Unpacking the South African land law that so inflames Trump
The law, which is yet to be implemented, has drawn the ire of US President Donald Trump, who sees it as discriminating against white farmers.
Centre-right political parties and lobby groups in South Africa have also opposed it, saying they will challenge the Expropriation Act – as the law is named – in court on the grounds that it threatens property rights.
Ramaphosa's government says the law provides for compensation to be paid in the vast majority of cases – and the changes are needed to increase black ownership of land.
Most private farmland is still owned by white people.
When Nelson Mandela came to power more than 30 years ago, ending the racist system of apartheid, it was promised that this would be rectified through a willing-buyer, willing-seller land reform programme – but critics say this has proved too slow and too costly.
In rare circumstances it would be land that was needed for the "public interest", legal experts told the BBC.
According to South African law firm Werksmans Attorneys, this suggested it would mainly, or perhaps only, happen in relation to the land reform programme.
Although it could also be used to access natural resources such as minerals and water, the firm added, in an opinion written by its experts in the field, Bulelwa Mabasa and Thomas Karberg.
Mabasa and Karberg told the BBC that in their view, productive agricultural land could not be expropriated without compensation.
They said any expropriation without compensation – known as EWC – could take place only in a few circumstances:
For example, when an owner was not using the land and was holding it for "speculative purposes"
Or when an owner "abandoned the land by failing to exercise control over it despite being reasonably capable of doing so".
Owners would probably still get compensation for the buildings on the land and for the natural resources, the lawyers said.
Mabasa and Karberg added that EWC was "not aimed at rural land or farmland specifically, and could include land in urban areas".
However, in cases where compensation is paid, the rules are set to change, with owners likely to get less money.
The plan is for owners to receive "just-and-equitable" compensation – a departure from the higher "market value" they have been getting up to now, Mabasa and Karberg said.
The government had been paying market-value compensation despite the fact that this was "at odds" with the constitution, adopted after white-minority rule ended in 1994, they added.
The lawyers said that all expropriations had "extensive procedural fairness requirements", including the owner's right to go to court if they were not happy.
The move away from market-value compensation will also apply to land expropriated for a "public purpose" – like building state schools or railways.
This has not been a major point of controversy, possibly because it is "hardly a novel concept" – a point made by JURISTnews, a legal website run by law students from around the world.
"The US Constitution, for instance, provides that the government can seize private property for public use so long as 'just compensation' is provided," it added.
The government hopes so.
University of Western Cape land expert Prof Ruth Hall told the BBC that more than 80,000 land claims remain unsettled.
In the eastern regions of South Africa, many black people work on farms for free – in exchange they are allowed to live there and keep their livestock on a portion of the owners' land, she said.
The government wants to transfer ownership of this land to the workers, and it was "unfair" to expect it to pay the market value, Prof Hall added.
Over the last three decades, the government has used existing powers to expropriate property–- with less than market-value compensation – in fewer than 20 cases, she said.
The new law was aimed at making it easier and cheaper to restore land to black people who were "dispossessed" of it during white-minority rule or were forced to be "long-term tenants" as they could not own land, Prof Hall added.
"It's a bargaining chip," she said.
But she doubts that the government will press ahead with implementing the law in the foreseeable future as the "political cost" has become too high.
The academic was referring to the fact that Trump has opposed the law, saying it discriminates against white farmers and their land was being "seized" – a charge the government denies.
In February, Trump cut aid to South Africa, and in April he announced a 30% tariff on South African goods and agricultural products, although this was later paused for 90 days.
This was followed by last month's infamous Oval Office showdown when Trump ambushed Ramaphosa with a video and printouts of stories alleging white people were being persecuted – much of his dossier has been discredited.
Fact-checking Trump's Oval Office confrontation with Ramaphosa
Like Trump, the second-biggest party in Ramaphosa's coalition government, the Democratic Alliance (DA), is opposed to the legislation.
In a statement on 26 May, the party said that its top leadership body had rejected the notion of "nil compensation".
However, it has agreed with the concept of just-and-equitable compensation rather than market-value compensation, adding it should be "adjudicated by a court of law".
Surprisingly, Jaco Kleynhans of the Solidarity Movement, an influential Afrikaner lobby group, said that while the new law could "destroy" some businesses and he was opposed to it, he did not believe it would lead to the "large-scale expropriation of farmland".
"I don't see within the wording of this text that that will happen," he said in a recent panel discussion at an agricultural exhibition held in South Africa's Free State province – where a large number of conservative Afrikaner farmers live.
The South African Property Owners Association said it was "irrational" to give "nil compensation" to an owner who held land for speculative purposes.
