalo a makgethwa ka mokgwa woo a swanelago wena. [Tsenoganong.]
English:
With regard to wars of resistance, all wars of resistance were essentially about land. When first Khoikhoi-Dutch War began in May 1659, and when the San people viciously resisted the extension of settler farms into their hunting grounds, the war was about land.
Sepedi:
Le tla gopola gore bagale ba rena, bokgošikgolo Sekhukhune, bokgošikgolo Sandile, le kgošikgolo ya MaZulu ba lwele dintwa tše dikgolo ka lebaka la gore bomakgolokhukhu ba batho ba bangwe ba be ba ba tšeetše naga. Bjale ka se sebaka, re bušetša seriti sa naga go beng ba yona gore batho ba rena ba se ke ba hlaka, ba fetoge makgoba ka gare ga naga ya bona. Batho ba rena ga ba boele nageng ya bona.
English:
It is very much misleading to say that the ANC is being led by other parties. I want to educate you on the ANC’s policy on land. Since 1923, when the first ever Bill of Rights in South Africa was adopted by the ANC, human rights and the attainment of justice have explicitly been at the centre of our concerns. In 1943 we adopted the African Claims and the Freedom Charter in 1955, the Constitutional Guidelines in 1991 and the Ready to Govern Document in 1993. Since its inception, the ANC has been committed to the struggle for the return of land which was arbitrarily taken through colonialism and apartheid. The land question has been a pillar of our struggle as the ANC.
In 1923 Bill of Rights we declared that the Bantu inhabitants of the Union have, as human beings, the indisputable right to a place of abode in this land of their fathers and mothers and Africans have, as the sons and daughters of this soil, the God-given right to unrestricted ownership of land in this, the land of their birth, Ntate Meshoe.
The Freedom Charter clearly states that the land shall be shared among those who work it, that restriction of land ownership on a racial basis shall be ended and all the land redivided among those who work it. It also states that all shall have the right to occupy land wherever they choose. In our Ready to Govern document, we said: Dispossession and denial of rights to land have resulted in the present unequal division of land and landlessness, which will require legislative intervention far beyond the mere repeal of apartheid land laws. Our policies must provide access to land both as a productive resource and to ensure that all our citizens have a secure place to live.
We also said that the state will play a key role in the acquisition and allocation of land and should therefore have the power to acquire land in a variety of ways, including expropriation in accordance with the provisions set out in the Bill of Rights. We said that property rights should not be in conflict with public interest. So in essence, expropriation of land without compensation is a long-standing position of the ANC.
In line with our consistent policy position on land reform, the 54th National Conference resolved to use, inter alia, expropriation of land without compensation to accelerate redistribution of land. It is indeed a myth that the ANC is led by others when it comes to the issue of land reform when in fact the ANC was born as a result of the land question. Inkosi Buthelezi, the ANC national executive committee, NEC, reaffirmed mixed ownership of land; allowing for state ownership and lease; communal ownership and private ownership of land. We take cognisance of the mixed economy we have in South Africa. The ANC does not subscribe to views of Alfred Milner who tried to influenced society into thinking that tribal and communal ownership of property is barbaric.
Regarding public participation, we are drawing from the lessons learnt in the cases of Doctors for Life and Land Access Movement of South Africa, we are satisfied that the Joint Constitutional Review Committee has effectively carried out its duty to facilitate public involvement as spelled out in sections 59 and 72 of the Constitution. Public hearings were held across all nine provinces. An invitation for written submissions was made and those wishing to make oral presentations were allowed to do so. The people of South Africa spoke. Afriforum is one of those organisations who were not only present at every single public hearing; who deliberately flooded the system with over one hundred thousand written submissions which, as they conceded in their founding affidavit, were duplicates, but also made a presentation on 6 September 2018 through their Deputy CEO Ernst Roets. Instead of enriching the process, Roets abused the parliamentary process of public participation by showing utter contempt to the people of South Africa and their struggles, suggesting that 93% of land claimants would rather have money than land.
