The government’s 2015 Expropriation Bill has earned critics and plaudits alike. However, its implications on agriculture and individual property ownership rights cannot be wished away, and have to be carefully weighed.
On its part, the Institute of Race Relations (IRR) has proposed an alternative expropriation bill, founded on the country’s constitution, that it claims has many advantages over the government’s 2015 Expropriation Bill.
The institute said the Government’s Bill would make it much harder to build prosperity and overcome past disadvantages by undermining property rights‚ deterring investment and choking off growth and jobs.
Institute of Race Relations’ head of policy research, Dr Anthea Jeffery, said, the institute’s bill required that the state obtain a high court order confirming the constitutional validity of a proposed expropriation — and the adequacy of the compensation proposed — before it issued a notice to expropriate any property.
The Institute of Race Relations cautioned: “The Government’s Bill omits these safeguards against potential abuse. It is also unconstitutional in empowering the state to take ownership and possession upfront — leaving it to the owner to seek redress in the courts thereafter‚ if he can afford this.
“Worst still‚ the Nxesi Bill seeks to oust the jurisdiction of the courts by allowing them to adjudicate solely on the compensation offered — and not on the overall validity of the expropriation.”
“Anyone who doubts the importance of property rights — and the dangers in allowing the state to undermine them — has only to look north to Zimbabwe‚ west to Venezuela‚ and east to North Korea to understand why the Nxesi Bill must be rejected and why the IRR one should be adopted in its stead.”
Adapted for Transform SA Online from RDM News Wire