"There are many landowners whose sole purpose of business is to speculate in land. They do not get the land for free and they have significant holding costs," the association said, adding it had no doubt the law would be "abundantly tested" in the courts.
Mabasa and Karberg said one view was that the concept of EWC was a "legal absurdity" because "intrinsic in the legal definition of expropriation, is a requirement for compensation to be paid".
However, the lawyers pointed out the alternative view was that South Africa's constitution "implicitly recognises that it would in some circumstances be just and equitable for compensation to be nil".
South Africa's Public Works Minister Dean Macpherson has defended the legislation, breaking ranks with his party, the DA.
In fact he is in charge of the new legalisation and, on a discussion panel, he explained that while he had some concerns about the law, it was a "dramatic improvement" on the previous Expropriation Act, with greater safeguards for land-owners.
He said the law could also help end extortionist demands on the state, and in some cases "nil compensation" could be justified.
He gave as an example the problems being faced by the state-owned power utility Eskom.
It plans to roll out a transmission network over about 4,500km (28,000 miles) of land to boost electricity supplies to end the power crisis in the country.
Ahead of the roll-out, some individuals colluded with Eskom officials to buy land for 1m rand ($56,000; £41,000), and then demanded R20m for it, he said.
"Is it just and equitable to give them what they want? I don't think that's in the interest of the broader community or the state," Macpherson said.
Giving another example, Macpherson said that some of South Africa's inner cities were in a "disastrous" condition. After owners left, buildings were "over-run" and "hijacked" for illegal occupation. The cost to the state to rebuild them could exceed their value, and in such cases the courts could rule that an owner qualified for "nil compensation", he said.
"Nil is a form of compensation," Macpherson added, while ruling it out for farms.
Johannesburg mayor Dada Morero told South Africa's Mail & Guardian newspaper that he wanted to use the buildings for the "public good", like accommodating around 300,000 people on the housing waiting list.
He added the owners of nearly 100 buildings could not be located.
"They have abandoned the buildings," he said, adding some of the owners were from the UK and Germany.
But Mabasa and Karberg told the BBC that in such cases compensation would probably still have to be paid for the buildings, though not the land.
If the state could not locate the owners, it "must deposit the compensation with the Master of the High Court" in case they returned or could be traced later, they said.
The law is in limbo, as Ramaphosa – about four months after giving his assent to it – has still not set a date for its implementation.
Nor is he likely to do so anytime soon, as he would not want to further antagonise Trump while South Africa was trying to negotiate a trade deal with the US.
And on the domestic front, the DA is spearheading opposition to the legislation. It said it wanted a "judicial review" of it, while at the same time it was pressing ahead with court action to challenge the law's constitutionality.
The DA's tough line is in contrast with that of Macpherson, who, a few weeks ago, warned that if the law was struck down in its entirety: "I don't know what's going to come after that.
"In politics, sometimes you must be careful what you wish for because often you can get it," he said.
His comments highlight the deep fissures in South African politics, with some parties, such as Julius Malema's Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), believing that the legislation did not go far enough to tackle racial inequality in land ownership.
With land such an emotive issue, there is no easy solution to the dispute – and it is likely to continue to cause tensions within South Africa, as well as with the US president.
Rebuked by Trump but praised at home: How Ramaphosa might gain from US showdown
Is there a genocide of white South Africans as Trump claims?
South Africans' anger over land set to explode
Go to BBCAfrica.com for more news from the African continent.
