
South Africa's land law explained – and why it so inflames Donald Trump
So what exactly can be expropriated without compensation?
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.
Why will less money be paid in compensation?
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.
Will it make it easier for the government to acquire land?
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
What has been the reaction in South Africa?
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".
What does the government say?
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.
What next?
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.
You may also be interested in:
Rebuked by Trump but praised at home: How Ramaphosa might gain from US showdownIs 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
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Reuters
16 minutes ago
- Reuters
European second-quarter corporate profits expected to fall 0.3%
July 22 (Reuters) - The outlook for European corporate health has slightly improved, the latest earnings forecasts showed on Tuesday, despite continued uncertainty over global trade and the European Union preparing for counter-measures against any major U.S. tariffs. European companies are expected to report a drop of 0.3% in second-quarter earnings, on average, according to LSEG I/B/E/S data. That is slightly above the 0.7% fall analysts expected a week ago. Forecasts for Europe-wide STOXX 600 (.STOXX), opens new tab company earnings have steadily worsened since U.S. President Donald Trump announced plans for "reciprocal" tariffs in February. Analysts expected second-quarter earnings to increase 9.1% year-on-year right before the announcement, according to the data. The consensus forecast for second-quarter revenue, on the other hand, has continued to weaken, the LSEG report showed, with analysts now expecting a 3.1% fall versus a 3.0% drop last week. That would be the worst quarterly performance in more than a year. A year ago, STOXX 600 companies on average delivered a 3.0% increase in second-quarter earnings and a 0.8% drop in revenues. This earnings season will highlight how Trump's tariff threats are affecting European companies, as many of them scramble to minimise risks and prepare strategies to counter uncertainty. Italian-listed Stellantis ( opens new tab said on Monday tariffs had already cost the auto group 300 million euros ($351 million) and pharma firm AstraZeneca (AZN.L), opens new tab announced plans to spend $50 billion expanding in the U.S. by 2030. Among sectors, the earnings of STOXX 600 technology firms are expected to increase 26.5% in the second quarter, while those of consumer cyclicals - auto, retail and entertainment companies - are forecast to shrink 23.6%, the LSEG data showed. ($1 = 0.8545 euros)


Daily Record
16 minutes ago
- Daily Record
Donald Trump 'persona non grata' in Scotland as campaigners urge public to join protests
A major demonstration is planned to take place in Aberdeen city centre on Saturday to coincide with the arrival of the US President in Scotland. Scots have been urged to join protests against Donald Trump on Saturday to show the US President he is "persona non grata" in the country. A major demonstration is planned for Aberdeen city centre on Saturday at noon to coincide with the arrival of the Republican leader in Scotland. Protesters are invited to gather at Union Terrace Gardens at noon. A smaller demonstration is also planned for outside the US Consulate in Edinburgh at the same time. Trump is expected to begin his trip at his Turnberry resort in South Ayrshire before later arriving in Aberdeenshire to open a new golf course at his Menie Estate. He is expected to meet separately with Keir Starmer and John Swinney during his visit to the north-east. The protests against the President have been organised by the Stop Trump Coalition. A spokeswoman told the Record: "Donald Trump is not welcome in Scotland. Neither Keir Starmer nor John Sweeney should be shaking hands with a global bully. "The people of Scotland want to see leadership that works to end the ongoing genocide in Palestine, they want well funded public services and extreme wealth taxed, they want our rights and freedoms protected and the most vulnerable in society uplifted. They want to see our world thrive, not burn. Donald Trump stands for the opposite of our vision. "We call on every Scottish resident to join us - on Saturday in either Aberdeen or Edinburgh, but also in towns and cities across the country. Let's make sure he hears the message loud and clear: Donald Trump, you are not welcome here." Veteran trade union campaigner Tommy Campbell is among the co-organisers of the protest in Aberdeen. The president of the city's trades union council told the Record that many locals were unhappy with Trump's support for the Israeli Government in its war against Hamas. Asked what he hoped the demonstration would achieve, Campbell said: "It's making clear Trump is persona non grata. As a businessman, and as a President, he is not welcomed by a section of the Scottish people, who are concerned by his relationship with war criminals and dictatorships around the world. "There is also widespread concern about his economic approach, his promotion of tariffs, and the harm it is doing to our local businesses." Campbell rejected claims Swinney and Starmer had to meet the US President to promote UK and Scottish trade. "Businesses can engage with businesses, they don't need to engage with political leaders," he claimed. The campaigner added: "On Saturday at noon, we will gather at the William Wallace statue, and bring together all groups and individuals who feel Trump's presence in Scotland is quite offensive, and what he represents is not what we represent. We want to see peace and prosperity and an end to war."


The Guardian
17 minutes ago
- The Guardian
A Maga influencer's dilemma: press for Epstein files or side with Trump?
As Donald Trump tries to contain an ugly rift with his own supporters about the Jeffrey Epstein sex-trafficking scandal, influential media personalities in the Maga movement face a tricky dilemma. Should they close ranks with the US president – who has denounced demands for more information on Epstein as a 'waste [of] Time and Energy' about 'somebody that nobody cares about' – or pick at a political wound that the Trump administration desperately wants to scab over? While some conservative pundits, such as Steve Bannon and Ben Shapiro, seem to be trying to move on, Tucker Carlson has become a persistent gadfly of the Trump administration's handling of the Epstein controversy, among other points of contention. At a political conference in Florida earlier this month, Carlson devoted much of a 45-minute speech to criticizing the Trump administration and the conservative establishment from the right – for being too close to Israel; for the strike on Iran, which Carlson called a less deadly threat to Americans than the drug epidemic; and for failing to give the Maga movement satisfying answers to their questions about Epstein's influence and connections. Carlson's speech, at a Turning Point USA event in Tampa, did not criticize Trump directly. Carlson did not generally even mention him by name, except to note that in the last election he publicly supported Trump, whom he 'love[s] personally' and campaigned 'with and for the president'. But he compared the White House's dismissive attitude to the Epstein story with what he described as the sneering liberal establishment that Trump campaigned against. The left 'would dismiss [critics] out of hand – 'You are not worth listening to,' 'Be quiet,'' Carlson told a receptive audience of young rightwing activists. Now the Trump administration was doing the same, he argued. 'And I think that's really at the heart of why the Epstein thing is so distressing,' he said – 'the fact that the US government, the one that I voted for, refused to take my question seriously, and instead said: 'Case closed; shut up, conspiracy theorist,' was too much for me. And I don't think the rest of us should be satisfied with that.' Carlson returned to the Epstein controversy again on Friday. In a nearly three-hour interview with Darryl Cooper, a popular podcaster who has been criticized for making misleading historical claims, he and Cooper speculated about the sources of Epstein's wealth and power and suggested he might have been protected by powerful people. Many in Trump's political base believe that Epstein, who died of apparent suicide in 2019 after being charged with sexually trafficking minors, was killed so that he couldn't reveal a 'client list' implicating other powerful men. Trump has fanned the theory in the past by insinuating that the Clinton's were linked to Epstein's death. The current furor began when the US Department of Justice and FBI seemed to say, earlier this month, that they consider the Epstein saga closed – enraging Maga fans and sparking an unusually strong challenge to Trump's control of the movement he founded. The controversy took another turn when, this Thursday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump contributed a winking letter, including a doodle of a nude woman, to a Festschrift of sorts that Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's girlfriend, compiled in 2003 for Epstein's 50th birthday. Trump denied the story and, on Friday, said that he is suing the Wall Street Journal's publisher for libel. In the short term, the Wall Street Journal development actually seems to have rebounded slightly to Trump's advantage: he has been able to frame the story, to conservatives, as evidence of a media smear campaign against him. Yet that may not be enough for Carlson. In a way, his ire over the handling of Epstein has opened the door to harsher critiques writ large. In his Turning Point speech, Carlson argued that the rightwing establishment is more invested in battles over cultural questions, such as the inclusion of transgender athletes in women's sports, than in the bread-and-butter material realities that concern average Americans. Disparaging the idea that GDP is a good indicator of a country's wellbeing, he said that visiting Tokyo is 'the single most radicalizing experience you'll ever have', because the city is 'so nice' even though Japan has a weaker economy, on paper, than the US does. Like Bannon and others in the populist wing of the Maga movement, Carlson has often been at odds with the traditional Republican coalition's lingering preference for free markets, free trade and hawkish foreign policies. His personal measure of national prosperity, he said, is if his adult children can afford to buy houses – with their incomes from full-time jobs, and without parental assistance. Yet even '35-year-olds with really good jobs can't afford a house unless they stretch and go deep into debt,' he said. 'And I just think that's a total disaster.' He argued that part of the reason that young Americans are attracted to socialism is because they no longer have any stake in the capitalist system. The difficulty of buying a house is also contributing to falling birth rates, he argued. Political observers have often speculated that Carlson might eventually run for president as a successor to Trump. Conservative analysts have said that he would have an extremely strong shot of securing the Republican nomination. Yet Carlson himself has not shown any strong indications that he wishes to do so, and has often described himself as lazy and as viscerally repulsed by the idea of holding office. 'I have zero ambition, not just politically but in life,' he told Semafor in 2022. 'My ambition is to write my script by 8pm – and I'm not just saying that, ask anyone who works with me or knows me … I don't want power, I've never wanted power. I'm annoyed by things and I want them to change. But I've never been motivated by a desire to control people.' This March, he said on a podcast that he views JD Vance as the best hope for post-Trump conservatism. The US vice-president, he said, is the 'only person in the entire Republican party, from my position, who's capable of carrying on the Trump legacy and expanding it, making it what it should fully be'.