Issued by Ismail Joosub on behalf of the FW de Klerk Foundation, on 11/04/2024

The absence of clear definitions in the Expropriation Bill is alarming: “Property is not limited to only land. This means that all property, from ideas to clothes, cars and houses, fall within the ambit of this Bill and could be expropriated (without compensation),” says Ismail Joosub, Legal Officer at the FW de Klerk Foundation.

The Banking Association of South Africa (“Basa”) has urged that the definition of property that can be expropriated should be limited to tangible property. “Intellectual property must be protected,” said Basa, adding that vague property, public interest and public purpose definitions create policy uncertainty.

“The definitions of ‘public interest’ and ‘public purpose’ are very wide and do not even require that the property be expropriated to meet a public need (as required by international covenants SA is signatory to),” says Daniela Ellerbeck, Constitutional Programmes Manager at the Foundation.

This ambiguity created by the Bill is fertile ground for abuse, despite assurances that it will be used only judiciously. It grants sweeping powers to the State to expropriate property (without compensation) without adequate checks and balances, paving the way for abuse and exploitation, undermining property rights and eroding trust in the rule of law.

The Foundation urges President Cyril Ramaphosa to exercise the powers the Constitution gives him to send this law back to Parliament for reconsideration, lest we plunge into the abyss of economic and constitutional uncertainty.