Follow us on Twitter @BBCAfrica, on Facebook at BBC Africa or on Instagram at bbcafrica
Africa Daily
Focus on Africa
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
DWP announces big change for 24 million people on benefits in August
The Department for Work and Pensions has confirmed a big change for 24 million people in August. The DWP says claimants will receive their benefits payments early in August due to the summer bank holiday Those due to receive payments on Monday, August 25 will instead have their money paid on Friday, August 22. This will apply to a variety of DWP issued benefits alongside the state pension. f you're expecting payments on August 23 or 24, you'll likely receive your payment on August, 22. Professor Julie-Marie Strange, a historian at Durham University, previously explained to the BBC how farming gave us this bank holiday. READ MORE: State pensioners born after 1951 being handed unexpected DWP payment tomorrow READ MORE: Millions of state pensioners set for bumper payments of £1,115 in August READ MORE Charlotte issues unprecedented statement alongside dad William She explains: 'May Day in Britain springs from much older seasonal customs associated with the agricultural economy.' 'The fires were to intimidate the various spirits, demons, goblins or fairies … that might threaten cattle health, or, rather, meat and milk!.' Prof Strange argues that 'this is not too much of a break from the past'. May Day was a chance to 'overturn social conventions and break the rules, even if only for a day.' DWP benefits affected by Summer Bank Holiday: Universal Credit State pension Pension credit Child benefit Disability living allowance Personal independence payment (PIP) Attendance allowance Carer's allowance Employment support allowance Income support Jobseeker's allowance If you need information about direct payments of benefit or state pension, you should contact the office that deals with your benefit claim or pension. If you have had a letter from the Department for Work and Pensions asking for details of your account, the letter will give you a number you can ring for more information. You can't get cheque payments for benefits paid by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) or by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC). How you get paid your benefits will depend on who pays them. Most benefits are paid by the DWP. DWP and HMRC benefit payments in August You can find a full list of some of the most common benefit payments below, plus how often they are normally paid: Attendance Allowance - Usually every four weeks Carer's Allowance - Weekly in advance or every four weeks Child Benefit - Usually every four weeks, or weekly if you're a single parent or you or your partner get certain benefits Disability Living Allowance - Usually every four weeks Employment and Support Allowance - Usually every two weeks Income Support - Usually every two weeks Jobseeker's Allowance - Usually every two weeks Pension Credit - Usually every four weeks Personal Independence Payment - Usually every four weeks State Pension - Usually every four weeks Tax credits - Every four weeks or weekly Universal Credit - Every month
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
UK top court to rule on multi-billion pound car loan scandal
Britain's highest court will Friday determine whether controversial car loans were unlawful, which could pave the way for millions of motorists to claim billions of pounds in compensation from banks. The loans, made available for 14 years from 2007, incentivised car dealers to offer higher interest rates in return for a bigger commission from banks. The Supreme Court will determine whether to uphold a judgment by the Court of Appeal last year that ruled it was unlawful for car dealers to receive a commission on loans without sufficiently informing borrowers. It is estimated that millions of drivers would be eligible for compensation should the Supreme Court side with borrowers, following its three-day hearing in April. One case involves Marcus Johnson -- who in 2017 bought a Suzuki Swift from a car dealer in Cardiff for £6,500 ($8,560 today) including loan costs -- unaware that interest paid on the loan amount would fund commission of more than £1,600. When the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of Johnson, ordering South African lender FirstRand Bank to refund the commission plus interest, it sparked panic across the finance sector. British banks have set aside considerable sums in preparation for the ruling, including Lloyds, which has earmarked nearly £1.2 billion. The total estimated cost for banks varies, but HSBC bank analysts suggested before the trial that it could come to £44 billion. Since then, analysts have revised down the potential exposure of banks, British media reports suggesting a figure of around £11 billion. In the three cases being judged by the Supreme Court, consumers are also facing off against British bank Close Brothers. The Financial Conduct Authority, which banned undisclosed commissions in 2021, could mandate a collective automatic compensation programme should the court sides with borrowers. Analysts said that Britain's Labour government may be concerned about the impact on banks' willingness to provide credit amid economic uncertainty caused by US tariffs and geopolitical unrest. Finance minister Rachel Reeves is reportedly considering changes to the law to limit the banks' exposure. ode-ajb/bcp/jj Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
a day ago
What consumers can expect from import taxes as the US sets new tariff rates
