Democratic Alliance (DA) Federal Council chairperson Helen Zille defended Minister of Public Works and Infrastructure Dean Macpherson’s rejection of the Expropriation Act, saying he is prioritising his oath of office.

Following the signing of the Bill into law by President Cyril Ramaphosa, Macpherson publicly announced that there would be no expropriation of private property without compensation on his watch.

In a post on social media, he said that the guarantee of property rights under Section 25 of the Constitution was not up for debate and is non-negotiable.

Zille reiterated DA leader John Steenhuisen’s words that Macpherson swore to the Constitution and took an oath that he would be a faithful councillor to the President.

“…which means he has to advise the President and Dean advised the President before he signed the Bill that the Bill was unconstitutional. He must put his oath of office ahead of anything else because he swore before God,” Zille said.

Steenhuisen said Macpherson’s rejection of the Act was based on his belief that it is unconstitutional and added that the Minister did not receive guidance or explanations as to what the correct way to proceed would be.

Zille explained that Macpherson had made a large submission to Ramaphosa on the Expropriation Bill, along with legal opinion indicating problems with the Bill.

Steenhuisen claimed the Bill contained two “wholly contradictory procedures”, which he said would make it impossible for any court to adjudicate.

Zille pointed out that relations within the Government of National Unity (GNU) must be reset by all the parties, especially the DA and African National Congress (ANC).

The DA has accused Ramaphosa of failing to consult coalition partners on various legislation, announcing its intentions to evoke clause 19 of the Statement of Intent.

She said her party had done everything to play its part constructively and honestly.

“…the ANC, particularly the President, acted completely unilaterally as if he is not in any coalition and we are concerned about that. We require him to take us and the other parties in the GNU seriously as coalition partners, that must happen,” Zille stated.

She highlighted that the DA had “very good reasons and legal opinion” to suggest that the Act was “unconstitutional” and the party was still going to challenge it in the Constitutional Court.

She told Polity.org that the DA was preparing its court papers.

Meanwhile, Steenhuisen said he believed coalition partners within the GNU could have found a way through, what he described as an impasse, had there been discussion amongst them.

“…there are several options. There was nothing instructing the President to sign this Bill, there was no urgency on it, we could have had discussions about it, we could have decided to refer it back to Parliament, we could have amended it, using the GNU’s majority in Parliament to come up with a Bill that met all the [constitutional] requirements,” he said.

Steenhuisen said Ramaphosa could have given party leaders his reasons to proceed with the signing of the Bill into law.

“…instead, all brushed aside. I found out on social media on my way back from Davos that the Bill had been signed, and my party is rightly asking questions of me, saying but was this discussed in the GNU,” he said.