This clearly reflects his and his organisation’s content with the plight of landlessness in South Africa. He went on to insult the ANC and said that we are drunk on ideology. He further made a claim that there is no hunger for agricultural land. In a desperate attempt to frustrate this process, they filed an urgent interdict to halt this parliamentary process, claiming that there was no proper public participation in this process. Their urgent interdict was dismissed by a full bench in Western Cape High Court last week. This is not only victory for the drivers of this land reform process, but it is victory for every South African, particularly the landless.
The message to the masses - to the people of our beloved country, South Africa, we have heard you. We know your genuine hunger for land. We were present when you shared your lived experiences; when you told us of the impact of dispossession. We heard when you shared your plight of lack of security of tenure and the pains of not being able to access the graves of your forebears. We are committed to addressing the historical injustice of land dispossessions and we reaffirm that we shall pursue land expropriation without compensation as a matter of policy. We shall give effect to this resolution in a manner that strengthens the agricultural sector, improves economic growth and meaningfully addresses inequality and unemployment.
We call on government to speed up the process of reintroduction introduction of the Expropriation Bill and Redistribution Bill and that all relevant legislation should be aligned with the proposed amendment of the Constitution. The ANC supports this report.
***
Mr L M NTSHAYISA: Hon House Chairperson, we are happy as the AIC that we get to add our voice to the voices of many. The amendment to section 25 of the Constitution of the
This amendment is about the healing of wounds of the past and doing away with the attitude of fore which existed when the land was annexed and occupied by force by those powers that be. This is not a racial expropriation of land without compensation but the giving of land to the right people. This must be considered as one of the ways of addressing the challenges of unemployment, poverty and inequality.
We hope that more people will be working land and making more productive. However, people need intensive training, tools of trade and work implement and skills to work the land. I am sure, hon Chairperson, Africans are prepared to work the land as they were before.
The section 25 amendment is the popular view of the people as we have seen the consultation on the view. How can we therefore be against the view of the majority in a democratic country? That cannot be possible. For sure no one will be landless as long as one lives and work in the land because the land belongs to the people who live and work in it. This is going to be a scientific and a very smart approach so as to avoid land grabs and outcries from those who are ready to complain.
Of course the government must be smart to avoid job losses and guard against inequality, and people should be prepared to work the land. Legal processes must be followed. We are aware of what happened in
I think we are going to follow and do what is relevant for the people of this country. There must be and I believe there are relevant economic policies that are going to be implemented to make our country grow so that the people do not starve anymore. The AIC supports the report. Thank you very much.
***
Mr N T GODI: House Chair, comrades and hon members, the APC joins all progressives in supporting the adoption of the Joint Constitutional Review Committee, CRC, report. Even though the mere amendment of section 25 does not herald the resolution of our agrarian and social challenges, it is nonetheless a very important step in the right direction.
For the Africanists, the land question is not just about fairness; it is at the core of the national question, national sovereignty and independence. Thus the APC will always support any move that contributes to the reversal of the humiliation and deprivation since centuries past.
The restoration of the dignity and humanity of the natives is their reconnection with the land. The Africanist’ position is that land is a common heritage of the people and not a commodity. All land must be nationalised and socialised for the use and benefit of all especially the working class and African women.
Reactionaries must disabuse themselves of duplicity. We want nationalisation of land the same way these reactionaries have no problems with the nationalisation of minerals, water rights and usage.
Land under traditional African control is under common ownership. It is only land that Africans were permanently dispossessed or in townships that is privately owned.
Hon Chair, it was on 27 February 2018 when the House resolved to setup the CRC, which date happened to mark 40 years since the passing away of our great leader, Robert Sobukwe. It is not lost to the APC that today we are adopting the report of the CRC on the eve of Robert Sobukwe’s birthday which is 5 December, tomorrow. I urge all of us to adopt this report as a beautiful and befitting gift to Sobukwe. Izwe lethu. [Our land.][Applause.]
