Can the Constitution allow expropriation without compensation for land reform purposes?
30 March 2017
Ahead of the December 2017 elective conference, the National Executive Committee (NEC) of the governing party will hold a meeting to discuss the “land issue”. It is apparent to even the uninterested observer, that it appears as if the party cannot agree on the meaning of the property clause in the Constitution.
Both the President and the Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform are quoted in the media as advocating for expropriation without compensation to expedite land reform. Initially, the President seemed to be advocating (in the same vein as the third largest political party, the Economic Freedom Fighters) for an amendment to the property clause, to exclude compensation for expropriation, without due regard to the purpose of the expropriation. Lately, the President is quoted by the media as advocating for a position suggesting that expropriation without compensation for land reform within the current framework of the property clause is possible.
How true is the President’s position? Can expropriation without compensation or expropriation against low or nominal compensation be justified simply because the expropriation is aimed at a constitutionally legitimate purpose such as land reform?
To answer those questions - recourse must be had to the meaning of section 25(8) of the Constitution: