26-06-2025
‘Smacks of apartheid' — DA, activists slam new rule compelling property buyers to disclose race, gender
Free SA, a civil society organisation, has joined the call for the rural development ministry to reverse the mandatory disclosure of race, gender and other demographic information. The Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development insists the information will only be used for data collection.
There are rising concerns about a regulation under the Deeds Registries Amendment Regulations 2025, which officially came into effect in early April. All property buyers are now required to submit demographic information such as race, gender, citizenship and nationality when lodging deeds for registration. This change is overseen by the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development and is an update of the long-standing Deeds Registries Act of 1937.
Last Friday, the DA called on Minister of Land and Rural Development Mzwanele Nyhontso to abandon the controversial regulation, after the minister's reply to a DA parliamentary question revealed 'that the minister of land and rural development is enforcing racial classification regulations in property transfers without a legal or legislative definition of 'race' to underpin the compulsory classification requirement introduced', the DA said.
The DA sees this as utterly flawed, saying a minister cannot admit that his regulations have no legal definition yet also insist that they are implemented and enforced as if they are binding law.
The DA reiterated its demand that Nyhontso abandon the regulation that requires buyers of property to declare their race and gender in writing to the government via compulsory Deeds Office forms, because by the minister's own admission 'there is no legal or legislative definition of race' in South Africa any longer.
The department's head of communication, Linda Page, told Daily Maverick they had not received any concerns from the deeds offices.
The department said the data will help it make better-informed policies. Nyhontso has said: 'This regulation is not going to be used against other races. This regulation is going to be used to understand the land and to understand who owns the land, so we are able to audit the land in this country.'
In a parliamentary session, Free SA said the regulation is unconstitutional and the data could be misused. In a letter addressed to the Chief Registrar of Deeds, in response to the latter's circular, the organisation said:
'We are compelled to place on record our serious constitutional concerns with the abovementioned requirement – specifically the demand for racial classification. This element of the circular is, in our view, unconstitutional and fundamentally incompatible with the founding values of the Constitution, particularly non-racialism, as enshrined in section 1(b) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.'
Both the DA and Free SA pointed to the historical context, saying the requirement was an apartheid regime tactic. 'Compulsory racial classification was employed by the apartheid regime, most infamously codified through the Population Registration Act, 1950 (Act No. 30 of 1950). This Act formed a pillar of systemic racial discrimination and was repealed precisely to dismantle the machinery of formal, state-enforced racial categorisation,' the letter reads.
Free SA also raises data privacy concerns, saying authorities should be transparent about where and how the data will be used and who will have access to it.
Daily Maverick put this question to the land reform department but had not received a response by the time of publication.
The concern is not only about the regulation itself, but also how it will be enforced.
'Even if a legitimate governmental objective were to be cited in support of collecting racial data (e.g. for purposes of redress, audits or transformation policy development), the means adopted must still comply with constitutional constraints. Compulsory racial classification by the state, in our considered view, cannot be reconciled with the post-apartheid constitutional order. In its current form, this regulation constitutes an impermissible infringement of constitutional rights and values, including those protected under sections 1, 9, 10 and 14 of the Constitution.'
Esi Attorneys explains: 'For buyers, sellers and conveyancing professionals, the implementation of Form LLL is a procedural step, not a substantive legal change. It simply requires that the form be completed and submitted during the normal course of the transfer process.
'There is no impact on transaction timelines, fees or ownership rights, and legal practitioners are experiencing the integration to be smooth and straightforward.'
However, MP and the DA's spokesperson on land reform and rural development, Mlindi Nhanha, told Daily Maverick: 'The mandatory requirement to disclose race and gender as a pre-condition to exercising one's rights is a cause for concern. This new Regulation uncomfortably smacks of the apartheid era, during which South Africans were subjected to mandatory racial classification for purposes of discrimination, control and exclusion of the majority of the population. Nearly 31 years into a democratic dispensation, it is disheartening and regrettable to see similar mechanisms being reintroduced, even though under a different pretext and ostensibly different objectives.'
Nhanha said that while they acknowledged the importance of accurate and comprehensive land ownership data to inform government policy and ensure the equitable transformation of land ownership patterns in the country, 'the inclusion of race and gender as mandatory disclosure requirements in the property transfer process needs careful consideration as these may violate individual dignity, privacy and constitutional rights'.
The DA's land reform team would meet their support staff today (Thursday) to finalise a programme to visit at least one Deeds Office per province.
'My office has been inundated with calls and emails of practitioners in the sector expressing their displeasure about the new regulations. At the moment they find themselves compelled to complete the form much against their will or risk their applications being thrown out. It is for this reason we shall be undertaking surprise oversight visits to see for ourselves,' Nhanha said.
Asked whether the DA believed this information would be misused by the Deeds Office, and if so, how, he said: 'The objectives of a land audit, especially in the context of redressing historical injustices, are laudable and necessary. However, the collection and use of demographic data, particularly where disclosure is tied to legal processes such as the registration of property rights, raises important questions about its constitutionality, privacy, data security, data abuse and potentially other unintended consequences.'
The party would explore all avenues at its disposal 'to stop the minister in his tracks'.
Daily Maverick spoke to a number of property agents who said they had not had many dealings with the form yet and so did not have feedback from clients about whether they were comfortable with sharing their demographic information. DM
