Property ownership in South Africa is hugely skewed and there is major asset inequality in the country, Public Works Deputy Minister Jeremy Cronin stated at the Rode-REIM Property Conference 2016 on Tuesday.

Making the case for the implementation of the Expropriation Bill, which sets out the legislative requirements for the State to lay claim to land, he emphasised that land in South Africa was radically racialised.

The Bill was approved by Cabinet in February but sent back for review by President Jacob Zuma in July.

“The Bill should not be seen as some kind of silver bullet that’s going to solve all problems in regards to land reform . . . Property needs to be protected but [government] needs to ensure that there is transformation in the property space, and expropriation is one avenue that can help that,” he said.

He added that the property clause in South Africa’s Constitution recognised expropriation as a right of government and was therefore protected.

“Our Constitution uniquely adds that it is the nation’s commitment to reform land to redress past racial inequality.”

Noting that the Bill has been widely contested and has come under fire by opposition groups and organisations such as AgriSA, Cronin said “there can’t be arbitrary expropriation of property; we don’t want what happened in Zimbabwe to happen in South Africa.”

“Farmers don’t want their land to be expropriated, but it might happen,” he said.

He highlighted that it was important for the President to sign the new Bill because the Expropriation Act of 1975 was draconian and lacking.

“We need to dispense of this Act because it is unconstitutional.”

The review of the Expropriation Act of 1975 became necessary to ensure consistency in the provisions of the Constitution, in particular the for equality clause, property clause, administrative action and extension of the purpose for expropriation to include public interest.

Cronin noted that the current Act determines compensation in terms of market value and, according to the Constitution, it must also include other factors such as the history of public investment in a particular location.

“Under the new Bill, the reality is that people might be compensated less than what the market value of their property is. We are trying to ensure consistency and uniformity in the procedure,” he said.

He noted that the Bill did not clearly define what constituted property, which was one of the criticisms that had been raised. However, he noted that according to a recent Constitutional Court ruling, it would be unwise to do so.

He also said that municipalities, Premiers and eight Ministers had existing powers of expropriation for different purposes, pointing out that this did not mean all State entities had the right to expropriate.

“If government entities wish to expropriate property, it must be done through the relevant Minister,” Cronin said. 

He added that any expropriating authority would have to show that it has followed due processes, which include the investigation and valuation of property, consultation with various organs of State and publishing a notice of intent to expropriate.

Cronin explained that affected people had the right to lodge any objections or submissions within 30 working days after an intent to expropriate had been expressed.

“Ideally, the majority of expropriation will involve willing sellers and buyers. We don’t envision a spate of expropriations, however, because it is a long and challenging process,” he said.