It's been almost 100 years since the U.S. had tariffs at the level they could reach next Friday. Once President Donald Trump's planned tariffs take effect, Americans will see an average tax of 18.3% for imported products, the highest rate since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale, a non-partisan policy research center. Late Thursday, Trump ordered new tariff rates for 66 countries, the European Union, Taiwan and the Falkland Islands. Among them: a 40% tariff on imports from Laos, a 39% tariff on goods from Switzerland and a 30% tariff on South African products. Other trade partners, such as Cambodia and Bangladesh, had the tax rates on their exports to the U.S. reduced from levels the president had threatened to impose. Trump postponed the start date for all of the changes from Friday until Aug. 7. Tariffs are a tax, and U.S. consumers are likely to foot at least part of the bill. The Budget Lab estimated that prices will increase 1.8% in the short term as a result of the trade war the U.S. waged this year. That's the equivalent of a $2,400 loss of income per U.S. household, the group said. Companies are dealing with tariffs in various ways. Many automakers appear to be swallowing tariff costs for now. But the world's largest eyewear maker, EssilorLuxottica, said it raised U.S. prices due to tariffs. The maker of Ray-Bans grinds lenses and sunglasses in Mexico, Thailand and China and exports premium frames from Italy. 'Retailers have been able to hold the line on pricing so far, but the new tariffs will impact merchandise in the coming weeks,' David French, chief lobbyist for the National Retail Federation, the nation's largest retail trade group, said Friday. 'We have heard directly from small retailers who are concerned about their ability to stay in business in the face of these unsustainable tariff rates." Here's what we know about the tariffs and what their impact will be on U.S. consumers: Trump unveiled sweeping import taxes on goods coming into the U.S. from nearly every country in April. He said the 'reciprocal' tariffs were meant to boost domestic manufacturing and restore fairness to global trade. The president paused the country-specific tariffs a week later but applied a 10% tax to most imports. In early July, he began notifying countries that the higher tariffs would go into effect Aug. 1 unless they reached trade deals. In announcing the new rates for dozens of countries on Thursday, Trump delayed their implementation until Aug. 7. In the meantime, he announced a 35% tariff on imports from Canada would take effect Friday. But Trump delayed action on Mexico and China while negotiations continue. Other duties not specific to countries also remained in place Friday, like a 50% tariff on imported aluminum and steel announced in June. The Trump administration reached deals with the European Union, Japan and South Korea that put 15% tariffs in place. A deal with the Philippines puts 19% tariffs in place while a deal with Vietnam imposes a 20% levy. This week, Trump announced a 25% tariff on goods from India and ordered a 50% tariff on goods from Brazil. The U.S. Court of International Trade, a federal court that specializes in trade disputes, ruled in May that Trump exceeded his authority when he invoked an emergency powers law to implement tariffs. On Thursday, an 11-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals considered the case, and judges expressed skepticism that Trump could impose tariffs without congressional approval. The case is expected to wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Commerce Department said Thursday that prices rose 2.6% in June, up from an annual pace of 2.4% in May and higher than the Federal Reserve's goal of 2%. Furniture, computers and other items that often come from abroad were among the categories with higher average prices. Wendong Zhang, an associate professor in the Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management at Cornell University, said U.S. consumers could see prices increases in the coming months for appliances and other products that contain a large amount of steel and aluminum. But Zhang said a 15% tariff doesn't mean prices will immediately rise by 15%. Companies were aware of the tariff deadlines, and tried to stockpile goods and take other measures to mitigate the impacts, he said. Zhang noted that Trump's trade deals often contain specific provisions designed to boost U.S. exports. The agreement with the European Union, for example, calls for European companies to purchase $750 billion worth of natural gas, oil and nuclear fuel from the U.S. over three years. Some U.S. farmers could also see a potential upside, Zhang said. As part of its trade deal, Vietnam agreed to purchase $2 billion in U.S. agricultural products over three years, including corn, wheat and soybeans, according to the International Trade Council. But Zhang cautioned that agricultural agreements tend to be short-lived. Over the longer term, the uncertainty over tariffs could cause countries like China to back away from U.S. agricultural markets, he said. The tariffs will almost certainly result in higher food prices, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. The U.S. simply doesn't make enough of some products, like bananas or coffee, to satisfy demand. Fish, beer and liquor are also likely to get more expensive, the foundation said. Ben Aneff, managing partner at Tribeca Wine Merchants and president of the U.S. Wine Trade Alliance, said shoppers would see prices rise 20% to 25% at his store and others starting Friday because of tariffs and the declining value of the dollar. 'Nobody can afford to eat the tariff. It gets passed on," Aneff said. Aneff said shoppers haven't felt the impact from higher duties until now because distributors and retailers accelerated shipments from France and other European Union countries earlier in the year. But with the EU's tariff rate set to go up to 15% in a week, Aneff expects European wine prices to jump 30% in September. Ninety-seven percent of clothing and shoes sold in the U.S. are imported, primarily from Asia, according to the American Apparel & Footwear Association said. China leads the pack, but companies have been shifting more of their sourcing to Vietnam, Indonesia and India. Steve Lamar, the trade group's president and CEO, declined to estimate how much apparel and footwear prices may increase due to tariffs. But companies may offer fewer discounts or drop products starting this fall because they're too expensive to produce, he said. Matt Priest, president and CEO of the Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, estimates prices for shoes are starting to go up for the back-to-school shopping season. He estimates price increases in the 5% to 10% range. Some automakers have already raised prices to counteract tariffs. Luxury sports car maker Ferrari said Thursday it was waiting for more details of Trump's trade deal with the European Union before scaling back a 10% surcharge it put in place in April on most vehicles in the U.S. But for the most part, automakers haven't raised prices as they waited for details. Kelley Blue Book, which monitors car pricing, said the average U.S. new car cost $48,907 in June, which was up just $108 from May. But that could change. General Motors said last week that the impact of the tariffs could get more pronounced in the third quarter of the year. GM has estimated that the tariffs will cost it $4 billion to $5 billion this year.