***
Ms G BREYTENBACH: Hon House Chair, let me join hon Mothapo in congratulating Shamila Batohi as the new National Director of Public Prosecutions. [Applause.] On 27 February 2018 this House mandated the Constitutional Review Committee to review section 25 of the Constitution to make it possible for the state to expropriate land in the public interest without compensation.
The original EFF motion, put by the hon Malema, talked of wholesale expropriation so that land is nationalised and brought into state ownership and we all know where that will take us. The ANC recommendations fall in line with the Nasrec resolution where they resolved to support land expropriation without compensation. This is just again, the ANC giving effect to their policy making body in red.
The hon Maila suggests that no form of public submission was favoured – yet the committee is prepared to totally ignore all the written submissions. Let me be clear, hon members, the DA supports urgent land restitution and land redistribution - absolutely.
We acknowledge the terrible legacy of forced land dispossession, the effects of which are still clear for all to see. We support individual land ownership and encourage the creation of intergenerational wealth that land ownership brings. No one will deny the traumatic effect of land dispossession nor the pain and humiliation that it brought. It was very painfully obvious during the public hearings around the country.
But House Chair, the ANC has had 25 years to address the pressing issue of land reform and has failed miserably. What they have achieved could arguably fill the bottom of a thimble. The Land Claims Court has been severely neglected and under-resourced for more than 17 years in which time it has had at best only four judges and no permanent judge president.
The DA is opposed to an arbitrary amendment of Constitution – it is totally unnecessary. The Constitution already allows for land reform and in fact encourages it. This election road show for the EFF, paid for by Parliament and supported by the ANC is nothing more than a cruel hoax. It has allowed thousands of South Africans to believe that they will each receive a plot of land.
The DA has a successful track record when it comes to land reform with a success rate of six times higher than national government statistics according to the Department of National Land Reform. We have demonstrated by putting our money where our mouth is, that we support land reform. We have recognised individual property rights and handed thousands of title deeds to property owners. This protects everyone’s rights and gives effect to the Constitutional compact of one nation one future.
The EFF the ANC, and their cohorts have abandoned this Constitutional construct in favour of a vote-seeking hoax. The approach suggested today by the speakers of the ANC and the EFF has been tried elsewhere in the world, and has failed; it has yielded only poverty and misery for the landless and the poor wherever it has been implemented anywhere in the world. It is a blueprint for chaos and economic disaster. It deliberately seeks to stoke racial tension, and by definition relies on force - an approach that has no place in a modern, constitutional democracy.
White and black South Africans alike would lose their homes, their businesses, their intellectual property and more. No well informed South African would voluntarily handover their property to any government to become a tenant in their own country. No government should be trusted with this much power. The Constitution is designed to protect the rights of all South Africans against all governments, including now unthinkable future governments.
South Africans have the opportunity to prevent this at the ballot box next year, and preventing the wholesale looting that has become the hallmark of these parties. The DA stands opposed to any abrogation of existing property rights. These are the bedrock of development and economic growth. Wholesale expropriation without compensation is nothing other than state sanctioned theft. The DA will not support it. Thank you.
***
Mr V G SMITH: House Chairperson, comrades, fellow members, and fellow South Africans, it is common knowledge that as far back as the 17th century, colonial powers brutally expropriated land and the resources of the indigenous people of South Africa. It is also common knowledge that the British and the Boers reached an agreement known as the Treaty of Vereeniging to establish Boer republics at the end of the South African War in 1902, which in essence reduced black people to foreigners in the country of their birth.
Soon thereafter, the Lagden Commission recommended territorial segregation between blacks and whites. This was followed by the establishment of a whites-only Union of South Africa, which made the governor-general the supreme chief of all native communities and dressed him with powers to appoint or dismiss any traditional African leader at his pleasure. It is this racially based ideological system that allowed the white minority government to pass the 1913 Natives Land Act and the 1936 Native Trust and Land Act.
