EXPLAINER

President Cyril Ramaphosa has finally done it. On Thursday, he signed the controversial Expropriation Bill into law—bringing to a boil one of South Africa’s longest-standing and most divisive issues: land reform.

Few topics cut to the core of South Africa’s racial divide like land, but this bill has been a long time coming.

Expropriation gives the government the power to take private property for public use, usually with compensation. But here’s the kicker: under this new law, “nil compensation” is possible. In plain English? If the government takes your land for redistribution, you could walk away with nothing. Yep, nothing. That’s caused some to draw parallels with Zimbabwe’s chaotic land grabs—though, and this is important, this isn’t quite the same.

Let’s clear up a common misunderstanding: this bill does not amend the Constitution, despite what non-ANC parties might claim. But the constitutional debate continues to rage.

Not to mention, the fear of dispossession has often been weaponised in political discourse, stoking “swart gevaar”-style anxieties among those with property to lose. What does this mean for worried agricultural organisations and landowners?

As with all things in South Africa, it’s complicated. Let’s break it down.

Why is land reform so important?

South Africa’s history is a loaded and painful one, and the issue of land is no exception. Land reform has been a key priority post-1994, with the African National Congress (ANC) working to address historical injustices.

Back in 1913, the Natives Land Act officially entrenched land dispossession, limiting Black South Africans to a mere 7% of the land. According to the official government website, “The Act restricted Black people from buying or occupying land except as employees of a white master. It opened the door for white ownership of 87% of land, leaving Black people to scramble for what was left.”

Fast-forward to the apartheid era, when the government doubled down on segregation with the 1950 Group Areas Act. This law laid the foundation for enforcing racial zoning, designating specific areas for certain racial groups. Black, Coloured, and Indian South Africans were uprooted from their mixed communities and relocated to segregated, often poorly planned and under-resourced areas.

With democracy came attempts to right these wrongs. The Restitution of Land Rights Act (1994) and the Communal Land Rights Act (2004) set out to return land to those dispossessed under racist laws. However, while these acts tackled land restitution and communal ownership, the core framework for expropriation itself remained unchanged—until now.

Fast-forward to Thursday and South Africa has officially turned the page on the old Expropriation Act. The signing of the new bill is being celebrated by the ANC as a landmark moment in the country’s transformation agenda.

The party’s national spokesperson, Mahlengi Bhengu-Motsiri, said the bill was a direct response to the needs of millions of South Africans who have been excluded from land ownership and access to natural resources for far too long.

“This law is a critical step towards fulfilling the vision articulated in the Freedom Charter, which declared, ‘The land shall be shared among those who work it’.”

How does this differ from previous legislation?

What many people don’t realise is that the state has always had the power to expropriate land for public purposes, provided there was compensation. The difference now? This new act adds stricter legal frameworks and clearer definitions for how expropriation works.

Firstly, the new bill scraps the apartheid-era Expropriation Act of 1975, aligning the process with South Africa’s 1996 Constitution. Yep, until yesterday, we were relying on a 50-year-old law from a very different era to handle land expropriation—so this change has been a long time coming.

The most controversial aspect? The introduction of “nil compensation” scenarios. While compensation remains a core feature of the new law, it now includes instances where compensation could legally be zero as long as it meets the constitutional requirement of being just and equitable. Chapter 1, Section 25 of the Constitution makes it clear that:

  • Property can only be expropriated under laws that apply generally,
  • It must be for a public purpose or in the public interest, and
  • Compensation, whether agreed upon or determined by the courts, must remain fair.

“This means that even though nil compensation is possible, it must still be just and equitable,” explains Professor Johann Kirsten, director of the Bureau for Economic Research, in an interview with BusinessTech. He also stressed that this law should not be confused with the heated “Expropriation without Compensation” debates of 2017/18, which could have amended the Constitution. This act leaves the Constitution untouched.

President Cyril Ramaphosa clarified further: “An expropriating authority may not expropriate property arbitrarily or for a purpose other than a public purpose or in the public interest.”

Another improvement is the emphasis on negotiation and mediation before expropriation takes place. The old act wasn’t as clear on these processes, sometimes resulting in arbitrary decisions. If disputes arise now, they’ll go through mediators or the courts, ensuring a more transparent process.

Bottom line? The new law aims to modernise expropriation while providing safeguards against misuse. But change can be scary for some.

The GNU isn’t so pleased

The ANC might be popping champagne over the signing of the Expropriation Bill, but their political peers are decidedly unimpressed, particularly those with predominantly white constituencies.

Three parties now part of the GNU—the DA, IFP, and FF Plus—voted against the bill when Parliament passed it. The FF Plus went as far as declaring it unconstitutional, with the party vowing to “do everything in its power as member of the GNU and Cabinet to have an amendment bill issued.”

The DA hasn’t let up either. On Thursday, it reiterated its opposition, acknowledging that while the Constitution supports land reform and restitution, the party has “serious reservations” about the bill’s procedure and substance. “We are in discussions with our legal team to formulate our case,” the DA said in a statement. Back in March 2024, when the bill was first passed by the National Assembly, the DA accused the ANC of bulldozing the nil compensation clause into the act.

Ironically, the task of enforcing the Expropriation Act now falls to Dean Macpherson, the DA’s own member and Minister of Public Works and Infrastructure. Macpherson is confident that the regulations he’ll draft to govern implementation will prevent abuse and protect constitutional property rights. But for him, this includes compensation.

Meanwhile, the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) have slammed the bill as a “legislative cop-out,” arguing it doesn’t go far enough. Similarly, uMkhonto weSizwe’s Chief Whip Mzwanele Manyi called the law “completely useless,” saying, “There’s nothing that this law is going to do that we could not do before without it.”

The ANC’s transformation agenda may be marching on, but with opposition this fierce, it’s clear this fight is far from over.

The agricultural sector wants a say

Here’s the reality: Land ownership in South Africa remains starkly unequal. According to the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform’s 2017 audit, 72% of private farmland is owned by white South Africans, while Black South Africans—who make up over 80% of the population—own a mere 4%.

This new law is a critical tool for tackling this inequality, but the agricultural sector has some concerns.

If there’s one part of the Expropriation Bill giving them sleepless nights, it’s the nil compensation clause. Farmland owners fear they’ll be the first targets, and the agricultural sector is sounding alarms about what this could mean for the industry—and the country’s food security.

Johann Kotzé, CEO of AgriSA, an agricultural union representing farmers since 1904, isn’t holding back. “The signing of the Expropriation Bill poses a risk to private property rights, which is the foundation of South African agriculture. Consequently, the bill poses a risk to agricultural sustainability and food security. AgriSA is committed to defending property values and rights, and we’ll use all necessary resources in consultation with legal experts to uphold these principles,” he said.

Another influential industry body, the Agricultural Business Chamber of South Africa (Agbiz), has taken a more measured stance. As reported by Engineering News, Agbiz believes the impact of nil compensation will depend on how often the state invokes it and whether courts are willing to approve compensation significantly below market value.

The agricultural sector’s anxiety stems from the delicate balance the bill aims to strike: addressing centuries of historical injustice while safeguarding property rights and the economic backbone of South Africa’s food supply. Land reform is critical to undoing the injustices of apartheid and colonialism, but farmers and industry groups argue that land reform must not come at the cost of economic stability or food on our tables.

President Cyril Ramaphosa has undoubtedly stirred the pot with this move, reopening old wounds while promising progress. The real question? Can this new act deliver justice without jeopardising food security or the agricultural economy?