A tool for clarity or a cause for concern?
Dean MacPherson, Minister of Public Works and Infrastructure, made it clear from the outset that the Act is not the threat many fear it to be. “We need to be clear on what the act is and is not,” he stated. “It seeks to standardise the procedures in which expropriations occur, to say that there is a logical start and conclusion to how that process must take place.” He argued that this is a marked improvement on the vague and outdated 1975 Act and even provides more safeguards than comparable US federal legislation.
However, Jaco Kleynhans of Solidarity was quick to challenge the adequacy of the new legislation. “Yes, we needed something better than the 1975 Act,” he agreed. “But we needed something better than this.” For Kleynhans and others, the Act falls short in content and in the process that led to its creation, one they believe was driven more by politics than policy.
Definitions that matter
Much of the concern centred on the Act’s definitions, particularly what constitutes “expropriation” and the controversial inclusion of Section 12.3, which allows for nil compensation under certain conditions. Willem de Chavonnes Vrugt of AgriSA summed it up: “There are only two reasons we oppose this Act: the definition of expropriation and the provision for nil compensation. We believe that zero compensation is neither fair nor equitable, and that is what the Constitution demands.”
Theo Boshoff of AgBiz took a broader view. “Expropriation is a means to an end, not an end in itself,” he noted, adding that the intended outcomes, such as land reform, infrastructure development, and nature conservation, should guide how the tool is applied. “The rule of law provides a safeguard,” he added. “Ultimately, the courts will determine whether a specific expropriation is justifiable, in the public interest or for a public purpose, and whether the process was followed.”
Hermann Pretorius of the Institute of Race Relations was less confident. “Yes, the courts are a safeguard,” he said, “but do we really appreciate the cost of litigation? If a farmer loses the land they rely on for their income, where will they get the money to fight it in court?”
Trust, Investment, and the Farmer’s Heart
The heart of the debate, and the heart of the concern from the agricultural community, lies in trust. De Chavonnes Vrugt pointed this poignantly: “Understanding a farmer’s heart is important. There is great concern because of the uncertainty. And with uncertainty, people stop investing. We need growth in this sector, which relies on confidence.”
Pretorius echoed this sentiment, warning that the Act may heighten the risk premium ofowning property in South Africa. “If the Act's purpose is to solve real problems, it does so in an incredibly clumsy way, and the economic damage it could cause makes it counterproductive to its stated aims.”
For Minister MacPherson, however, these are challenges that can be overcome. He acknowledged that contradictions exist between Sections 8 and 19, which describe different procedures. “But these are not insurmountable,” he said. “My job now is to address these issues head-on, to provide regulatory support that works in tandem with the act, and to do so through a highly consultative process involving agricultural, land reform, and legal experts.”
Politics vs Policy
Kleynhans offered a sobering perspective on the political context in which the Act was drafted. “Let’s not forget,” he said, “that this Act emerged after the attempt to amend the Constitution failed. It’s seen by many as a political workaround, a new path to achieving expropriation without compensation.” The danger, he warned, is that such a politicised process may be seen as undermining the very Constitution it claims to support.
This tension between the Act as a legal tool for national development and its perception as a political weapon is perhaps best summed up by Minister MacPherson himself: “The word ‘expropriation’ has been weaponised. It’s become toxic. But we must start seeing it as a development tool—to build highways, grow infrastructure, and get this country moving again.”
Pretorius, on the other hand, wasn’t convinced. “Section 12.3 is not about building highways,” he said. “It applies to expropriations in the name of public interest, and those are the ones that carry the risk of nil compensation. That’s far broader than infrastructure—and far more dangerous.”
Moving Forward
The session concluded without complete agreement but with one crucial consensus: clarity is essential. Whether the Expropriation Act ultimately proves to be a tool for growth or a source of greater uncertainty will depend on how it is written and implemented, challenged, and interpreted in the months and years to come.
For South African farmers, this means staying informed, engaged, and vocal. As Boshoff noted, “In the end, the courts will decide. But until then, it’s up to all of us to ensure the framework is fair, functional, and rooted in the rule of law.”