The reading of the Hansard report on the occasion of the debate on the 1913 Natives Land Act, for me, best illustrates the prevailing thinking of the minority government of the time. During that debate, the Member of Parliament for Ficksburg said:
“They should tell him, as the Free State told him, that it was a white man’s country, that he was not going to be allowed to buy land there or to hire land there, and that if he wanted to be there he must be in service.”
In other words, the black man must forever be a labourer. The Strategy and Tactics document adopted at the Morogoro Conference in 1969 states that—
“... the bulk of the land in our country is in the hands of land barons, absentee landlords, big companies, and state capitalist enterprises. The land must be taken away from exclusively European control and from these groupings and divided among the small farmers, peasants and landless of all races who do not exploit the labour of others.”
That same Morogoro document states that—
“... in our country – more than in any other part of the oppressed world – it is inconceivable for liberation to have meaning without a return of the wealth of the land to the people as a whole. It is therefore a fundamental feature of our strategy that victory must embrace more than formal political democracy. To allow the existing economic forces to retain their interests intact is to feed the root of racial supremacy and does not represent even the shadow of liberation.”
At the opening of the ANC’s national land workshop held in May this year, President Ramaphosa remarked the following:
“From its formation, the ANC has fought for the return of land to its rightful owners. It has fought for the wealth of the country to be shared, and for the rights of all its people to be shared equally and universally respected. We are meeting here to give effect to the demand that was articulated by our forbears that the land shall be shared among those who work it.”
The ANC believes that the land reform project is about healing the wounds of the past. It is about restoring our dignity, and it is about reclaiming our identity and unlocking the economic resources of our country. We are convinced that without land redistribution, we will never achieve a united South African society, nor will we overcome the challenges of inequality. [Interjections.] It is our contention that unless we afford the previously marginalised the means to productively farm the land, and unless we change the apartheid spatial plans in our towns and cities, we will not defeat the scourge of poverty and unemployment in our communities.
The ANC is convinced that if we are to maximise the economic value of the land, we must not only distribute agricultural land, but we must also allocate land close to places of employment for residential purposes in the urban centres. We must also provide those living in precarious informal settlements with serviced sites and security of tenure. It is important to emphasise that the land reform project must not undermine economic investment. It must enhance agricultural productivity, and it must not disrupt food security. [Interjections.]
We are very clear that the willing-buyer, willing-seller principle or the market-driven approach cannot and must not be a mechanism for redistribution of land. It is this market-driven concept that in the past was used as an instrument to resist or retard the land reform project. The newly established Office of the Valuer-General is a welcome development. It must be well capacitated to independently moderate all land reform valuations. The Land Bank, the SA Land Claims Court, and all other state machineries must be appropriately resourced and upskilled.
Expropriation of land without compensation alone is not enough, and neither is it a panacea for the land problem in our country.
An HON MEMBER: Bosasa!
Mr V G SMITH: It is our view that there is a need for a much wider policy overhaul to ensure a proactive, needs-based acquisition of land. With regard to the policy overhaul, we support the proposal of the National Development Plan, NDP, for district-based stakeholder forums that will play an important role in establishing the needs and identifying which land is available to meet those needs. We call for all laws of general application to be fast-tracked.
In 1996, when the final Constitution was adopted, the text of section 25 was constructed with the forethought that it would facilitate rather than hinder land reform, including redistribution, restitution, and security of tenure. Twenty-two years after the certification of the final Constitution, it is important for South Africans to reflect on the constitutional framework for the land reform programme in South Africa.
An HON MEMBER: Where does corruption fit in?
Mr V G SMITH: The ANC is of the view that the lack of clarity around the permissibility of expropriation of land without compensation has contributed to the slow pace of land reform. We support expropriation of land without expropriation. [Laughter.] We support expropriation of land without compensation, or zero rand compensation, in the public interest.
