Land bill comes under fire

30-07-2015
Read : 114 times
Daily News
Source

It didn't take long before questions emerged on whether the Expropriation Bill was a tool for government to acquire land for infrastructure development - or used for land reform and restitution.

The issue was raised by the Freedom Front Plus and the Economic Freedom Fighters during yesterday's first of three days of public hearings on the draft law by the parliamentary committee on public works.

The Bill aims to ensure fair, just and equitable compensation for expropriation for either public purpose, which could include constructing rail or power lines,or public interest, including access to the country's natural resources.

Section 25 of the Constitution sets out just and equitable compensation for expropriation, which must also consider the current use of the property, how the property was acquired and improvements.

Current practice when it comes to the state acquiring land, usually for land reform and restitution purposes, is the willing seller, willing buyer principle.

Freedom Front Plus MP Pieter Groenewald raised the question about compensation to the Khoi-San, whose land, he said, was taken by black Africans "when they came to the southern part of Africa".

Said Groenewald: "When it comes to definitions, what are we giving back? Is this expropriation about taking land to give it to someone, the government, or do we say we give it back to an individual?"

EFF MP Mbuyiseni Ndlozi asked about the "elephant in the room" - whether property had to be returned for historical reasons. If a property was clearly taken under colonial or apartheid laws, it needed to be expropriated and returned without compensation.

Earlier, Ndlozi also argued for expropriation without compensation in cases of public interest. "If we have proven public use, we must be able to take the land without compensation... It's not for private profiteering. Otherwise we are just talking doing business," he said.

SA Institute of Race Relations policy research head, Anthea Jeffery, cautioned the committee there was an assumption that expropriation would only apply to white owners, or white farmers particularly. The powers applied to all owners, including those on communal traditional authority land.

The Banking Association of South Africa expressed concern that expropriation would impact on bonds, mortgages and other accepted securities, as the Bill did not take into account the rights of lenders if compensation was lower than market value.

This was part of the potentially serious consequences for the economy, and would introduce systemic risk into the financial sector.

Eskom's request for its board chairperson or chief executive to have expropriation powers was dismissed by Public Works Deputy Minister Jeremy Cronin.

The existing legislative vacuum, which fails to give the energy minister expropriation powers, unlike the transport minister, should be remedied by amending the Eskom legislation, he recommended, adding expropriation powers could only rest with the executive.

Eskom general manager, Mmamoloko Seabe, told the MPs the power utility's transmission lines, and other infrastructure projects, were being delayed for years because of private landowners holding out for better prices.

Seabe explained the delays cost millions and meant lack of connections to the power grid. Eskom senior manager for land acquisition, Amos Mboweni, gave one example where a property owner bought land for R160 000, but was asking R22 million for the 14 hectares Eskom required.

Cronin said the Bill brought the current unconstitutional 1970s law into the constitutional dispensation, and brought greater certainty.

The Bill did not seek to change those who currently had expropriation powers, including some ministers, premiers and councils, but set out clear guidelines. He hoped the Bill would be in place by year end.

The Expropriation Bill has been years in the making after withdrawal of an earlier version over its unconstitutional ban on recourse to courts.