Mr M WATERS: Hear, hear, Vincent!
Mr V G SMITH: As informed by our 54th conference resolution ... [Interjections.] ... ours is a call for a mixed-ownership model that includes individual ownership, state ownership, and communal ownership.
The ANC makes the following firm proposal to this august House for your consideration ...
An HON MEMBER: That they take the money!
Mr V G SMITH: ... that section 25 of the Constitution be amended so as to make explicit and incontestable that which is implicit, namely that expropriation of land without compensation be but one of the mechanisms of the land reform programme. The land issue has always been central to the struggle for freedom and democracy in South Africa, and yet certain sectors of the South African and the international communities continue to deliberately misrepresent the proposal for land expropriation without compensation.
An HON MEMBER: What about Bosasa?
Mr V G SMITH: These sectors mischievously propagate that our stance is informed by an anti-white agenda. We must emphasise that no one in the ANC has ever suggested that whites or anybody else be discriminated against in the resolution of the land question. [Interjections.]
Expropriation of land in the public interest is about redressing the effects of the original sin of arbitrary dispossession of land. Expropriation is about the access to agricultural and residential land by all. The land reform project must be about the creation of a democratic, nonracial, nonsexist, and a united and prosperous nation. The just and equitable redistribution and restitution of land is about ensuring stability in our country. [Interjections.] Chairperson, fellow South Africans, and comrades, this land is our land. [Interjections.] We believe that meaningful reform that results in all of us, black and white, being afforded equal access and ownership to land can no longer be postponed.
At this point, maybe we should talk about some of the issues raised very briefly.
Mr M WATERS: Yes, Bosasa! [Interjections.]
An HON MEMBER: Take the money back!
Mr V G SMITH: The ACDP and Cope ... [Interjections.] ... talked about academics who spoke to us and the high-level panel that spoke to us, and they are correct. They did speak to us, and they did say what they said. [Interjections.] However, the voices of the academics can never trump the voices of the landless people. [Interjections.] [Applause.] Why don’t you tell us what the landless people said?
I also want to go the point raised by the hon Mulder. We agree, hon Mulder, that 77% of those at Rhodes supported it. Nobody has disputed that. We agree that those that came to make oral presentations in Parliament supported it – 77%, as you said. Nobody disputes that. What you leave out is the percentage that supported us when we went to the provinces. You deliberately don’t say that those who supported us in the provinces were probably 99% of the submissions that we received. [Applause.] [Interjections.] You don’t raise that point, and I think we should fix that up.
I also want to raise that the hon Lotriet says, and she says it in Afrikaans so I am paraphrasing, the Constitution mustn’t be changed because ...
Afrikaans:
... dit moet ons beskerm of dit moet die mense beskerm. Die vraag is: Teen wie moet dit beskerm? [Tussenwerpsels.]
English:
Who must it protect? Must it protect those that are the owners of land, or must it protect those of us that have land? [Interjections.] The Constitution is not written in stone. [Interjections.] It can be and it must be amended.
Obviously, hon members, the ANC has always said, and will always say, that expropriation of land without compensation is the way to go. [Interjections.] The ANC says that those that oppose the access of land to our people must be remembered when we go to the election polls in 2019 because it is those people that will hold us back from creating a united, a prosperous, and a democratic South Africa. Thank you, Chairperson. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
The Chief Whip of the Majority Party moved: That the Report be adopted.
Division demanded.
The House divided.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon members! Order, members! Members in the gallery, we repeat the request made to you earlier on. We don’t appreciate you participating in what is happening. This is for members, and I do realise what you are doing there. We will request you not to do that. It is not proper. [Interjections.] Your welcome only goes as far as you oblige with and agree with the Rules of the House. [Interjections.]
[TAKE IN FROM MINUTES.]
Motion agreed to.
Report accordingly adopted.
Source: Unrevised Hansard.
